Talk:Bernard Lee

Vandalism?
When I first saw this article, I was surprized to see that some random editor had placed Bernard Lee under the catagory titled "Gay Actors". As a big fan of the James Bond series and an admirer of Lee's performance as "M", I had to find out if this was true. However, during my research, I could not find any solid evidence (not even in the biography section for Lee in the Internet Movie Database) that Lee was actually a homosexual. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that the inclusion of the "Gay Actors" tag in this article was probably either the result of vandalism or malicious rumors and I felt obliged to remove this controversial tag. If anyone had any solid proof that Bernard Lee was in fact gay, please provide actual references before re-adding this catagory back into the article. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser Taylor (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was well known in the acting profession that Lee was both gay and an alcoholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.57.80 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then please provide the evidence in the form of citations. In the absence of anything in the article to support him being gay, there is zero justification for having him in a gay category.  "Well-known" does not amount to any form of evidence.  For now at least, the category is being removed.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth and father
In the GRO births index there is an entry for a John Bernard Lee, March quarter 1908, Registration district Brentford, volume 3a, page 224. This supports the statement that he was born in London rather than Cork.

In the 1911 census the entry for 67 Speldhurst Road, Acton Green, West London lists the following family:

Charles Edmund Lee   47    Theatrical Actor    Armagh City Ireland Resident

Ellen Lee (married 7 years)   30     Liverpool Lancs

Edmund James Lee     5     Fulham S W

John Bernard Lee        3     Chiswick W

This appears to be the correct family: Chiswick is within the Brentford registration district. However, his father is Charles Edmund Lee (not Edmund James Lee) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.50.36 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw these when I re-wrote the article. Unfortunately neither of them categorically state that it is the same Bernard Lee as the article, and the reliable sources show either London or Cork, which is why we have shown both and explained why. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone raised this at OTRS - as I had some Ancestry.co.uk credits unused - I had a look there (Note: Irish records before the split are part of the UK system). I can state that according to the UK Birth records and 1911 Census records. NB:All one can see on Ancestry.co.uk is a three month index giving a volume and page number.
 * There was a John Bernard Lee born in Brentford and in the index for Jan/Mar 1908 (Vol 3a p 224) - one would need to buy the birth certificate to get more detail, and the Chiswick census is correct as above.
 * There are no John Lee or John Bernard Lee born in Cork in the range 1907-1909.
 * J B Lee Married "Cook or Merredew" in Hampstead, Jan/Mar 1934 (Vol 1a p 1218)
 * J B Lee Married Mchale in Hampstead, Jan/Mar 1975 (Vol 12 p 1279)
 * John Bernard Lee died in Camden, born 10th Jan 1908 in Jan/Mar 1981 (Vol 14 p 2155)
 *  Ron h jones (Talk) 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Savolya, When one of your Bold edits is Reverted, you should Discuss, not just try and force your opinions onto an article. There is no need for a misleading and pointless box at the top of the page, and your nothing in the MOS that demands one is there. Additionally, and as I pointed out on my talk page to you, your effort was error-strewn, with contentious details, wrong active years, ridiculous POV in the known for field and a foreign date format. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely, left a message on his talk page until he reverted me here. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. How bloody childish reverting a polite message; illustrative of the kind of person he or she must be. --  Cassianto Talk   12:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The sort that leaves such charming messages on the talk page of others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

War service
Six years in uniform -  might we know what rank, whether he was posted abroad, and whether he saw active service? Valetude (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, sadly not. There is no information available in any of the sources I've found that deal with it. It's made more difficult by the fact that there is no biography or autobiography about him, and not even an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography that we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Before reverting again, Emir of Wikipedia, and the other user who reverted, please familiarise yourselves with WP:BRD and MOS:INFOBOX and guide me to the relevant piece where it says infoboxes are required in all circumstances. Thanks.  Cassianto Talk   17:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read it. Please carry on this discussion at the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you haven't read it. OK, you and the IP who, I suspect, is a sock of yours, are now warring. It will only be a matter of time before it's restored back to the more stable version, so in the mean time, please also tell me why you think your disruptive behaviour is justified?   Cassianto Talk   18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A continuation of this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This tells me nothing. Please converse like an adult.   Cassianto Talk   18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It tells you nothing because you just reverted my talk. Please see WP:TALKNO. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

An Rfc is ongoing at MOS:INFOBOX concerning mandatory infoboxes in bio articles. Suggest EoW bring his arguments there. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue with having an infobox. There's nothing on MOS:INFOBOX stating only certain people get them. It given an encapsulation of the person in a very brief order and thus adds to the article. Is there anything you're seeing that would prohibit an infoxbox here ?  Kosh Vorlon }  19:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still nothing from Old Emir? He must've got lost at the MOS roundabout. Anyway, Kosh Vorlon, rather than a subjective view, perhaps you could now give an objective view as to why you think one is justified?  Cassianto Talk   19:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the infobox? I think it summarises the information in the article well. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the above comment was removed in FIM's revert. Not sure whether it means anything now or not. I'm just following through on WP:TALKO and restoring the old comment. Note; I have not changed a single byte of the above comment, it is an exact replica of what I found in the diff. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text. Further reasons include:
 * 1) Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
 * 2) Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
 * 3) Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
 * 4) Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
 * 5) Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
 * 6) Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

With bated breath, and with an almost unexplained quiver of excitement in my gentleman's area at the prospect of such a discussion, I now open up the floor to others.  Cassianto Talk   19:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Infoboxes are best for those who've held positions or offices, which require showing dates of service. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support this infobox. This is an excellent and informative infobox, gives the salient information at a glance (birth/death dates, age of death, nationality, profession, role), and is very helpful to the reader. I do not think it should have been removed without discussion. Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * funny, because I don't think it should've been added without discussion. Funny old world, isn't it?   Cassianto Talk   20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every one of those pieces of information in the proposed infobox is covered in the first sentence of the article. As GoodDay points out infoboxes are useful where the career history of a person has been long and complicated and/or they have held multiple posts.  Neither applies in this case, and therefore any utility does not make up for the disadvantages of infoboxes as pointed out by Cassianto above. Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care - untrue.
 * Infoboxes are best for those who've held positions or offices - untrue.
 * useful where the career history of a person has been long and complicated and/or they have held multiple posts - untrue.
 * Infoboxes are a basic convention used on all types of biographical articles on Wikipedia, not particular types of biographical articles or of a given length. Please see Media biographies on Featured articles.  Please provide links to validate these points, as well as any other claims you make.  Otherwise, they all sound like personal opinions with no basis in Wikipedia policy.  Mitchumch (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, infoboxes in bio articles are not mandatory. Inclusion or exclusion of infoboxes is decided by the editing community. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Infoboxes are a basic convention used on all types of biographical articles on Wikipedia, not particular types of biographical articles or of a given length." - untrue
 * There. We can all chat bullshit, can't we?   Cassianto Talk   21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Let's arrive here from the outside using the two major search engines. Basic life information is provided by Google and Bing. Both provide a suitable thumbnail of the biography. People who are looking for this type of information get it at the search engine level; they don't need to come to WP for it.  Those who do, are likely to be serious readers interested in the article. We hope (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your user page does a better job of stating your position on infoboxes. Mitchumch (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for articles to have an infobox and my opinion is they should be optional--until they were forced onto articles where the main contributors elected not to have one. If you're attempting to embarrass me, you've not succeeded. We hope (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some biographies, especially those related to the liberal arts field, do not benefit from having infoboxes. The infobox in this case emphasises unimportant factoids and undermines the lead. It also obstructs the presentation and looks far more attractive as a standalone image. I disagree with including an infobox in this article because the most important points in it are already discussed in the lead (albeit in the first paragraph), or adequately discussed in the body of the article. The infobox in this case is redundant because it doesn't add any value and hampers the layout. The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. See WP:DISINFOBOX. JAG  UAR   22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Conversely, there is no requirement for an article to NOT have an infobox. The only arguments presented thus far are personal opinions that amount to "I don't like infoboxes". Infoboxes are routinely accepted (and not objected to) during article reviews for FA - including for liberal arts fields.  Disinfoboxes is just an essay, not a policy.  I agree with, , and.


 * We hope, I'm not trying to embarrass you. If it's on your user page, then how can it be embarrassing?  I think your user page does a better job of stating your position on the site wide use of infoboxes.


 * If your anti-infobox, then be proud and say it loud and link to the infobox cases to prove your point.


 * The top of every article that is being edited states, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." No editor or editors own an article, main contributor or not.  Mitchumch (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My position on when infoboxes should & shouldn't be used in bio articles, is quite clear. We've a discussion at MOS:INFOBOX concerning this topic. IMHO, it would be better to settle things there, then have countless discussions across bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mitchumch The link above "no requirement for articles to have an infobox" is a link to the last case. Since you're interested in my user page, you might also be interested in the text in the box there. It reads in part: "Tired of the squabbles that have been occurring here for a while now and of those who create them." The following statements and page may also be of interest. I no longer work on text content other than replacing refs and small rewrites if necessary because of the infobox conflicts. Forcing them onto articles is just as much an OWNERSHIP attempt. The difference between those who have invested time and effort in an article and those who have shown no previous interest in an article other than to believe it must have an infobox is that the contributing users will take responsibility to maintain an article. They are the ones who will fix dead ref links, revert vandals and the like because those desirous of the infobox are only interested in that. We hope (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ARBCOM statement
 * ARBCOM statement
 * Miscellany for deletion.
 * Sorry to interrupt your canvassing,, but what exactly does 's user page have to do with this conversation?  Cassianto Talk   22:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that mine, GoodDay's, and We hope's arguments against using infoboxes aren't personal in any way. I believed we have all raised legitimate cases against the use of an infobox. And don't get me wrong, I like infoboxes, but only when they are used correctly. Every one of the GAs I've promoted has an infobox, but I also recognise when an infobox doesn't add any value and keeping them solely based on a prima facie case is wrong. An infobox is typically justified by summarising key points for someone who doesn't want to read through the entire article. But, in this instance, the infobox does nothing but repeat factoids which are already mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. JAG  UAR   22:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also add me to your list,, as shown here. An article I started, researched, and authored, and one which I decided to include an infobox on because I thought it worked and would benefit from one.   Cassianto Talk   23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A thread is here. I am not on about idiotbox but an infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And the thread does not overturn the long-standing consensus not to have an IB here. There has been no box since c.2012, so why you think it appropriate to edit war one in without that consensus being overturned? Just because a couple of people have added a box doesn't mean we need to have one, or we may as well admit that the IB bullying and attrition is so rampant that it may as well become common practice. You should know better than to try and force the issue without a clearly reached consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And canvassing too? Really? – SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Canvassing says In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus., it is better to do that they to make good faith editors mistakenly think that there is some consensus to not include. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And it continues "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate". Looking at the list of behaviour at Inappropriate notification, it lists biased or partisan as two things that are inappropriate. Contacting only people who you know will side with you is inappropriate. – SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Literally everything in the infobox is directly on the left/in the lede ..... thus making an infobox redundant, No brainer with this one. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK Connery
Thought it might be useful to mention that "OK Connery" was released as "Operation Kid Brother" in the UK.46.7.195.132 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)