Talk:Ian McKellen/Archive 1

Top
I cut He is known both for his professionalism and his ready wit, as evidenced by the quip above. No doubt he's a trouper, but as far as I know he's about as professional as a few million other actors. Markalexander100 09:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Photo
I see that this photo Image:IanMcKellen.0051.jpg has been bumped from the article. Such is life on the wiki, I suppose, but I wouldn't like it to get lost for ever: it was given to us expressly by Sir Ian's webmaster in response to a request for Wikipedia-compliant material. –Hajor 00:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * it was replaced with a non free image by User:DrBat on July 15, 2005 who is contesting my replacement of it with the new free one at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_October_30. Maybe we could do a rotation of the two free images. Arniep 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article's long enough to feature both fine project-compliant images: I've inserted the one above down in the filmography. What the article doesn't need, of course, is to replace either of those with a non-free photo. –Hajor 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with –Hajor, the article benefits from having both free images. I also agree that, having two free images, there is no need for any copyrighted material to illustrate Mr. McKellen's appearance.  Jkelly 21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree the article is long enough for two free images. I'm not sure I'd pick that pair in an ideal world (it would be nice to have a free young+old set or the like). But what we have is what we have... The IanMcKellen.0051.jpg image is a more intimate, although 'lower quality' image. I'm not sure exactly how to best fit it into the article. If there were more of a section on his personal life I'd say it should go there, not sure that it would be right to put it in the gay rights section. :) In any case, we do not need to use unfree images, consider that we have two reasonable free images which illustrate him just fine. --Gmaxwell 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi I moved the 2000 image to roughly fit in with his first major Hollywood role Apt Pupil in the filmography referencing the caption: "Sir Ian McKellen takes a day out at Universal Studios, Hollywood, April 2000. Although a veteran performer on both stage and screen, he has only recently taken up serious Hollywood roles.". Arniep 22:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nationality
Why is it that Sir Ian McKellan is down as British just because he has Scottish names? You can not say what nationality people are by their surname? My surname is Irish, but my family never lived in Ireland, they were from Cornwall. People like putting anyone from England down as English, but if you're from Scotland you are Scottish. This is clearly unfair to English people, and should stop. --82.4.86.73 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about being fair. The fact is most English people regard British as their nationality and English as their ethnicity. It is just that Scottish and Welsh people have sought to divorce themselves from British, what they see as an English institution which ruled over and oppressed them. Arniep 02:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can not possibly say "most English people regard British as their nationality" is a fact, have you done research? My opinion would be that most people, certainly people I know, strive to point out the fact they are English not British! And with regards to the English ruling over the Scotish and Welsh I refer you to you to the West Lothian Question! --82.4.86.73 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether they regard their nationality as English or not, legally they are all British Tim! (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes they are all legally British, but then so are Charlotte Church and Robert Carlyle, but if you put them as British they would be an uproar. Either anyone from Great Britain should be British, or we should have them as Welsh, Scottish and English. --82.4.86.73 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed this, Church and Carlyle to British from England, Wales and Scotland respectively (by way of scientific experiment). Awaiting uproar... Tim! (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I like the idea, but I wonder how long it will last! --82.4.86.73 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Scot was the first ... Tim! (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, violates WP:POINT, but congratulations you made me laugh out loud on Wikipedia for the first time today :))) - FrancisTyers 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what that achieves really. It is accepted that Scottish people and Welsh people are described as such and that English people are generally described as British. If you don't believe me look in any other major reference work. Arniep 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked in two: they both used English rather than British. There really is no such standard as you seem to believe. Anyway, wikipedia bases its policies and guidelines on WP:NPOV, and therefore what goes for the Scots and Welsh goes for the English. Tim! (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Arrant nonsense.  Scottish and Welsh are roughly equivalent in terms of informativeness; English is not.  Mark1 11:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Admittedly Wordsworth and Siegfried Sassoon are described as English because the are both associated with very English writing. However, Ian McKellen is of close Scottish descent and is described as British in Britannica, not English. I know many people who are in ethnic minorities and are of mixed Scottish/Welsh/Irish ancestry who certainly do not accept the term English and would find it offensive. Arniep 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How is English less informative than Scottish? Tim! (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Scottish (and Welsh- I'm not going near Irish) tend to be stronger identities than English. And yes, "tend" is a red flag that I'm making a sweeping generalisation, which is why I favour dealing with it on a case by case basis. Mark1 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've hit the magic word "identity" as opposed to "nationality". Tim! (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ArnieP, stop reverting to your preferred version or you will be blocked, you are dangerously close to breaking WP:3RR. You've done 4 reverts in 25 hours. Tim! (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tim, I believe that is well within the 3RR rule. I reverted as this page was changed as part of a huge campaign to change every single British entry to English without any discussion or consensus. As no policy has been passed to completely remove British from Wikipedia I am entirely in the right in reverting to it's original version. Arniep 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, make up Great Britain. People from England are English, from Scotland are Scottish, from Wales are Welsh and from Ireland, Irish. Together they are British. They are also European. This is fact and anyone who can't see it must be braindead.

Greatest living actor statement restored
I have restored the text, "regarded by many as the greatest living British actor," into the intro. On January 8, 2006, removed this, with the edit summary "Non-neutral and excessive statement removed. He is also regarded by many as not the best British actor.". I think this editor misunderstands NPOV. The fact that many regard McKellen as the greatest living British actor is notable and encyclopedic, as this is not true of every actor; in fact it is true of only a very few (perhaps a dozen at most). The fact that one can say that many people believe not q does not disqualify many people believing q from being stated. I invite Cookiecaper to add a criticisms section, if he feels it is important, or if there are those who viscerally disagree with McKellen being in the running for greatest living actor. Like any subjective statement, we can only state that there are people who believe in it. --TreyHarris 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have little opinion on Ian McKellen and have only seen him in The Lord of The Rings, where I think he performed well. But please return with statistics showing that a significantly higher than normal percentage of people believe McKellen is the greatest living British actor or I'll remove this statement again. I see little point in including it. It helps this article feel more like it was gleaned off of a fan site than encyclopedic sources, and while it might be written neutrally when taken alone, in context without a source to something showing why this should be included on McKellen's page over anyone else's it pushes the POV that McKellen is a good actor. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 08:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Trey, I disagree with your argument. The phrase as written is a great example of weasel words (please read through the list of examples - this one appears almost verbatim), and for it to be in the lead paragraph of a featured article is unacceptable. It should be removed.  However, if it can be rewritten so that it's no longer a weasel term, there may be some place for it.   If it appears anywhere it should be in the article body as part of a discussion of McKellen's stature as an actor.  The comment must be attributed to a notable person or people and be supported by a source.  These are the key, mandatory ingredients that prevent it from being an encyclopedic, NPOV statement.   As part of a critical discussion it may even strengthen the article.  Personally, I don't see why Wikipedia needs to be constantly looking for superlatives - surely a discussion of his career is much more substantial and convincing than a sweeping statement like "many think he's the greatest actor".  Editorially, this is just plain lazy - if the statement has any truth, do some research and support it with something meaningful.  This is one of the worst lead paragraphs I've ever seen in a featured article - if it was up for nomination today, you can be sure it would not succeed.     At the recent Golden Globes Jodie Foster introduced Anthony Hopkins as "the world's greatest living actor".  Lots of people applauded - who knows what they were actually thinking - and in his acceptance speech,  Hopkins should have politely said "no, no, that's Ian McKellen", but he was willing to take all the credit.  :-)   The point is that it was a completely empty, meaningless, sycophantic statement because it was not placed into any kind of credible context.  Good enough for Jodie Foster, but I think Wikipedia should have stronger editorial ethics than Jodie Foster. Rossrs 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A poll of the Greatest British Actors for Channel 4 placed him 4th after Anthony Hopkins, Ewan McGregor and Sean Connery. Of course combining this with the British/English debate that has been going on, this would make him the greatest English actor (Hopkins being Welsh and McGregor and Connery being Scottish). I don't actually support inclusion of this statement (even though I do think he is an absolutely outstanding actor) as these polls are not particularly scientifically accurate, but I figured that I would play devil's advocate anyway. – Mr Weeble  Talk Brit tv 13:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that this is a widely held view, or that there are not credible sources available to support this opinion. I'm only disputing that the statement in the article is not supported.  Rossrs 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So is the assertion that nothing which is not provable, is notable? I.e., only facts are encyclopedic, not people's opinions? I thought NPOV was all about documenting opinions, not taking a position on the factuality of those opinions or removing them. exhorts me to avoid weasel words. But weasel words are for the purpose of stating one's own opinion and disguising it as "some people think" or (in this case) "many regard". But there are several examples of polls (,, —I can produce more) where McKellen is voted for—i.e., "regarded"—by "many" as the "greatest living actor".

One could complain that these are unscientific polls (though it seems that even an unscientific poll would adequately document the idea that many regard him so). So let's turn to journalism. From Ben Brantley, writing in The New York Times, October 12, 2001: Those who know Mr. McKellen only from his recent eccentric film roles (he's the Hobbit-advising wizard in the forthcoming Lord of the Rings) can't begin to appreciate his reputation as the greatest living actor of the English-speaking stage. [Emphasis mine] Benedict Nightingale, writing in The New York Times, March 13, 2005: There are several contenders for the title of Britain's greatest living theatrical knight -- Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi, Antony Sher -- but there's no doubt that Sir Michael Gambon comes strongly into the reckoning. Also from the Times, in an article speculating on who is the greatest actor (not just living), August 23, 2000 by Mel Gussow (sorry, article is no longer on web without a fee): Among living actors, Michael Gambon, Anthony Hopkins and Ian McKellen -- all of them knighted -- have demonstrated their eligibility for that pantheon.... Finally, from Lawrence O'Toole, also in the Times, April 5, 1992 (and also unavailable on the web); yes, I said 1992: But just over four years ago, the man who is generally acknowledged to be the greatest living Shakespearean actor (some say Britain's greatest living actor) did indeed step out of the closet of his own homosexuality. (If you want to argue that The New York Times has a systematic pro-McKellen bias, I'll happily cite some similar quotes from other sources. Remember, I went through this when the FA nomination came up; I documented, and kept my documents! :-)

If you follow theater, you know that there are a tiny handful of actors about whom, in theatrical circles, one must say the words "greatest" and "actor" together, with some set of qualifiers. McKellen is inarguably in that handful. This is notable and encyclopedic, and the fact is that many do regard him as the greatest living British actor. I'm happy to come up with a different way to state that fact. But it is a fact. He is regarded, acknowledge, speculated to be, believed, eligible for the title of, "the greatest living British/Shakespearean/English/English-language actor", and this fact deserves to be not just in the article, but in the lead. It is one of McKellen's defining characteristics. --TreyHarris 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point when you said I was exhorting you to avoid weasel words. If you read Avoid weasel words, it says we should not be using "some people think" etc. It actually does not give examples of cases where it's appropriate to use them so all I was asking you to do was to reframe it so that it no longer could be interpreted as weasel words.   It's not simply a case of But weasel words are for the purpose of stating one's own opinion and disguising it as "some people think" or (in this case) "many regard".   I wasn't suggesting you were stating your own opinion but you were failing to back up a widely held view with anything concrete.   "Nothing which is not provable is notable" - I don't understand what you mean.  "Only facts, not people's opinions... documenting opinions" - you didn't document any opinions -you merely used a blanket statement and didn't attribute it to anyone.  I certainly don't believe that people's opinions are not worth recording.  Read any article I've written and they are full of people's opinions, but they are quoted and sourced.  You seem to be totally misinterpreting what I said.  Anything written on Wikipedia should be verifiable, so a general, unsupported statement that does not provide a source or means of verification, is not acceptable.  That's basic Wikipedia policy - I don't understand why you would be disputing this.  You've provided excellent examples here to back up your original statement.  If you were to pick one or two of the most significant and address this in the article, even in the lead,  and link back to your source (there must be something still available on the web) you would be doing the article a great service.  You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you - I'm not.  I'm disagreeing with the manner in which the information was originally recorded, not with the overall viewpoint, which is a totally different thing.  You said you're "happy to come up with a different way to state that fact" - well, good.  That's all I was asking you to do. Rossrs 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm asking for guidance on how to state this notable fact, namely that he regularly is referred to as the greatest living actor of some sort, differently from how it was already stated.  "So-and-so said, 'McKellen is the greatest actor of our time'" does not belong in the lead, no matter who So-and-so is.  It casts the spotlight on So-and-so, not on McKellen.    "He has been called, 'the greatest living actor' (cite1), 'the greatest living British actor' (cite2), 'the greatest actor of all time' (cite3)" really seems to be heaping the peacocking on, even if we just use footnotes so the cites are less obtrusive.  So how would you propose this be stated?


 * Note the exceptions in Avoid weasel words. I'm claiming that this is something like all three cases:  1) The belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion (I'm assuming the word "discussion" was specifically used instead of "the article" for cases such as this when the opinion is the topic of a sentence or so like here); 2) The holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify; and 3) When contrasting a minority opinion (I'm still waiting to see the dissenting view, but I think it should be included if, as Cookiecaper asserted, it is held by many people.).


 * What I'm a bit flummoxed by is how this just came up 18 months after this article went through peer review and FA nomination, all with the sentence intact. The sentence was on the Main Page (see Today's featured article/July 6, 2004).  If it's such an obvious and flagrant violation of NPOV and other guidelines, why has nobody noticed it until this month? --TreyHarris 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One more point—you said, "[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words] actually does not give examples of cases where it's appropriate to use them". I think the "Exceptions" is talking about exactly that and giving examples of it.  If you don't think the Exceptions does so, we should argue that point on Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words, not here. --TreyHarris 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No thanks, I'd rather argue one point with you at a time. Sorry, I should have said it doesn't give examples that support the way this was phrased in this article.   If your opinion is that they do - we'll have to disagree on that point.  Rossrs 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For me not to take this statement out again, it needs to be rephrased and it must have at least two citations from different sources. You seem to be capable of doing that, so do it after reading over Avoid peacock terms. NPOV is not about including all points of view -- only notable points of view. There are always at least ~six billion points of view about any subject at any time, and it is not our purpose to document them all. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "is one of Britain's foremost actors"? Trey's sources seem to support that perfectly adequately, and it avoids the weasel problem. Mark1 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * it would be an improvement as it avoids the "the greatest" tag and the "regarded by many" phrase, which are the bits I think are problematic. Trey, you're asking for guidance.  OK, this is what I think. You have some brilliant quotes which could easily be worked into an authoritative paragraph in "Award winning successes" either at the beginning of the section as a lead-in, or at the end as a summary.   That way quotes can be given and placed in a context that supports the existing text in that section.  I think that would actually strengthen the article.  Keep the comment in the lead paragraph but make it more neutral.  That way you don't have to be adding unsightly cites into the lead.   I don't know why nobody else has objected to this in 18 months.  Standards change, new people come along - I didn't notice it until yesterday.   I don't know.  But the fact that nobody else has mentioned it does not mean that it's invalid.  The aim is to improve the article and what User:Cookiecaper and I have been saying is consistent with the current attitudes and comments in the Featured Article nomination arena, which may be different to the attitudes of 18 months ago.   I also think the lead paragraph should be beefed up in line with current trends.  That's a seperate issue, and something to consider.  Rossrs 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with saying "many people consider McKellen to be the greatest living British actor". Weasel words (and "peacock words") are a problem when people use them to make unsubstantiated/uncited (and unprovable) assertions. It is a misinterpretation of our guidelines to say that the phrase "many people" is inappropriate in every instance. User:TreyHarris has provided several reputable citations for the proposition that many regard him as The Best. If he had said "most people" then I may have had more misgivings with its presence in the lead of the article.


 * I don't understand the rationale for removing it from the lead paragraph entirely. Is this an aesthetic issue (having citations in the lead paragraph), an NPOV issue, or merely an issue of editorial preference? There is little question that McKellen is an extremely highly respected performer, and this is at the core of his notability, so I fail to see why it should not be present in the leading paragraph.


 * As for the changing standards of featured article nominations, it has been said that the FA nomination process has become more stringent over time. However, I disagree with this assertion. As long as I can remember (stretching back to the infancy of Featured Articles), it has been exceedingly difficult to get articles promoted to FA status (in fact, it may have become easier because unactionable objections can be ignored now, whereas they couldn't be before). Regardless, this article is not re-nominated for featured article status. Arguments for its improvement shouldn't be based upon what is the current attitude of those who bother voting on new featured articles (unless process changes so that FAs get re-nominated periodically). - Mark 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I partly agree, partly disagree with you. Yes, numerous reputable people believe him to be the greatest actor and I don't dispute this. I think that to have a vague comment such as this in the lead paragraph and nothing in the remainder of the article to support it, is unsatisfactory. That's the all-important point that I've been making and making but which keeps being overlooked.  The comment has merit and can be easily supported - so therefore it should be supported.  TreyHarris came up with perfect source information and then did nothing with it.  If it was in the lead paragraph and further in the body of the article it was discussed in more depth and statements such as these attributed, then that would have been fine. Remember that the lead paragraph is intended as a summary of the article that follows.  Whatever is written in the lead paragraph should be explained/qualified/quantified/clarified etc, in the body of the article. That was not the case in this article.  It was casually mentioned in the lead and then that was the end of it.  Not worth mentioning any further.  Well, that's just plain wrong. TreyHarris found several excellent quotes supporting his viewpoint, and I urged him to include them into the article in order to improve the article but they have not been included, and I believe the article is not as strong or as authoritative as it might be. Trey himself argued that inclusion of citations in the lead would be unsightly, but I do agree.  I suggested a way of getting around that, but I received no reply.    Oh well.  The bottom line is that all this good supporting information appears only on the talk page, but how many people are likely to see it here?


 * I completely disagree with your comment "Arguments for its improvement shouldn't be based upon what is the current attitude of those who bother voting on new featured articles (unless process changes so that FAs get re-nominated periodically)". The aim should be to look at ways of improving all articles at all times, but featured articles should be seen as special cases - ie they need to remain ahead of the field in terms of quality and compliance to trends in style and content.  It should not be a formal process, but just part of normal editing.   There are numerous featured articles that have been made featured since this one, that are far superior, but I agree that the process itself is very fluid - easy or difficult depending on who happens to be voting at that time.   In some areas the standard has been raised, so why is it wrong to think that the standard can't also be raised for this article? I don't see anything wrong in taking ideas that have been discussed during the peer reviews and nominations of those articles and applying the same idea to this one.  There should not be restrictions on ways to improve an article.  What would you consider arguments should be based upon?  Rossrs 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the lead paragraph being supported by a section in the text. I didn't realise from my reading of this talk page that that was what you were arguing for on the article. As for the featured article criteria stuff, it's a moot point. Any improvement to an article is good, featured or otherwise. - Mark 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I think this whole discussion ended up being very overblown anyhow.  Rossrs 12:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Empire interview
McKellen's Wikipedia entry is mentioned (unfavourably by McKellen) in an interview with McKellen in May 2006's Empire. Rd232 talk 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * can you summarise what he said? Arniep 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote is:

"Empire: I looked you up on Wikipedia...

McKellan: I don't understand Wikipedia. I've looked myself up on it and it's thoroughly objectionable. It's just taken, as the basis of my career, an article that was written about five years ago, and why someone doesn't correct it.. is that how it's done?

Empire: Pretty much. If you want to change something, you can go on and correct it yourself.

McKellan: Oh... I suppose if you wanted to know someone's dates, or where they were born, it would be quite useful." Crazymaner2003


 * I can't quite work out what he's objecting to. 'Correct' implies that there's something actually incorrect at the moment; 'five years ago' implies that it's out of date, though as far as I know he hasn't done anything spectacular in the last five years. At least we may have his dates right. :) HenryFlower 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from that he's not too pleased with the depth. I mean, to some extent I think it's inherent in reading an article about yourself.  It must seem odd and anecdotal to him... maybe there are more discrete problems with it.  If you look at Britannica's 3 paragraph article on him it doesn't mention LOTR until the very end of the last paragraph and opens with his "versatility" and work for the Royal Shakespeare Company.  It also states "his immense talent for acting was unquestionable" which seems to be somethng that we wouldn't permit here.  It also doesn't mention his personal life at all.  It would be interesting to know what he thinks of the Britannica article and if he had any direct criticisms. gren グレン 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Swearing/Have I got News For You
Added a note on McKellen on HIGNFY. What are the rules on swearing on Wikipedia? Can you do it if it's a direct quote (and funny)? Kayman1uk 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fine, wikipedia is not censored. Tim! 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Da Vinci Code" controversy
Testing the Hollywood maxim that there's no such thing as bad publicity, McKellen fanned the fires of controversy surrounding the much-hyped release of the film adaptation of the popular novel, The Da Vinci Code. During a May 17, 2006 interview on The Today Show with the cast and director Ron Howard, Matt Lauer posed a question to the group about how they would have felt if the film bore a prominent disclaimer that it is a work of fiction, as some religious groups wanted. (The Vatican has specifically called for a boycott of the film. ) McKellen responded that "I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying 'This is fiction.' I mean, walking on water?  It takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie." 

This is not merely "newsy". Witness the impact of John Lennon's similar comments decades earlier. Wikipedia is not merely a forum for unmingled praise of this man. (This comment was posted by 68.11.91.36)


 * Erm... Are you criticising the information or supporting it? Anyway, he's an openly gay, so probably doesn't feel like he has much to lose in the eyes of the kind of people who take the bible so literally that they think an obviously fictional film is blasphemy. I have no objection to including this information, although I don't have any idea what the word "newsy" means. Kayman1uk 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Professor
I noticed there was no mention in the article about him being a professor at Oxford. Although I don't know much about this, I know he mentioned it when he was on Real Time with Bill Maher. ImmortalDragon 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He was a visiting professor (for a year), which means he came and gave a few lectures. HenryFlower 08:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass with few citations needed
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: O. K. (minor adjustments are needed though)
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Fail

Additional comments :
 * There are statements in the paragraph starting with, In 1978 he met his second partner, Sean Mathias..., that aren't cited and that should be, especially because they are citations and we don't want to infringe copyright.
 * There are weasel words in the article that I think should be reviewed or changed. For example, there are words like famous or was best known for which pertain to fame and should be reduced to the minimum for it is not a matter to wikipedia if this guy is great, it it however a matter to wikipedia to bring the truth in there and no point of vue even if all the media agrees.
 * Despite his role in this ground-breaking play, is another example of weasel words not associated with sources.
 * a major global star is redundant for one and unnecessary, just saying he became a star is enough to bring him into stardom. There is no further breaking-down of star (passable, good, excellent, major ;) It might be better to add a citation if you guys want to show how great a star he is, all else sounds POV.

Lincher 00:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Awards & Selected stage and screen credits sections should be axed. Not everything he did was an achievement and not everything is notable.
 * Image:GandalfPoster.jpg, Image:Magnetox3.jpg and Image:Section28.jpg don't state their fair use rationale.

I went back and removed some of the weasel words, although I am still unsure because to be fair, McKellen is quite popular. Also, I am unfamiliar with fair use rationale: where do I write such a thing and what do I write? Wiki-newbie 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to all these pages for the rationale : Fair Use policy,

Fair Use rationale & Fair use tagging. An example of it is creating a section that looks like this :

==Fair use rationale for article ...== 1. The image depicts the subject that is mentioned in the article it is present on 2. The image is low-res so it doesn't impinge with the image publishers' use of the image. etc. Lincher 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did such for the Gandalf poster and Section 28, and removed Magneto. Wiki-newbie 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice re-work of the article, I still have additional comments :
 * This paragraph In 1978 he met his second partner, Sean Mathias, at the Edinburgh Festival. According to Mathias, the ten-year love affair was tempestuous, with conflicts over McKellen's success in acting versus Mathias' somewhat less-successful career. Mathias said that "in those days, the world was far more homophobic, and me being the young, pretty boy &mdash; people wouldn't take me seriously as an actor, being Ian's boyfriend." Mathias was 22 when they met; McKellen 39. However, Mathias also says McKellen "did nothing but help me" in his career. was removed, why, shouldn't it have been shortened and put back in there.
 * Two paragraphs start with More recently, and shouldn't for there is no time in encyclopedic articles.

Just pipe up the text with some of these modifications and it will be there, the GA is close. Lincher 18:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, just want to say though Awards should be kept. Wiki-newbie 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GA awarded
Even though there are still long lists that could be cut down and the subject could be expanded, as it stands, the article meets the requirements of GA status and receives such promotion. Good luck with the continuation. Lincher 01:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
''This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Ian McKellen, you will be blocked from editing. Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)''

Billy227 i was at the RSC last night, the 24th of May, watching the evening performance of Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. Act 3 Scene 4, i think you will find, involves Lear in his madness removing his trousers and underwear. Perhaps you are not familiar with the text. Ian McKellen in the title role had the scene no differently, and he too displayed to an audience of 400-500, i am not sure how many the Courtyard Theatre seats, his penis - which is very big. This is a fact and rightly of place in the 'miscellaneous' section of the page concerning said actor. Vandalism it is not, merely information. So, if you don't mind, i may put it back seeing as wikipedia defines vandalism 'any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.' I do not think the addition of this fact is in any way threatening or compromising the integrity of wikipedia. It is very good of you to be concerned with wikipedia vandalism, and it is appreciated where necessary. In this instance, however, i think you are mistaken. Mr.Jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.250.209 (talk • contribs).


 * WP:OR still applies and thats why it cannot be added unless you find an article about it. Gdo01 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Da Vinci Code best known?
Why is his role in Da Vinci Code cited as one of his "best known" performances? The movie was only released this year. I understand citing X-men 3, because he's known for being in the X-men series, but a movie so recently released doesn't seem to me to be worthy of such an inclusion in the introductory paragraph. Xt828

Actually, he is best known for his years in the theatre: not for his film work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.189.20 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Derek Jacobi
This quote in the personal section "He won a scholarship to St. Catharine's College, University of Cambridge, when he was 18, where he developed an attraction to Derek Jacobi." is very ambiguous. What does it mean? They became friends? They had a relationship? There is no other mention of Jacobi in the article so it appears about meaningless to me. Can it be removed? tonyr68uk 10:31, 08 January 2007 (GMT)

Actually, I saw him on the Actor's Studio where he did mention something about having a crush on Derek Jacobi. I can't remember the exact quote. I don't think that he had a relationship, he was suggesting to the moderator that he might have liked one.71.217.61.14 08:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis

The fact is that he IS gay
Why does this information keep getting removed from the introduction? Ian McKellen is openly gay so why is this irrelevant information, info that's not needed or whatever else it is dubbed. This is an encyclopedia and is meant to give facts - it's no good leaving facts out about a person is it?  Lra drama 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article states in several places that he's gay...... -- Jelly Soup 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no good in the introduction saying he's a campaigner for LGBT rights without saying the intention behind this though.  Lra drama 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the point behind his intention is expanded upon later in the article, which it is. -- Jelly Soup 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that if he was "just gay" then it's not really relevant to a person's biography (I hope we're not still living in a world where it's a defining aspect of someone's character) but clearly his campaigning for gay rights is a major part of what he does throughout the year, therefore it should be included and emphasised in the same way that you would point out if another celebrity was raising awareness about landmines. 86.137.253.6 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the lead section does in fact now state that he's gay:
 * In 1988 McKellen came out as gay and became a founding member of Stonewall, one of the United Kingdom's most influential LGBT rights groups, of which he remains a prominent spokesman.


 * Personally I think that gives this factor of McKellen's life appropriate prominence. He is known to the public first as an actor and second as an "out" gay man who has played a leading role in campaigns for LGBT rights. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Companion of Honour
Made a CH for "Services to Drama and to Equality" in the 2008 New Year's Honours - see here. I guess he's not officially CH until 1st Jan, though. 86.132.142.246 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir Ian?
It is said


 * Knights Grand Cross and Knights Commander prefix "Sir",

In Order of the British Empire. Could we call Sir *** for CBE holder?--RedDragon 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says "He was made a CBE in 1979 and knighted in 1990 for his outstanding work and contributions to the theatre." i.e. his knighthood is separate from his CBE. ColinFine 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He was awarded a KBE (Knight Commander) in 1990, therefore is a knight and can use the title "Sir". Otherwise he wouldn't be "Sir Ian"


 * If he was upgraded (for want of a better word) to a KBE shouldn't the post nominal letters be KBE, even though he was a CBE first?Macphisto12 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As has now been clarified in teh article, he was made a Knight Bachelor, rather than being "upgraded" to a KBE. David Underdown (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Relationships
It is stated that he is gay, however there is no information on his relationships with men after 88', and women (and men) prior. Somebody please fill in the details. And who is his current partner???!! Would have thought it to be important information, fill in the gaps please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.89.57 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing information
A few sections that are missing are:


 * Religious views
 * Relationships
 * Educational Attainment

If these were brought forward then I'm sure it would be promoted to FA, LOTRrules (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

pescatarian
"Twenty years ago, McKellen lost his appetite for meat except for fish and became a pescetarian." This is an encyclopaedia article, not a news article. There should be a date for when he became a pescatarian, instead of just saying "twenty years ago." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tad Lincoln (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jafeluv (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote atributed to McKellen:

""I'm Sir Ian McKellen, but you can call me Dumbledore." (This nickname, originally given to him by Stephen Fry, had been circulating within the gay community since McKellen's role in the Harry Potter films was conferred.)[5]"

Huh? Was he in the HP movies? This sounds like a botched reference to possible rumors about the character Dumbledore being gay, recently confirmed (or seized upon) by J. K. Rowling.

I don't know enough to correct this, but there must be someone out there who does and can.

Samhook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.233.38 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed. That seems to have been a remnant of a vandal who kept inserting that he played Dumbledore. No clue why that was ever thought. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Delisting
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 14, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bible issue
I'm not really sure if anyone is actually reading my issues with how this sentence is being presented, but at present, I view it as a WP:BLP issue. Originally, "In November 2009, McKellen admitted that he tears out pages of the bible that condemn homosexuality" was added, referenced here. The problem there was that first of all, the context of the statement was not given, the date was mistated, in general, the word "Bible" is capitalized, the statement was only being repeated in the USA Today source, which ignored the majority of the original Q&A from where this was taken. I removed it as lacking pertinent details and by ignoring the basic issues I mentioned, was taking one statement out of context without explaining where it came from or why it was said. In fact, it was from a Q&A conducted by Details magazine, in October, not November and was a very small portion of the overall 2 page article on McKellen's responses. In any case, that was reverted, citing "It is not dubious. He stated this during an interview with Details", which is twice as much information as was included in the Wikipedia article. However, what was returned was "In November 2009, McKellen stated that he tears out pages of the bible that condemn homosexuality", again with the USA Today citation and including the actual source from where it was taken, here. The problem remains. It was not in November, it omitted everything else in the 2 page article, and did not mention the context. It was reverted by a different person, who ignores my issues, states "Context is not mistated" and returns "McKellen also stated that he tears out pages of the bible that condemn homosexuality." This time, the date of the interview is totally removed, still no mention of the context wherein the statement was made, keeps the USA Today citation, which is not reflective of the entire article and still does not clarify what the article was saying. In fact, the article covered his feelings on aging, on not coming out until he was 49, his feelings about being knighted and gay, about marriage, about the likelihood of being remembered only as Gandalf even after a distinguished Shakespearean career, Gods and Monsters, and how seduction is portrayed now vs. a closeted life. McKellen, amidst many other things, answers a question that was posed, about tearing out one page, by saying " I do, absolutely. I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible. And I'm not really the first: I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages—Leviticus 18:22". That's decidely different than what is being presented in this article, which is not giving the entirety of the comment, the context under which it was asked, or even accurately reporting what he did say. As it is presented, it implies that he is a wanton vandal, does not explain that he actually removes one page with one verse and why. I don't quite know the motivation for ignoring the preponderance of the interview to focus on one thing or why no one thinks it is relevant to explain the quote, but that is not being done. I am not inclined to clean up that mess because I do not agree in any way with what is being stated, how it is being presented nor even that first it was misdated, then all dating removed. It leaves one with the impression that perhaps the intent is to present McKellen in a bad light instead of endeavoring to present the content correctly and in context. If that can't be done, then I would suggest that it stop being returned. It is presently a WP:BLP nightmare as it was added and readded and that will be pursued if the content cannot be presented in a balanced fashion covering the entire interview and content of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support removal in the form it was in, totally unexplained, it has not been widely reported and is not very notable, to explain it in context the comment would need expansion to a point were it would have undue weight in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto, if there is an article on modern Bible defacement perhaps it can go there. -- Banj e  b oi   11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise. The first source presents no context and the second demonstrates that it was one of a series of unrelated questions.  The way it was written in the article here synthesises what is actually contained in the source material and skews it to (I assume) convey a certain attitude.    Bearing in mind that it reads as a almost a throw away line, and also bearing in mind that McKellen is a very articulate man who is very confident about stating his views on a range of subjects, it is noteworthy just because he said it?  I don't think so.   He has said a lot of things, and we could easily fill the article with his comments against homophobia, but this seems like a very trivial thing to include as an example of his activism.  Rossrs (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

gay, why mention that!
do we need to know that he is gay, does that have anything to do with his acting ability or anything to do with why he became a celebrity? no it doesnt! those parts about him being gay should be removed.66.209.81.2 (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because he is a noted activist foe gay rights. Sara&#39;s Song (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After hearing him speak at a public interview after one of his films I think the man himself would likely appreciate it being mentioned that he is gay and the discussion of his activism. He has been openly gay for a long time and is noted for his gay rights campaigning. I believe his knighthood has more to do with his activism than his acting but don't quote me on that.
 * Of course he is know first and foremost for his acting, and has played a variety of roles and the article should focus his work but if there are any issues with the tone and structure of the article please do discuss. If you feel the article gives undue weight to his sexuality then by all means say so. Arguably that is what you are already saying so I would suggest you request any sections about his sexuality be well referenced with quality citations to strongly reinforce that those points are widely reported and of high notability.
 * It is just my personal opinion but it would seem like the article could be expanded to say more about the critical response to his acting in film and theatre and perhaps, some of the gay rights campaigning sections tightened up a bit. (I'm not in any hurry to make these edits myself but I might get around to it eventually.) -- Horkana (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At least possibly relevant because of the Section 28 ('Promotion of homosexuality') thing. He has been named (and shown) as a campainer on such issues. Dannman (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
how can wikipedia put this information at the top of the DISCUSSION page and still call it a discussion page!? does someone at wikipedia need to be redirected to the DEFINITION of "DISCUSSION"? if its not for DISCUSSION then rename the page to whatever its intended to be for. Meanwhile I like having a place for DISCUSSION and there should always be one! 66.209.81.2 (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This simply means that discussion should be about the Wikipedia article Ian McKellen and how to improve it, and not for general chatting about McKellen. It's a standard message; it's more of an issue on some pages than others. Rd232 talk 16:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very good at writing articles. However I think his appearance in Adelaide's latest gay marriage rally should be mentioned somewhere. Could someone include it?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1052892/actor-mckellen-backs-aussie-gay-marriage

javascript:insertTags('60.242.66.167 (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)',,)

"Years Active"
I've added "1961" for the first professional engagement but this is to disallow his Marlowe Society appearances, which were earlier. Views?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This section has always had problems since a)it reads years active and most actors are active in the profession long before their first paid "professional" performance b)it is always unreferenced and c)it is usually the first film or TV performance as listed on IMDb. Your choice makes as much sense as any other. Thanks for making clear the reasoning behind your selection. MarnetteD | Talk 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind; using the first, unpaid performance instead.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For a BLP this is a bit touchy to get right, but as some sort of rule of thumb one might make use of the various discussions (in the MOS I believe, but I couldn't find it just now) regarding giving "birth" and "death" dates for persons or organizations for which these are not actually known (think ancient poets and such). The suggestion there is to use "years active", and suggests for a poet one should give the best approximation of the period when the poet produced poetry; for an actor ditto for acting in plays; and so forth. With that for context it might be easier to choose also for Sir Ian: if we have any source to say he was active as an actor in a given year, then the years active parameter should probably include it, whether he got paid in WGA-standard salary or in ice cream from his mum. --Xover (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tusker
Should "Tusker" be mentioned under filmography? I cannot find any information about it through Google that isn't a mirror of this page from some point in the past. That's not necessarily a valid reason for taking it out, but it is a warning sign. At first I suspected it has been a recent vandalism but here are the results of my investigation into it:

It was added to the filmography section in |this revision back in June of 2008. The article Tusker (film) has been deleted for lack of notability. Perhaps this should not be removed as well, but it definitely needs some sort of citation, as from my perusal of the web I can't even confirm that the film really exists or was in production or whatever, much less that McKellen was associated with it in some way. Primalmoon (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

removed vegetarian cateory
given he eats fish and occasionally meat this category is not accurateRafikiSykes (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

David Copperfield link
Re "except you updated it from a blue link to a red one - better to go to some related info until an article is created for this version we could also rmv link altogether if others think that best)": except that there is no additional information on the novel article (it only says "a 1966 version with Ian McKellen as David", which is what we've already said here). WP:REDLINK specifies "do create red links to ... topics which should obviously have articles", so we shouldn't leave it unlinked. And this redlink is used elsewhere. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I have been around long enough to know all about redlinks and I often restore them if I think that a future article is likely to be created. The guideline also states "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created" Other than IMDb - which cannot be used as a ref - what info about the production is ever going to be available? Another benefit to the blue one is that it does get a reader to the page for DC and they can read all sorts of info about the book and other adaptations. So in my analysis redlinks are there to help start other articles. On the other hand red links that are going to be permanent do nothing for the article or for the encyclopedia. If you want to start an article for the 66 TV serial please do so with thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly. I also don't want to send readers from one article that has the entirety of information available on Wikipedia about the movie to another article, incorrectly implying that it will give them additional information. But I'll go stub it out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that the item about unlinking it completely was to avoid edit warring. Also these posts are just two editors opinions and other input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

inclusion of Coriolanus: an idea map
To the editor who arbitrarily deleted the Coriolanus idea map, I disagree. I think the map is absolutely relevant to Ian Mckellen's wiki. Why? It goes to the influence of his work and his career. Of many references to Mckellen, off the rop of my head, I recall the map refers to the following:

1. Ian Mckellen as Tullus Aufidius in Coriolanus 2. Ian Mckellen as Coriolanus in Coriolanus 3. Ian Mckellen's adaptation of Richard III to film, both his portrayal and his screenwriting work 4. Several of Ian Mckellen's performances in title roles in Shakespearean plays

What part of the above isn't relevant to Ian Mckellen's career as an artist?

In one of the markers, there's a link to his own website where he writes about how it was when he was playing Coriolanus that he first felt his mortality as an actor. Isn't this relevant to Ian Mckellen?

And then, there's the interview where Ralph Fiennes recalls seeing Ian Mckellen as Coriolanus on stage in London and how the memory of that performance influenced his work on his film in 2011.

This map shows Mckellen's wide ranging and far reaching influence as an artist.

Are you trying to limit the influence of Mckellen's work and career? Won't you reconsider your edit? --AshokaPurr 02:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokapurr (talk • contribs)


 * I did not arbitrarily remove it. Per item 13 here EL "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". The site you are linking is directly related to the film and is good for that article. It is indirectly related to the actors in it and does not belong in their articles. We avoid collections of links related to one film or play per WP:LINKFARM as the EL section would soon overflow with items about specific performances. As to your other assertion I am not limiting anything as all of the link is available to people in the article for the film. If you wish to seek further input I suggest that you ask for input here Wikipedia talk:External links or here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. MarnetteD | Talk 02:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I have to ask if you have any connection to Molly Amoli K. Shinhat. If so I may have to revise my thoughts about having this link on the films page. Most of the page is very difficult to read and it is all seems to be a research project rather than a scholarly treatise about the play/films/actors. MarnetteD | Talk 03:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of response does not bode well. I can only say again that you can present your case at Wikipedia talk:External links to get wider input. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Curious why you think my lack of response does not "bode well". Does this mean I should look forward to a free flight to Syria? Is someone going to show up at my front door with scissors?

To avoid repeating what I've said elsewhere, here's some thoughts addressed to Bbb23 . Anyone - Moonraker and the rest of the gang - interested in finding out why I added the map to the pages I linked it to - no it wasn't a bot and it wasn't arbitrary - I'll post that to MarnetteD's talk page. Since when was wikipedia a "scholarly project"? Yes, attributions matter - the map's full of them, but apparently the NY Times, BBC News, published books, actor's websites, etc. are not enough for the Arbiters of Truth, like Moonraker et al. Where's Petronius when I need him? Congratulations all of you - courtesy of you, this map is no longer anywhere on wikipedia. How are the brass knuckles feeling today? Ready to bully the next woman who tries anything innovative into submission? --AshokaPurr 21:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokapurr (talk • contribs)


 * Your continued violation of WP:CIVIL is noted. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cold Comfort Farm (film)
I quoted the director in an edit summary, blaming the BBC rather than the BBFC for no cinema release, so I suppose I had better cite:. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Hobbit
I was told to not post the third part of the Hobbit in filmography, since filming hasn't begun. Wouldn't you agree that since a) McKellen has been confirmed, and b) the reason there is a third movie is the fact that the other two movies have shot too much footage, meaning footage for the third movie has been filmed, this means that part three should be in the filmography? --Punkminkis (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't put films in the filmography until a confirmed release date has been set. You are free to mention his role in the third film in the article itself as long as you can cite a WP:RS as a reference. MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

McKellen's Gandalf impersonates Tolkien

 * (''cross-posted at Talk: Gandalf and Talk: J. R. R. Tolkien)

At Gandalf we now say McKellen "based his accent on Tolkien.[citation needed]"

I doubt that accent is the right word. At best, its common meaning is too narrow. Probably impersonate is too strong outside the quoted context.

Anyway, this quotation is from today's interview with Peter Jackson published at Huffington Post (emphasis mine)."... [When] Ian came on board for the first time, we were having conversations about Gandalf and the voice and the mannerisms and everything that you talk about with an actor at the beginning. We listened to audio recordings of Tolkien reading excerpts from 'Lord of the Rings.' We watched some BBC interviews with him -- there's a few interviews with Tolkien -- and Ian based his performance on an impersonation of Tolkien. He's literally basing Gandalf on Tolkien. He sounds the same, he uses the speech patterns and his mannerisms are born out of the same roughness from the footage of Tolkien. So, Tolkien would recognize himself in Ian's performance."

Good luck with it. --P64 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Atheist?
Reference? 109.65.115.101 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tattoo mention?
The "nine" tattoo (for being one of the Fellowship) is mentioned on the other actors' pages, why not Ian's? 90.229.34.175 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Information regarding quotation on Derek Jacobi has been removed
The passage in question now reads thusly:

He won a scholarship to St Catharine's College, Cambridge, when he was 18 years old.[14] He has characterised it as "a passion that was undeclared and unrequited".[8]

Something's missing between those two sentences. A Google search confirms that he's talking about Jacobi, and I remember it being clearer in previous versions of this page. It would appear that personal agendas and/or vandalism may have removed it. 99.67.187.88 (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing post-nominal Kt
As is described in the Knight Bachelor page, placing a post nominal Kt is done only when placing "Sir" in front of the name is awkward.

Also worth noting is that Patrick Stewart and Christopher Lee, who are in a similar situation to Sir Ian—that of being members of lower orders of the British Empire, but not one which automatically assigns them a knighthood in addition to being a knight bachelor—do not have the Kt after their name.

Because of these reasons, I'm removing the Kt from the end of Sir Ian McKellen's name on this page. If anyone has disagreements, feel free to present your reasons. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't quite follow your language, but I agree with your decision. The simple story is that there is NO postnominal for a Knight Bachelor.  Nil.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded
Hello there. I'm AmericanLemming, and although I don't have the time to review this article for GA status, one suggestion that I would make is that you expand the lead. For the article to meet criterion 1b of the GA criteria, the article needs to have a lead that adequately summarizes the contents of the article. For instance, the lead says nothing about McKellen's personal life; it would be a good idea to have a paragraph in the lead on that topic. And considering the fact that he is gay and is notable for his activism in that area, that would also be worth mentioning. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Self-identified w/ atheism
He claims that he is reluctant to speak out on issues he cares most about, and lists atheism as one of them. While Wiki consensus is to classify atheism as not a religion, "none" also has subsets, in this case, atheism. Listing it in parenthesis conforms to consensus. It is sourced, self-identified, and properly categorized. The problem appears to be some POV editors that are systematically scrubbing this.

It doesn't really matter to me what his views on religion are, but I do object to the form of censorship being practiced. Unless religion sections are going to be removed from infoboxes throughout, it seems a reasonable effort should be made to incorporate non-religious views as well. Or perhaps replace "Religion" with "Non-religion: Atheist." Then consider the flip-side: every infobox for every person that now has a recognized religion would change to "Non-religion: Religious" without any subsets for type of religion. Both restrictions are equally absurd/POV. Red Harvest (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no censorship. Atheism is not now nor has it ever been a religion. You are completely free to mention it in the body of the article. As to changing the field that is being discussed here Template talk:Infobox person and you are free to post there as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect on several levels:
 * Some atheists disagree. You and I are free to believe otherwise, but they self-identify with it and list it as religion.  Note that the person in this article did that in the quote.
 * Even if it is not religion per some operating wiki definition/consensus, it would fit under "None (atheist)". In this case atheist is a subset of none.  I covered this in the George Will talk section earlier today.
 * Excluding it from the infobox altogether is a form of censorship. Period.  That is how it is presently being handled.Red Harvest (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox atheism
The current censorship with respect to atheism defies basic logic. In reading comments and the non-consensus, "consensus" discussion I came away with the impression that views of atheists on atheism are mixed. Some would list it as religion, some not. With regards to the infobox, I can respect actual consensus, but that clearly hasn't happened. I discussed in the article talk. If you care to make a cogent comment, rather than a simple revert, fire away. The solution offered is simple. Actually, looking at what Ian McKellen said he classifies it as religion...so in respecting that the "None" and parenthesis should be left out. However, certain Wikipedia editors are employing a Catch 22 strategy on this to exclude it altogether. I don't profess to understand their motivation in doing so.
 * Moved from my talk page

What's funny is that I don't really care about the subject of others' religion or lack thereof. I do however believe in consistent treatment of such matters--which is why I'm commenting. Why can relevant, self-identified, sourced information related to religion be in one individual's infobox, but not in another's all else being equal other than their view of religion? There is no doubt that identifying as atheist is relevant to religion, the difficulty is in defining how to classify it.

It comes down to either censorship or intentionally hiding information due to discomfort in developing a classification scheme. I propose developing a way to handle it, rather than try to bury it.Red Harvest (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you able to read. I told you that you are perfectly free to mention his atheism in the body of the article so there is no censorship. What IM classifies it as has nothing to do with what Wikipedia's guidelines for the infobox are. It is WP:BRD not WP:BRRD. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you able to read? Not allowing it in the infobox is indeed a form of censorship directed at a specific recognized group, which you and Guy Macon are zealously pursuing despite the protests of various editors.  You might not see it that way, but that is what it amounts to.  The logic being employed in your reverts is terminally flawed.  And that is what has gotten me fired up on a subject that I otherwise have zero interest in.  There isn't even actual consensus on whether or not it is religion--contrary to your insistence. We're not talking about "fringe" here. Red Harvest (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion not only seems pertinent, but is probably where this discussion should be in any case, as the concern seems to be not so much about McKellen himself but the proper usage of the template. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While the discussion is pertinent, it does not change the fact that the problems is on this page and with the POV of editors (on this page) who are claiming consensus where there is none, certainly not on this page and not on the template. That also hasn't stopped one of them from spamming many pages with horribly flawed arguments--following one of those is how I ended up here.  This appears to be a POV problem with editors trying to suppress sourced, relevant information so that it cannot be entered into infoboxes.  The question seems a simple one:  is self-defined, sourced, relevant atheism something that should be noted in a "Religion" infobox?  Or should it be excluded on a technicality?  A secondary argument is whether or not it qualifies as religion in its own right for the infobox...and even that is up for debate on various grounds, for one it isn't always true.  But instead of good faith attempts to address the first overall problem while recognizing the second, we have editors turning the problems around to ignore the first using circular logic to claim that atheism can't be considered religion, and therefore it can't be entered into the box in any fashion--even as a subset of "none" which accepts their premise about whether or not it qualifies as a religion.  When presented with such an option to simultaneously address both issues, they summarily reject it.  That suggests a POV issue with the editors, rather than an actual problem with the use of the template.


 * I'll also note that this section was moved without consent from one of the problem editor's talk pages, so it is out of context/repetetive here. Seems to be par for the course for the heavy handedness of this.  Not impressed. Red Harvest (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have concerns with the proper usage of a template, then it seems to me that the most proper place to discuss them is at the Talk page for that template. I've already linked you to an existing discussion on the subject that's less than a week old. I would strongly recommend that you discuss the matter there, as this issue has little direct relevance to this particular article. I'm sure your opinions would be welcome at the linked discussion. DonIago (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Image
I removed the image of his premiere at the Hobbit because it was non-free. There are countless free images of McKellen that are usable and if the photo needs to be replaced, that's fine but it has to be with free media. Tutelary (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture?
You've gotta be kidding me that's the only Gandalf picture we can get!

Yes it is ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.253.238 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Marriage celebrant
Here he's marrying Sir Patrick Stewart (to a woman, not to himself), and refers to an earlier same-sex-marriage at which he also officiated.

How could he "not be sure about the legal basis" on which he was officiating at these ceremonies? Is he a registered marriage celebrant or not, and if not, how can he possibly officiate? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kighthood confusion
Just to clarify a recent change and reversion. An anonymous editor removed the honorific Sir with the comment:


 * Removed incorrect honorific "Sir", not entitled to it as Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)

MarnetteD then reverted this change and another, unfortunately without an explanation as far as the Sir/CBE issue. The anonymous editor is quite correct in stating that a CBE does not confer a knighthood. However McKellen was actually made a CBE back in 1979, and separately knighted in 1991. For whatever reason, the knighthood conferred was as a Knight Bachelor rather than a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE), so he is validly both a CBE and a knight, but he is not a KBE. You couldn't make some of this stuff up, could you. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed explanation C. Please update things as you see fit. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire
This section was added as a result of MarnetteD multiply reverting a change, by an anonymous editor, of the subject's KBE to CBE, with comment take it to the talk page - I AGF those that put it this way in the first place. To this, the anonymous editor responded:


 * The header incorrectly lists him as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire when he is actually simply a Commander of the Order of the British Empire. The "Sir" appellation is derived from him also being a Knight Bachelor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:A54B:4616:4AAC:814C (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case it is fairly clear that the anonymous editor is correct, and that the version that MarnetteD is reverting to is incorrect. For most of its life, at least the last 10 years up until 14 August, during which time there have been many editors, the article has said CBE. The change to KBE was made by another anonymous editor, with only three edits to their name, on that date. So if we are talking Assume Good Faith, surely that faith should be invested in the many rather than the one. In any case, the award of the CBE, knighthood and companion of honour are all mentioned two paragraphs further on, and are all well sourced. There is no mention anywhere in the article to him being also awarded a KBE. As it is impossible to source a negative, the onus must be on the editor adding the KBE to supply details of the award and source, and this hasn't been done. So the only rational way to proceed is to remove the claimed KBE and request anybody reinstating it to provide a source. I shall revert MarnetteD's reversion; please treat this a request for source before reinstatement. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up C. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ian McKellen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430075105/http://www.mckellen.com/cinema/richard/notes.htm to http://www.mckellen.com/cinema/richard/notes.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usmagazine.com/blog/2006/05/17/ian-mckellen-unable-to-suspend-disbelief-while-reading-the-bible/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/26/McKellan_Calls_Moscow_Mayor_a_Coward/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldpridepowerlist.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/7111/Ian%20Murray.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian McKellen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914105120/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2001_Dec_25/ai_83451265 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2001_Dec_25/ai_83451265
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050217093636/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/ian_mckellen_biog.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/ian_mckellen_biog.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian McKellen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119083833/http://www.boltonschool.com/senior-boys/old-boys/famous-old-boltonians to http://www.boltonschool.com/senior-boys/old-boys/famous-old-boltonians
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615072500/http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/marlowe/chronology.html to http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/marlowe/chronology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Tattoo
Regarding this paragraph:

"He has a tattoo of the Elvish number nine, written using ... John Rhys-Davies, whose character was also one of the original nine companions, arranged for his stunt double to get the tattoo instead."

The last sentence, regarding Rhys-Davies's tattoo, does not seem relevant. I understand that it's interesting and relevant to note that this was part of a cast-wide effort, but the specific reference to Rhys-Davies doesn't seem necessary in an article about McKellen. Perhaps just "Seven of the other actors of "The Fellowship" (Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Sean Bean, Dominic Monaghan and Viggo Mortensen) have the same tattoo."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleWalrus (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian McKellen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418093331/https://institutcitoyenducinema.wordpress.com/artiste-citoyen-du-monde/ to https://institutcitoyenducinema.wordpress.com/artiste-citoyen-du-monde/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong order
In the 'Mainstream Success' section, it says this:

In April and May 2005, he played the role of Mel Hutchwright in Granada Television's long running soap opera, Coronation Street. He is also known for his voicework, having narrated Richard Bell's Eighteen, as a grandfather who leaves his WWII memoirs on audiocassette for his teenage grandson. Later on, he fulfilled a life long dream with a role on the long running British television series Coronation Street.

His role in Coronation Street is mentioned twice. Shouldn't this be cleared up?

Wrong Brian Taylor
The link to Brian Taylor, who is listed as Ian McKellans first relationship in 1964, leads to a Brian Taylor who is an Austrialian Footballer, born in 1962. The link has been deleted.

Having 3 separate articles for his bio, filmography and awards
— Moved original text to Talk:Ian McKellen, roles and awards

Reorder Lead
The lead starts of as a list of his awards. Who is he? We get his is an actor. Next line. Continues with how many awards he wins and a little about him. Why not reorder this to list critical info about him. Say he won many awards and then LATER ON list how many? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.21 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * consider: He started his professional career in 1961 at the Belgrade Theatre as a member of their highly regarded repertory company. In 1965, McKellen made his first West End appearance. In 1969, he was invited to join the Prospect Theatre Company to play the lead parts in Shakespeare's Richard II and Marlowe's Edward II, and he firmly established himself as one of the country's foremost classical actors. In the 1970s, McKellen became a stalwart of the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre of Great Britain. apart from a lot of sounding like a fan wrote it. I think the Hollywood work is far more notable than this as this is how most of us know him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.21 (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Source of a quote unclear
The quote about the September 11th attacks seems to be without a source.

"When an interviewer remarked that he seemed quite calm in the aftermath of 11 September attacks, McKellen said: 'Well, darling, you forget—I slept under a steel plate until I was four years old.”[15]"

The attributed source interview does not contain anything about the attacks or the quote in question. From a quick glance around the web I couldn't find anything apart from websites using the exact same quote (mostly copied verbatim from the article, it seems). Any idea, where the quote actually comes from?


 * I found a published source, from "The Quotable Atheist" . It claims to be from an interview done for The Advocate. I would supposed it was an interview for the release of The Fellowship of the Ring, given it premiered a few months after 9/11. But I haven't been able to find the original source. Rosbela (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I found the original interview and fixed the citation in the article.Rosbela (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of North West England.svg