Talk:Bruce Mackinnon

British/English
Although characterised by User:UpDown as a dispute over whether British or English is preferred, my fundamental disagreement is with the notion that birthplace alone can be used to infer nationality. Quoting from his talk page:

For English/Scottish/Welsh we cannot ref every single person, and most editors are happy that if a person was born and appears to have lived in England for most of their lives, they are English.

My opinion is that the policy WP:V is appropriate and articles should reflect the sources used to create the article. Thus if a source merely states the place of birth that is all that should be in the article.

I also consider removing a tag is bad practise and cannot be justified on the basis that the article is marked as lacking sources. I am therefore asking other users for a third opinion as to whether either is acceptable practise. Justin talk 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A WP:Third opinion has been requested for this article. Presumably the other editor's comments are those at User Talk:UpDown.  I changed the summary of the dispute on the 3rd opinion page to read:

Whether a biography lead should say "British" or more specifically "English" (part of UK/Britain), and whether a ref is required for nationality in general.
 * Note 3rd opinion editors may object that the other editor has not yet commented here. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the British/English thing is pretty much settled on Wikipedia, and English/Scottish/Welsh are perfectly acceptable terms. This disagreement here is because the other user feels that English needs a ref (whereas he seems fine with British not needing a ref, or Welsh on Joanna Page's article for that matter). I firmly believe that you do not need to reference every single English/Scottish/Welsh on here, and there is certainly no precendent for such an idea. The only ones that should be referenced are contraversial ones. There is a general acceptance that if someone was born and has lived in England, he is English.--UpDown (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, thats not what I'm saying at all, part of the problem is you continually misrepresent what I've said and I'm rapidly tiring of it. I'm saying that as per WP:V all facts should be verifiable.  If the only information available is birth place, that is what the article should say, nothing more.  I have repeatedly said I do not mind whether British/English/Welsh/Scottish is used provided the facts are verifiable.  I think it is unacceptable to say that merely because you know the birthplace, most of the time you can sort of guess the nationality.  Suggesting this is generally acceptable is in my opinion a sloppy practise. Justin talk 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so unless we find a definitve ref saying someone's nationality, we should not say anything. So should we also rename categories of such people Actors, rather than English actors or British actors. To be honest, it is riduclous to suggest everyone's nationality has to be referenced, most people are able to use common sense. There is no consensus on Wikipedia for what you are suggesting at all. You cannot reference absolutley everything; should we reference he is a man, and that he is still alive, and so on and on.UpDown (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is really unnecessary, I said the article should report the facts available. Interpreting the facts to draw other conclusions is what is not acceptable.  Justin talk 21:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually being sarcastic, its a valid point - how much obvious stuff should we reference? I note though you didn't answer my question, do you believe we should remove nationality all together if we can't find a ref, and even remove the nationality from the category? --UpDown (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious that my answer would be it it is unverifiable it should be removed. Justin talk 08:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you would remove the categories. As I said above, there is no precedence for your actions across Wikipedia. The idea that categories, like British actors or English actors, should be removed before its 'unreferenced' is just riduclous; and I feel fairly confident that most other users would agree. You are basically suggesting we remove the nationality and related categories from thousands and thousands of biographies because it unreferenced, even though its blindingly obvious.--UpDown (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No what I am saying is that unverifiable facts shouldn't be added to articles, if its blindingly obvious it should be verifiable. Right from day one I have been saying that I'm happy for a verifiable fact to be added.  Your approach seems to be he was born in England ergo he must be English and arbitrarily adding that to articles.  The notion that references are not needed is not acceptable, the hyperbole about thousands of articles being disrupted is unnecessary.  Justin talk 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But is it true, and you seem never to answer the point. You appear to want all nationality categories removed unless there is a ref, thus placing thousands of people in the Category:Actors (which few, if any, people are meant to be in). You miss the point that Wikipedia does not agree with you, most people nationality's are not referenced. During your original disagrement with the IP, you were fine for unreferenced British to be there, but not unreferenced English. You are also fine for unreferenced Welsh to be on Joanna Page's article (which is still there and has no reference tag?) You appear to be really stuck with these three articles, that for some reason English should be referenced on them when it isn't on most other peoples? Why are you not going round to all biography articles and tagging nationality where it is not reference (which is most people). I'm sure I could show you many FA, where the nationality is not referenced/ Please show me community consensus for referencing everyone's nationality, and for referencing EVERY SINGLE FACT, however obvious or minor.--UpDown (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think you're being overly dramatic, continually referring to things you claim that I've done (when I fact I haven't) and claiming I'm happy with things like "unreferenced British" when I'm not. Continuous misrepresentation of what I say does not help. If you feel compelled to continuously personalise the dispute and attack someone you disagree with, then you really do need to re-evaluate your own conduct.  I asked for a third opinion in the vain hope of cooling things of.
 * To address some of those points, no not every fact needs a reference tag added to it but it needs to be verifiable. So if a general source is supplied (for example in Sources sub-section) that is perfectly acceptable, however, adding facts that are not contained therein is not.  I would imagine you can show an FA article that doesn't include a reference tag, so what, I would imagine there is a generalised reference somewhere that would be able to verify a fact if challenged. However, not every fact requires a tag.
 * Its also a somewhat ridiculous hyperbole to imply that it is impossible to find a source for nationality in many articles and WP:V would compel the removal of nationality and category from thousands of articles. Justin talk 10:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not being over dramatic in the slightest, I am merely reflecting what you appear to be suggesting. If you were not happy with unreferenced British, why did you firstly revert to that, with no ref provided? You are the one who does personal attacks, as seen on my talk page when you then refused to elaborate. That was a personal attack. It is not riduclous to suggest that you would have problems finding ref for everyone nationalities at all, its perfectly clear. You never answer why you think this hard iron rule for nationality applies to these 3 people, but not everyone else on Wikipedia? Why are you focusing on them? Why ignore the others? Many pages are similar stubs like this, they don't have ref tags next to nationality? Why the obsession with these three? Why leave Joanna Page's article alone? Anyway, I shall be making no further response to you, but shall wait for the 3rd party opinion as you are clearly not ever going to listen to me regarding these three pages.--UpDown (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response, to yet more allegations about my conduct I refused to elaborate simply because it was not a personal attack and I'm not going to be diverted into having to constantly explain myself since its seem plain no matter what I say it will be miscontrued. It is also perfectly ridiculous to say that you can't find a source to justify an edit regarding an individuals nationality and therefore a guess is acceptable.  Its also not a dispute about those three articles, though for some unknown reason you keep harping back to them, its a fairly simple and fundamental principle on wikipedia that facts should be verifiable, if they're not they shouldn't be included in articles.  Its that simple.  Justin talk 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All I will say is WP:V says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." - it does not say all facts like you suggest. I find it hard to believe that calling him English or British is likely to be challenged (except by you).--UpDown (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Particularly with such a common English surname like Mackinnon? No chance at all....removes tongue from cheek. Justin talk 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting how at every new argument I present, you come up with a different reason not to have English. I prove every single fact doesn't have to be verified, something you have always claimed, and you just come back and say it's different for Mackinnon because of his surname. Funny how you have never mentioned that before? His surname is immaterial. He was born & spend his life in England, his surname is immaterial and not relevant. And anyway, what about the other two people then? You are clearly arguing with me for the sake of it, as you seem unable to admit the IP address was actually right (although as I've said before, he could have gone about things better).--UpDown (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a slightly tongue in cheek comment nothing more, notice the humongous hint? An attempt at a little light humour if you will and certainly not a serious remark.  I'd no real plans to respond until I'd heard what a third opinion had to say.  What is actually interesting is your inability to respond without a little dig.  Anyway, this is me, signing off and I've no intention of making any comment whatsoever, no matter what the provocation.  The floor is yours sir, do as you will.  Justin talk 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as I said above, I actually meant to stop commenting a while ago! I do wonder whether light humour was really wise, when I raised a valid point, one which you don't answer. And please don't say "What is actually interesting is your inability to respond without a little dig." - you are far worse than at me doing that, as that in itself proved. I have tried to discuss the issues, you write scarcasm and "light humour" remarks - thats not discussing the issues.--UpDown (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd Opinion by Dusti
My style of providing a 3rd opinion will take all day today, just FYI. Who are the two users requesting this 3rd Opinion?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I right by guessing Justin and UpDown?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad guess, I don't think there is a rush. To my mind the actual edit is a trivial matter, the bigger issue is the misinterpreation of WP:V.  Thanks for stepping in.  Justin talk 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I seem to be misunderstanding the whole issue here. Justin, can you clarify for me please?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I believe it is not acceptable to attribute nationality (e.g. British/English/Irish/Welsh or whatever) based upon a place of birth and include that information into an article. I consider that a sloppy practise, since one does not necessarily follow from the other. As a Scotsman born in Madrid, I am perhaps an obvious example but others can be even more complex. For example Spike Milligan was born in India, lived most of his life as an Englishman, had his citizenship removed and took Irish citizenship. My position is that the article should reflect what the source says as per WP:V, so if the source merely gives a birth place, that is all that should be included. Information that can't be verified from the original source, should not be added; especially to a biography of a living person. Justin talk 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And my opinion, if go down that road, thousands of people on Wikipedia will lose their nationality, I think a little common sense is called for. Of course, for some people (like Milligan), it is more completed and refs are needed, but for most people, they are not.--UpDown (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)