This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
as he has made his home and family in America, and choosen to become American to vote, it seems he should be listed as also American
Sanbear (
talk)
13:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, it's not quite the same at all. In Russel Crowe's article, the lese doesn't mention his nationality. With regards to Lars Ulrich, he's not American, and doesn't have American citizenship, so it would be improper to call him American. Paul Bettany went out of his way to get a second nations citizenship in order to participate in their political system. It is not a stretch to say he should have American in the lede
Sanbear (
talk)
16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think a more pertinent example would be Andrew Garfield, who is described as an English and American actor. I do not think that two people ganging up on a user is very collegial
Sanbear (
talk)
23:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Or of course, Angela Lansbury who is described in the lede with three citizenships. Why is Paul special that he can't have his citizenship put in the lede?
Sanbear (
talk)
23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
So you didn't read
WP:UKNATIONALS. No policy or guideline specifies that the first sentence must contain the subject's citizenship. The status quo uses "English". There's no consensus to support your proposed change.
KyleJoantalk03:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I did read UK nationals. Please assume good faith. That was my rationale for excluding his citizenship outright from the lede.
Sanbear (
talk)
06:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I would partially agree here. This would warrant him being called an "American and English" actor. He's been in the US for 20 years, married an American, and been in like 30 movies since living in the US (triple the amount he was in while in the UK). This guy is certainly an American actor also.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
03:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
There is actually another problem now that i think about it. We cannot use something like English-American as they are apples and oranges. That would be used for nations and England is not a nation. It would be "British and American" or British-American actor as the
Encyclopedia Britannica uses.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think either it's gone from the lede, or we go with "English and American" actor. To imply he is solely English is wrong, and to imply he is only American is of course wrong. Nothing wrong with how it was handled in the Eddie Redgrave or Angela Lansbury articles.
Sanbear (
talk)
06:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Encyclopædia Britannica is a low-quality tertiary source per
WP:BRITANNICA, so its description of Bettany does not warrant a lot of weight in determining what this article should do. I support the status quo or "British". Unless there is a consensus to change the status quo, there should not be any changes to the description at this time.
KyleJoantalk06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Per your link that is not really true. It is simply a tertiary source, not a low-quality tertiary source. It says "Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources."
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The thing about the status quo in this case is the facts changed after the article was begun. He was not an American before the 2016 election, and became one. When new information comes in, we should take that into consideration. If we never update the status quo, we're left with Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the current Monarch of The UK. Things change.
Sanbear (
talk)
07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fyunck(click): That was my bad. Encyclopædia Britannica is not a low-quality source. It's mid-quality at worst. That said, the lack of consensus about its reliability tells us that it is not automatically reliable and remains compatible with my point about its content's weight.
@
Sanbear: And that is why I provided articles published after he became a US citizen. The sources took his citizenship into consideration and still mostly wrote "British" and "English". Disputed things change when there is a consensus to change them.
KyleJoantalk08:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I wonder how many of those sources got no further than reading the lede of this article 😉. We should strive to be correct. In this case, we're disregarding half of this person's citizenship, and their own volition in becoming a citizen, to keep the status quo. They changed the status quo by changing their circumstances.
Just because a person has dual citizenship doesn't automatically make them country1-country2. Italian-American is someone who has full or partial Italian ancestry, and uses it to describe themselves. You can have Spanish-American as an American who's ethnicity derives from a Spanish speaking nation. It can be very convoluted. We also bump up against
MOS:CITIZEN where is says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." This same MOS section gives two examples that apply here:
Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician. For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
and
Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor. This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
So British-American is certainly not proper for this lead. He would be "a British and American actor" per our MOS guidelines, if it can be sourced and consensus can be reached.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
23:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hiya, I offered British and American or English and American as a compromise ages ago, similar to what Eddie Redgrave article does. I think that would be perfectly reasonable and verifiable and in line with what all the other articles do. I think the main concern 4TheWynn has is the inclusion of his American citizenship. I think that it's pertinent information. Please forgive the formatting, on the train!
Sanbear (
talk)
07:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi there, an interesting read is
WP:DONTREVERT where we should be biasing towards change and not the status quo. There is nothing argumentative or controversial about verifiable facts. They are just facts, like gravity is 9.8m/s^2.
Sanbear (
talk)
16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
RfC: Should the opening statement read English, English and American actor, or British or British and American actor?
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Paul Bettany is a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Should the opening of the article read English, English and American, or British and American actor?
Sanbear (
talk)
13:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
If he just happened to have US citizenship, say because of birth, that wouldn't bear mention. However, it seems that he sought it out deliberately, and has substantial ties to the US including residence and family there. Therefore, he should be referred to as "British and American", as he is in fact both. (Not "English", as that is not a nationality; the nationality is "British".)
SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Bettany is an English actor. English people are British; not all British people are English. There is no need to include his dual UK/US citizenship in the intro sentence. That info is already in the infobox, and can be included in the text below, for example in the "Personal life" section, if someone finds it helpful or necessary to explain that status. Furthermore, I do not see why the fact that "English" is not a designation of citizenship should have a bearing on whether or not he should be identified as English.
Erictalk20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
"I do not see why the fact that "English" is not a designation of citizenship should have a bearing on whether or not he should be identified as English."
WP:UKNATIONALS clearly states there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom, so there is no prohibition. If "English" is an ethnicity and not a nationality, are you saying BLPs should not describe subjects as "English", "Scottish", or "Welsh"?
KyleJoantalk20:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American MOS:CITIZEN says In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.Dobblesteintalk21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American per wikipedia MOS. We don't want apples and oranges so English and American wouldn't fit.
MOS:NATIONALITY gives us much help here with examples: Arnold Schwarzenegger is an Austrian and American actor, and Peter Lorre was a Hungarian and American actor. We have no reason to go against guidelines with Mr. Bettany's article.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I have yet to see a guideline that calls for indicating a bio subject's nationality in the intro sentence. Is the underlying assumption for this discussion that nationality -- as opposed to geographical or cultural origin, for example -- must be established in the first sentence of the article?
Erictalk07:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This is something I'm wondering as well. UKNATIONALS says we neither encourage nor discourage "British" over "English", "Scottish", and "Welsh". The interpretations of NATIONALITY here asks us to disregard that and prioritize "British" for dual citizens. This view is unsupported by both UKNATIONALS and NATIONALITY, as the latter merely contains examples of how citizenships are written when we choose to include them. It does not say subjects with dual citizenship must be described with one citizenship (or both or neither) in the first sentence.
KyleJoantalk08:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think if we include English or British at all, it would not make sense to exclude his other nationality. He is in fact both British and American. The fact that he is a dual citizen of Britain and the US would make sense to call him. British and American, rather than English and New Yorker, which would be the equivalent.
Sanbear (
talk)
08:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
English actor, per those with similar views – his citizenship is already included/sourced in the infobox and doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead; I also found the opening couple of sections of
English people to be an interesting read.
4TheWynne(talk•contribs)12:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
So English only, though he carries two citizenships, like Arnold Schwarzengger? Is that what you're proposing? What is the difference between Arnold and Paul?
Sanbear (
talk)
13:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Given that he is part of the American filmography, he is probably and British-American actor in that sense. But in my opinion, the sources should say that, but as far I can see, the sources mostly say that he is a English or British actor. So my opinion is that he is British actor. With good argumentation, I can change my mind and say that he is an English actor, because I don't know if this is the context in the UK. That is, whether famous people are divided into Scots, English, etc., or whether they are all defined as British.
Mikola22 (
talk)
17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American. I was genuinely surprised to see that this was an RfC because the MOS is so crystal clear on this issue, but I decided to check out the discussion anyway, and here we are!
It appears two discussions are circulating:
1. The use of "English" or "British" and
2. Adding "American" to either English/British.
For the first point, I cite
MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." And while the discussion above notes the
WP:UKNATIONALS essay as an authority on the subject, that essay states, "A UK passport describes its holder as a 'British citizen'. According to British nationality law there are six types of British nationality of which the main one is British citizenship." There's just no good argument to identify him as English over British. I might argue, after reviewing the essay from above, that it gets stickier if Bettany were Irish and British. But he's not. British, it is.
For the second point, I cite
MOS:NATIONALITY: "In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity." Bettany has dual citizenship, and while he began his acting career in England and began his notoriety there, he clearly grew his notoriety in Hollywood beginning with A Knight's Tale. Hence, Bettany has "a career that spans a subject's emigration." So including American is a necessity.
@
Eric:Absolutely MOS does. For biographies we have
MOS:OPENPARABIO. It says quite clearly we need Name, Dates of birth and death, Context (location, nationality, etc.), and two more items. Plus every article has it, so we have longstanding consensus on consistency within the encyclopedia. We'd have never-ending edit wars if it was purposely left out.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
22:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It also says that name and birthday are usually stated. Except in rare instances, nationality is pretty much always used. With Taylor-Joy, no one can pin down what it is since sources are all over the place. Most of those you mentioned have extenuating circumstances, especially general Robert E Lee. It is not mandatory that we include his name, birthday, and nationality in the lead... but MOS says that is what is normally done. There needs to be damned good reasons why it should be left out, because otherwise the straightforward answer would be yes.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
00:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The value of one's nationality is not comparable to that of their name. Name = article title. Every source about a subject contains their name. Neither can be said about nationality (but if we'd like to dive deeper into that, I'd like to see the list of sources that describes Bettany as both "British" and "American" other than Britannica). There are countless examples of birth date omissions. The guideline also says key accomplishments are usually stated. I almost never see actors' articles do this. Where are the calls to include defining awards (e.g., Oscars) in the first sentence?
KyleJoantalk00:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I concur on the importance of name yet it's under the same usually that you quoted. Same with birthdate which is probably less important than their nationality. Part of the notability accomplishment is the fact they are a notable actor. I quite often see accomplishments in the lead, but they rarely fit in the first sentence.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
03:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi @
KyleJoan as @
4TheWynne admonished me earlier, "you've already voiced their opinion several times; let others have their say, even if they have opposing views. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs)
13:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)"reply
Hi, sorry, I looked at lunch. Regardless, I was just pointing out that it is apparently bad form to debate on this forum your point once you've made it. I disagree with that opinion, and think it's fine, but only if all sides are allowed to. I'm just politely reminding everyone of the remarks that asked us not to restate your opinion after you've made it and to let others give their opinion, even if you disagree with it. I hope you have a good day!
Sanbear (
talk)
12:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Sanbear, stop being obnoxious. I suggested that you allow others to have their say because you were bobbing up only when people disagreed with your opinion, seemingly to shoot their comments down (which is exactly what you've done here, too) and influence the result of this RfC; these editors were having an actual, good-faith discussion, and you've just inserted yourself and singled out the editors (you call
this a typo?) whose opinions differ from yours, which is just poor. Start contributing to this discussion positively or take a step back and let it play out.
4TheWynne(talk•contribs)12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
We seem to have gone a little off-topic. But, as long as we're here, no editor should be barred from commenting as long as those comments are civil and motivated by good intent. I haven't seen anything to the contrary so far.
Pistongrinder (
talk)
22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American. English and American also acceptable. He has notable activities in both countries and
MOS:CONTEXTBIO is clear on this issue. We would need a very strong justification to go against the guidance in MOS for almost any situation and there is no reason to ignore the MOS in this case.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
05:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
English and American actor given his dual citizenship and activities within both countries. Using "British" would be vague in comparison when that term also encompasses the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish (aka Scotch-Irish). I'm glad Eric correctly pointed out how not all British people are English.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
That is because the UK decerns between a nation/state and country, and the US does not. The USA is a country but England is not close to being on par with that.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
00:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems people are getting lost in the weeds as regards definitions of nationality and citizenship, and with respect to the importance of these being established in the opening sentence. Bettany's current citizenship notwithstanding, he is English, England is a country, and, as the country of England is currently part of Britain, referring to him as English is more specific than referring to him as British while still inherently conveying the information that he is British.
Erictalk01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
You could be more specific by mentioning his city also. That doesn't matter. What is not really good at all is, when you mention two entities, that they not be apples and oranges. You would not say that he lived in Mexico, Brazil, and England. It would be exceedingly odd terminology. If England is a country, then the United States is not, since they are not the same thing.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
02:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The British use country in a different way than the rest of the world. For us we are a nation of four countries, much like The US is a nation of 50 states. To me, in Wikipedia I prefer British over Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English, but that's because most people don't realise the different way that British use the word country than many other English speaking countries. As we are meant to be an encyclopedia for all I would prefer British over English to try to make it clearer for people, but I understand than in the UK they refer to England as a country. Please forgive if this comment is overstepping my bounds here.
Sanbear (
talk)
11:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
English, he is not reliably called American in different articles, and in either case it's not of central importance to the subject.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment, can we please kill the idea that English (Sc/We/N.Ir) is an ethnicity.
Humza Yousaf this guy is a Scot, there are black and Jewish people ordinarily described as/self-describing as 'English' (Sc/We/N.Ir). These 'national' identities often fulfil a similar function to ethnicity, and sometimes have an ethnic component, but they mainly represent a cultural identity - how you see yourself and/or are seen generally.
Sean Connery always identified himself - and was identified as a Scot,
Charlie Chaplin was always referred to as being 'English'. The (En/Sc/We/N.Ir) - British conundrum tends to especially rear its head in acting/cultural fields, where such perceptions often matter.
Pincrete (
talk)
06:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It's not that it's ethnic... it's apples and oranges. When side by side you don't say English and American... they are not even remotely in the same category. You may call him an English actor or a British actor or an American Actor, but when next to each other it should be British and American actor for the sake of our Wikipedia readers.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
06:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I understood that, 'English' would be 'identity' whereas 'American' would be citizenship and using the two alongside each other would be anomalous. I was responding to some above that argue that 'English' should be treated as an ethnicity.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Fyunck(click), I would suggest to you that not all readers -- I'd say very few readers -- are constrained by the categorical restrictions you assign to adjectival combinations such as "English and American".
Erictalk14:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I think I'm coming onto the side of Fyunck on this. English isn't a citizenship, and not really a recognised nationality outside the UK, except for in certain sporting events. I doubt we're going to solve this tricky wiki-wide issue just here on one RFC though.
Sanbear (
talk)
08:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) did not realise I wasn't signed in.reply
English, I've hesitated over this and considered previous similar cases. All the
WP:RS that I've been able to read on the page appear to call Bettany 'English'. Some of them happily document when he became a US citizen, and why he did so and don't see any contradiction between the two facts. Of course his two citizenships should be recorded in the infobox and text, and the when and why he became a US citizen in text. I presume the description 'English' by RS is 'perceived identity', rather than 'literal citizenship', but whatever it is, it's how he is described. From jaundiced experience of umpteen RfCs, I know this opening descriptor to be problematic. Sometimes we opt for someone being a 'Jewish' writer , (who's actually from Eastern Europe and lived in US and obviously not Jewish by citizenship), sometimes an an 'Irish writer' , (from before Ireland was a state). In the last resort we can only rely on
WP:RS and AFAI can see, that leads to 'English'. This already happens with
Alfred Hitchcock, who is described as 'English' despite working and living much/most of his creative life in the US. An alternative is
T. S. Eliot, which avoids any opening 'nationality' descriptor but gives his dual citizenship in text and infobox.
Pincrete (
talk)
09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Pincrete, but I think Sanbear's idea is worth considering. In the Sanbear approach, maybe something along the lines of ...is a film and stage actor who began his career in London., for example.
Erictalk12:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I was responding directly to the choices given, but something along the lines of Sanbear or Eric seem equally good, if not better. Clarity about his 'life story' seems more important than whose citizenship he holds.
Pincrete (
talk)
12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'm not sure if my suggestion muddies the water a bit or helps. To me it is surprising information that he is American, hence my inclusion the opening. In films he is usually as English as Churchill (who of course was also American! :) ). I'm not sure if it would be another RFC to ask that question, or we can discuss it here.
Sanbear (
talk)
08:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
English actor is fine because (a) that is what parts he plays and he is thus notable as English; (b) that (or "British") is how RS describe him; and (c) that is the long-standing status quo. It's too long to have the accuracy of "English born British-American actor" or "British-American known for playing English roles". I do see he intentionally got US citizenship in 2017 and voted for the first time in 2020, but I also see him voicing that London is his home as late as 2017 in
the Telegraph. Also I see sources mention him as "English actor" by
WSJ,
IMDB and "British" by
the Telegraph,
Rotten tomatoes,
The Standard, or
The Telegraph. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
22:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Step cousin relationship not notable
Stop cousin is the realm of certain porn publications and is not important to anything Bettany did. Would need to show it impacted his life in some manner beyond some connection his grandparents made to be something that goes in the article.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
as he has made his home and family in America, and choosen to become American to vote, it seems he should be listed as also American
Sanbear (
talk)
13:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, it's not quite the same at all. In Russel Crowe's article, the lese doesn't mention his nationality. With regards to Lars Ulrich, he's not American, and doesn't have American citizenship, so it would be improper to call him American. Paul Bettany went out of his way to get a second nations citizenship in order to participate in their political system. It is not a stretch to say he should have American in the lede
Sanbear (
talk)
16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think a more pertinent example would be Andrew Garfield, who is described as an English and American actor. I do not think that two people ganging up on a user is very collegial
Sanbear (
talk)
23:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Or of course, Angela Lansbury who is described in the lede with three citizenships. Why is Paul special that he can't have his citizenship put in the lede?
Sanbear (
talk)
23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
So you didn't read
WP:UKNATIONALS. No policy or guideline specifies that the first sentence must contain the subject's citizenship. The status quo uses "English". There's no consensus to support your proposed change.
KyleJoantalk03:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I did read UK nationals. Please assume good faith. That was my rationale for excluding his citizenship outright from the lede.
Sanbear (
talk)
06:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I would partially agree here. This would warrant him being called an "American and English" actor. He's been in the US for 20 years, married an American, and been in like 30 movies since living in the US (triple the amount he was in while in the UK). This guy is certainly an American actor also.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
03:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
There is actually another problem now that i think about it. We cannot use something like English-American as they are apples and oranges. That would be used for nations and England is not a nation. It would be "British and American" or British-American actor as the
Encyclopedia Britannica uses.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think either it's gone from the lede, or we go with "English and American" actor. To imply he is solely English is wrong, and to imply he is only American is of course wrong. Nothing wrong with how it was handled in the Eddie Redgrave or Angela Lansbury articles.
Sanbear (
talk)
06:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Encyclopædia Britannica is a low-quality tertiary source per
WP:BRITANNICA, so its description of Bettany does not warrant a lot of weight in determining what this article should do. I support the status quo or "British". Unless there is a consensus to change the status quo, there should not be any changes to the description at this time.
KyleJoantalk06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Per your link that is not really true. It is simply a tertiary source, not a low-quality tertiary source. It says "Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources."
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The thing about the status quo in this case is the facts changed after the article was begun. He was not an American before the 2016 election, and became one. When new information comes in, we should take that into consideration. If we never update the status quo, we're left with Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the current Monarch of The UK. Things change.
Sanbear (
talk)
07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fyunck(click): That was my bad. Encyclopædia Britannica is not a low-quality source. It's mid-quality at worst. That said, the lack of consensus about its reliability tells us that it is not automatically reliable and remains compatible with my point about its content's weight.
@
Sanbear: And that is why I provided articles published after he became a US citizen. The sources took his citizenship into consideration and still mostly wrote "British" and "English". Disputed things change when there is a consensus to change them.
KyleJoantalk08:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I wonder how many of those sources got no further than reading the lede of this article 😉. We should strive to be correct. In this case, we're disregarding half of this person's citizenship, and their own volition in becoming a citizen, to keep the status quo. They changed the status quo by changing their circumstances.
Just because a person has dual citizenship doesn't automatically make them country1-country2. Italian-American is someone who has full or partial Italian ancestry, and uses it to describe themselves. You can have Spanish-American as an American who's ethnicity derives from a Spanish speaking nation. It can be very convoluted. We also bump up against
MOS:CITIZEN where is says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." This same MOS section gives two examples that apply here:
Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician. For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
and
Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor. This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
So British-American is certainly not proper for this lead. He would be "a British and American actor" per our MOS guidelines, if it can be sourced and consensus can be reached.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
23:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hiya, I offered British and American or English and American as a compromise ages ago, similar to what Eddie Redgrave article does. I think that would be perfectly reasonable and verifiable and in line with what all the other articles do. I think the main concern 4TheWynn has is the inclusion of his American citizenship. I think that it's pertinent information. Please forgive the formatting, on the train!
Sanbear (
talk)
07:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi there, an interesting read is
WP:DONTREVERT where we should be biasing towards change and not the status quo. There is nothing argumentative or controversial about verifiable facts. They are just facts, like gravity is 9.8m/s^2.
Sanbear (
talk)
16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
RfC: Should the opening statement read English, English and American actor, or British or British and American actor?
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Paul Bettany is a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Should the opening of the article read English, English and American, or British and American actor?
Sanbear (
talk)
13:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
If he just happened to have US citizenship, say because of birth, that wouldn't bear mention. However, it seems that he sought it out deliberately, and has substantial ties to the US including residence and family there. Therefore, he should be referred to as "British and American", as he is in fact both. (Not "English", as that is not a nationality; the nationality is "British".)
SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Bettany is an English actor. English people are British; not all British people are English. There is no need to include his dual UK/US citizenship in the intro sentence. That info is already in the infobox, and can be included in the text below, for example in the "Personal life" section, if someone finds it helpful or necessary to explain that status. Furthermore, I do not see why the fact that "English" is not a designation of citizenship should have a bearing on whether or not he should be identified as English.
Erictalk20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
"I do not see why the fact that "English" is not a designation of citizenship should have a bearing on whether or not he should be identified as English."
WP:UKNATIONALS clearly states there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom, so there is no prohibition. If "English" is an ethnicity and not a nationality, are you saying BLPs should not describe subjects as "English", "Scottish", or "Welsh"?
KyleJoantalk20:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American MOS:CITIZEN says In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.Dobblesteintalk21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American per wikipedia MOS. We don't want apples and oranges so English and American wouldn't fit.
MOS:NATIONALITY gives us much help here with examples: Arnold Schwarzenegger is an Austrian and American actor, and Peter Lorre was a Hungarian and American actor. We have no reason to go against guidelines with Mr. Bettany's article.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I have yet to see a guideline that calls for indicating a bio subject's nationality in the intro sentence. Is the underlying assumption for this discussion that nationality -- as opposed to geographical or cultural origin, for example -- must be established in the first sentence of the article?
Erictalk07:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This is something I'm wondering as well. UKNATIONALS says we neither encourage nor discourage "British" over "English", "Scottish", and "Welsh". The interpretations of NATIONALITY here asks us to disregard that and prioritize "British" for dual citizens. This view is unsupported by both UKNATIONALS and NATIONALITY, as the latter merely contains examples of how citizenships are written when we choose to include them. It does not say subjects with dual citizenship must be described with one citizenship (or both or neither) in the first sentence.
KyleJoantalk08:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think if we include English or British at all, it would not make sense to exclude his other nationality. He is in fact both British and American. The fact that he is a dual citizen of Britain and the US would make sense to call him. British and American, rather than English and New Yorker, which would be the equivalent.
Sanbear (
talk)
08:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
English actor, per those with similar views – his citizenship is already included/sourced in the infobox and doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead; I also found the opening couple of sections of
English people to be an interesting read.
4TheWynne(talk•contribs)12:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
So English only, though he carries two citizenships, like Arnold Schwarzengger? Is that what you're proposing? What is the difference between Arnold and Paul?
Sanbear (
talk)
13:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Given that he is part of the American filmography, he is probably and British-American actor in that sense. But in my opinion, the sources should say that, but as far I can see, the sources mostly say that he is a English or British actor. So my opinion is that he is British actor. With good argumentation, I can change my mind and say that he is an English actor, because I don't know if this is the context in the UK. That is, whether famous people are divided into Scots, English, etc., or whether they are all defined as British.
Mikola22 (
talk)
17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American. I was genuinely surprised to see that this was an RfC because the MOS is so crystal clear on this issue, but I decided to check out the discussion anyway, and here we are!
It appears two discussions are circulating:
1. The use of "English" or "British" and
2. Adding "American" to either English/British.
For the first point, I cite
MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." And while the discussion above notes the
WP:UKNATIONALS essay as an authority on the subject, that essay states, "A UK passport describes its holder as a 'British citizen'. According to British nationality law there are six types of British nationality of which the main one is British citizenship." There's just no good argument to identify him as English over British. I might argue, after reviewing the essay from above, that it gets stickier if Bettany were Irish and British. But he's not. British, it is.
For the second point, I cite
MOS:NATIONALITY: "In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity." Bettany has dual citizenship, and while he began his acting career in England and began his notoriety there, he clearly grew his notoriety in Hollywood beginning with A Knight's Tale. Hence, Bettany has "a career that spans a subject's emigration." So including American is a necessity.
@
Eric:Absolutely MOS does. For biographies we have
MOS:OPENPARABIO. It says quite clearly we need Name, Dates of birth and death, Context (location, nationality, etc.), and two more items. Plus every article has it, so we have longstanding consensus on consistency within the encyclopedia. We'd have never-ending edit wars if it was purposely left out.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
22:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It also says that name and birthday are usually stated. Except in rare instances, nationality is pretty much always used. With Taylor-Joy, no one can pin down what it is since sources are all over the place. Most of those you mentioned have extenuating circumstances, especially general Robert E Lee. It is not mandatory that we include his name, birthday, and nationality in the lead... but MOS says that is what is normally done. There needs to be damned good reasons why it should be left out, because otherwise the straightforward answer would be yes.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
00:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The value of one's nationality is not comparable to that of their name. Name = article title. Every source about a subject contains their name. Neither can be said about nationality (but if we'd like to dive deeper into that, I'd like to see the list of sources that describes Bettany as both "British" and "American" other than Britannica). There are countless examples of birth date omissions. The guideline also says key accomplishments are usually stated. I almost never see actors' articles do this. Where are the calls to include defining awards (e.g., Oscars) in the first sentence?
KyleJoantalk00:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I concur on the importance of name yet it's under the same usually that you quoted. Same with birthdate which is probably less important than their nationality. Part of the notability accomplishment is the fact they are a notable actor. I quite often see accomplishments in the lead, but they rarely fit in the first sentence.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
03:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi @
KyleJoan as @
4TheWynne admonished me earlier, "you've already voiced their opinion several times; let others have their say, even if they have opposing views. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs)
13:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)"reply
Hi, sorry, I looked at lunch. Regardless, I was just pointing out that it is apparently bad form to debate on this forum your point once you've made it. I disagree with that opinion, and think it's fine, but only if all sides are allowed to. I'm just politely reminding everyone of the remarks that asked us not to restate your opinion after you've made it and to let others give their opinion, even if you disagree with it. I hope you have a good day!
Sanbear (
talk)
12:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Sanbear, stop being obnoxious. I suggested that you allow others to have their say because you were bobbing up only when people disagreed with your opinion, seemingly to shoot their comments down (which is exactly what you've done here, too) and influence the result of this RfC; these editors were having an actual, good-faith discussion, and you've just inserted yourself and singled out the editors (you call
this a typo?) whose opinions differ from yours, which is just poor. Start contributing to this discussion positively or take a step back and let it play out.
4TheWynne(talk•contribs)12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
We seem to have gone a little off-topic. But, as long as we're here, no editor should be barred from commenting as long as those comments are civil and motivated by good intent. I haven't seen anything to the contrary so far.
Pistongrinder (
talk)
22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
British and American. English and American also acceptable. He has notable activities in both countries and
MOS:CONTEXTBIO is clear on this issue. We would need a very strong justification to go against the guidance in MOS for almost any situation and there is no reason to ignore the MOS in this case.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
05:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
English and American actor given his dual citizenship and activities within both countries. Using "British" would be vague in comparison when that term also encompasses the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish (aka Scotch-Irish). I'm glad Eric correctly pointed out how not all British people are English.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
That is because the UK decerns between a nation/state and country, and the US does not. The USA is a country but England is not close to being on par with that.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
00:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems people are getting lost in the weeds as regards definitions of nationality and citizenship, and with respect to the importance of these being established in the opening sentence. Bettany's current citizenship notwithstanding, he is English, England is a country, and, as the country of England is currently part of Britain, referring to him as English is more specific than referring to him as British while still inherently conveying the information that he is British.
Erictalk01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
You could be more specific by mentioning his city also. That doesn't matter. What is not really good at all is, when you mention two entities, that they not be apples and oranges. You would not say that he lived in Mexico, Brazil, and England. It would be exceedingly odd terminology. If England is a country, then the United States is not, since they are not the same thing.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
02:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The British use country in a different way than the rest of the world. For us we are a nation of four countries, much like The US is a nation of 50 states. To me, in Wikipedia I prefer British over Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English, but that's because most people don't realise the different way that British use the word country than many other English speaking countries. As we are meant to be an encyclopedia for all I would prefer British over English to try to make it clearer for people, but I understand than in the UK they refer to England as a country. Please forgive if this comment is overstepping my bounds here.
Sanbear (
talk)
11:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
English, he is not reliably called American in different articles, and in either case it's not of central importance to the subject.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment, can we please kill the idea that English (Sc/We/N.Ir) is an ethnicity.
Humza Yousaf this guy is a Scot, there are black and Jewish people ordinarily described as/self-describing as 'English' (Sc/We/N.Ir). These 'national' identities often fulfil a similar function to ethnicity, and sometimes have an ethnic component, but they mainly represent a cultural identity - how you see yourself and/or are seen generally.
Sean Connery always identified himself - and was identified as a Scot,
Charlie Chaplin was always referred to as being 'English'. The (En/Sc/We/N.Ir) - British conundrum tends to especially rear its head in acting/cultural fields, where such perceptions often matter.
Pincrete (
talk)
06:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It's not that it's ethnic... it's apples and oranges. When side by side you don't say English and American... they are not even remotely in the same category. You may call him an English actor or a British actor or an American Actor, but when next to each other it should be British and American actor for the sake of our Wikipedia readers.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
06:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I understood that, 'English' would be 'identity' whereas 'American' would be citizenship and using the two alongside each other would be anomalous. I was responding to some above that argue that 'English' should be treated as an ethnicity.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Fyunck(click), I would suggest to you that not all readers -- I'd say very few readers -- are constrained by the categorical restrictions you assign to adjectival combinations such as "English and American".
Erictalk14:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I think I'm coming onto the side of Fyunck on this. English isn't a citizenship, and not really a recognised nationality outside the UK, except for in certain sporting events. I doubt we're going to solve this tricky wiki-wide issue just here on one RFC though.
Sanbear (
talk)
08:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) did not realise I wasn't signed in.reply
English, I've hesitated over this and considered previous similar cases. All the
WP:RS that I've been able to read on the page appear to call Bettany 'English'. Some of them happily document when he became a US citizen, and why he did so and don't see any contradiction between the two facts. Of course his two citizenships should be recorded in the infobox and text, and the when and why he became a US citizen in text. I presume the description 'English' by RS is 'perceived identity', rather than 'literal citizenship', but whatever it is, it's how he is described. From jaundiced experience of umpteen RfCs, I know this opening descriptor to be problematic. Sometimes we opt for someone being a 'Jewish' writer , (who's actually from Eastern Europe and lived in US and obviously not Jewish by citizenship), sometimes an an 'Irish writer' , (from before Ireland was a state). In the last resort we can only rely on
WP:RS and AFAI can see, that leads to 'English'. This already happens with
Alfred Hitchcock, who is described as 'English' despite working and living much/most of his creative life in the US. An alternative is
T. S. Eliot, which avoids any opening 'nationality' descriptor but gives his dual citizenship in text and infobox.
Pincrete (
talk)
09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Pincrete, but I think Sanbear's idea is worth considering. In the Sanbear approach, maybe something along the lines of ...is a film and stage actor who began his career in London., for example.
Erictalk12:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I was responding directly to the choices given, but something along the lines of Sanbear or Eric seem equally good, if not better. Clarity about his 'life story' seems more important than whose citizenship he holds.
Pincrete (
talk)
12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'm not sure if my suggestion muddies the water a bit or helps. To me it is surprising information that he is American, hence my inclusion the opening. In films he is usually as English as Churchill (who of course was also American! :) ). I'm not sure if it would be another RFC to ask that question, or we can discuss it here.
Sanbear (
talk)
08:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)reply
English actor is fine because (a) that is what parts he plays and he is thus notable as English; (b) that (or "British") is how RS describe him; and (c) that is the long-standing status quo. It's too long to have the accuracy of "English born British-American actor" or "British-American known for playing English roles". I do see he intentionally got US citizenship in 2017 and voted for the first time in 2020, but I also see him voicing that London is his home as late as 2017 in
the Telegraph. Also I see sources mention him as "English actor" by
WSJ,
IMDB and "British" by
the Telegraph,
Rotten tomatoes,
The Standard, or
The Telegraph. Cheers
Markbassett (
talk)
22:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Step cousin relationship not notable
Stop cousin is the realm of certain porn publications and is not important to anything Bettany did. Would need to show it impacted his life in some manner beyond some connection his grandparents made to be something that goes in the article.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply