Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian McKellen/archive1

Ian McKellen
This is a superb example of a pithy contemporary biography. It hits the high points without lingering on inanities (length does not necessarily equal quality), and the quotes bring the subject to life. My only quibble&#8212;and it's a minor one&#8212;is the forced quality of the final paragraph of the lead. --TreyHarris 09:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of Sir Ian, but while it's interesting, this article needs a little work yet. Contractions need to be repaired (not "wasn't," but "was not"), the writing needs tweaking in some areas, and some information needs fleshing out (for example, why was his portrayal of King Edward controversial?). It's also a bit strange that halfway through the article the noun changes from 'homosexual' to 'gay' (and gay is the preferred word, according to Wikipedia's relevant manual of style). I think this could be a FA, but perhaps not quite yet. Exploding Boy 09:36, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * These objections have been dealt with except for "writing needs tweaking in some areas." Will you define that objection actionably, please? --TreyHarris 17:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Since the remaining objection is not actionable, I'm moving this back to articles without objection. --TreyHarris 17:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It really needs a picture of Sir McKellen as Gandalf. (Not a vote against.) Fredrik (talk) 15:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It now has one (thanks to Lupin). --TreyHarris 17:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. First, the lead's too short (honesty: This is my fault, I've moved a paragraph out of the lead section into the early life section, because it wasn't very lead-section-like. I do think we need a better lead section, though.) Secondly, a comment, and not technically an objection (because it won't be "actionable"), I get the impression that the article is a little short on information &mdash; TreyHarris commends the article for this ("without lingering on inanities"), and to an extent I agree, but I think it might be on the sparse side, fact-wise. I don't know much about McKellen (except Gandalf), but glancing through some Google biographies, I see details there that we don't include; if Wikipedia is to be a decent reference resource, I think we should try to be relatively complete (without going to extremes of detail and making it boring). The only "actionable" detail in this regard is a discussion of his role in Richard III, which is mentioned here and there in other online biographies, even "mini-biographies". &mdash; Matt 22:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the intro by a sentence and have added a paragraph on his American-release film roles, including Richard III. But honestly I think the great amount of detail lavished on Richard III in many of the bios online is slightly bizarre.  It was a good role, but I don't see any reason to "discuss" it, per se, beyond what I've done in the article. It wasn't anything earth-shattering for him&mdash;he'd done plenty of Shakespeare on stage and screen before. --TreyHarris 07:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. James F. (talk) 17:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Sir Ian' or 'McKellen'?

 * The article refers to Sir Ian McKellan as "McKellan," but should not references be instead to "Sir Ian," as is perhaps appropriate for knights? -- Emsworth 18:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think "McKellen" is correct. Looking within Wikipedia, I've been unable to find a biography of a knighted person that consistently refers to "Sir" or "Dame", instead preferring last name. Most news articles in a Google News search of "Ian McKellen" (including most non-British ones, and virtually all non-Commonwealth ones) refer to him only as "McKellen".  Of the remaining, most used "Sir Ian" once or twice, and then switched to "McKellen".--TreyHarris 09:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It's usual British practice to refer to knights as "Sir Firstname" after the first reference (on the BBC News website, for instance, he's always "Sir Ian McKellen" then "Sir Ian"). It's only natural that people in countries without knighthoods don't know how to use them in referring to people. That doesn't mean their practices are more correct than those within countries with knighthoods. Proteus (Talk) 10:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * According to the Manual of Style, we go with British usage on this--I'll change it. Meelar 16:01, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the Manual of Style about references to knighted individuals, I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're saying that "standard British usage is Sir Ian, therefore since this article is about a British subject the Manual of Style says we should use British usage," you're making an assumption?that 'Sir Ian' is a standard British usage.  Take a look at this Telegraph article, for instance?where the headline contains 'Sir Ian', but none of the editorial writing does.
 * Or better yet, just look at this?the Google News listing of all news articles from UK sources. For this purpose, we should be looking only at editorial usage, not usage in quotations. At the moment I write this, there are 25 articles listed.  Of those (referring only to second and following references in editorial content rather than quotations):
 * 1 uses Sir Ian exclusively:
 * 7 use McKellen exclusively:
 * 10 don't refer to Ian McKellen by name a second time:
 * 3 don't refer to Ian McKellen as 'Sir' even the first time:   (though the last refers to him in 1987, when he wasn't knighted yet)
 * 4 require a paid subscription, which I didn't pay:
 * My point is, I'm not claiming that American usage should win the day?I'm saying that British usage isn't consistent here. The assumption that we need to change "McKellen" to "Sir Ian" en masse needs to be reconsidered, I think.  Don't be so quick to see something "broken" that needs "fixing." --TreyHarris 03:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you're lucky Wikipedia crashed before I could get to it ;) Meelar 05:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that "It's usual British practice to refer to knights as "Sir Firstname" after the first reference". It looks very cheesy to me. Please leave it! Markalexander100 06:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Umm, whut? Whether or not you think it flows neatly, the correct semi-informal salutation is "Sir Ian", not "McKellan", nor "Ian", nor "Mr. Beardie", yes? And we at Wikipedia strive to be correct in all things, now don't we? ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 09:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Where do you get that it's "correct"?  See my statistics above? if you're saying that "Sir Ian" rather than "McKellen" is "correct", you need to explain why the British press is "incorrect", seven to one. --TreyHarris 15:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Correct form (in the UK at least) is not determined by popularity, and the British press are absolutely incapable of getting it right most of the time. (The most respectable paper, The Times, consistently refers to Knights as "Sir Firstname" in its articles.) If you want evidence, I suggest you look at Debrett's Correct Form rather than a survey of Google News. Proteus (Talk) 16:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Proteus on the British press. I'm sure that a survey would show that many use absurd styles such as "Prince Charles" or "Baroness Helena Kennedy." -- Emsworth 20:35, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Debrett's Correct Form" has something of an interest in perpetuating cheesy class distinctions.  The idea that the Times must be right because Proteus considers it respectable is... interesting. Markalexander100 00:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * For the second time in the discussion, you call the honours system 'cheesy' with nothing other than your assertion that it's either a bad thing for us to use it or that it not doing so would be a good thing. Wikipedia isn't the place to push a republican POV, really; the Crown's decisions as to protocol are, in a way, POV, yes, but they are 'higher', more neutral, POV than others. It's a bit like the SI's definition of the metre being a 'higher' POV that the US government's (were they to disagree). I fully agree with Proteus, Emsworth, FWIW.
 * 01:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * My point was just that in the absence of any authority, there's no reason not to use the most common British usage.  The idea that the Crown's POV on questions of nobility is NPOV because you like it is POV. ;-) What any of this has to do with this being a featured article I don't know. :-( Is anyone actually worried enough about this to object to the article being featured in its current state?  If not, we can talk about something less trivial. Markalexander100 03:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Firstly, what newspapers do, or formal usage, is not necessarily what wikipedia should do. Sir Robert Peel, for instance, is always referred to as "Peel". His ministry is always "Peel's ministry", and never "Sir Robert's ministry". I'd say this is true for just about every knight or baronet who's ever been in government. If this is true for 19th century figures, then it seems silly to be more formal for a contemporary actor like Ian McKellen. On the other hand, I'd note that the formal styles and titles of nobility are not "the Crown's POV". Noble titles and so forth are regulated by law. It's not just that the crown says one thing, and people say another. There are formal rules about it. But I don't think that's a reason to use "Sir Ian" in an encyclopedia article. See Columbia's articles on Peel, Walpole, Campbell-Bannerman. I've never seen a historical write up that refers to these people as "Sir Robert," "Sir Robert," and "Sir Henry." john '''k 04:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * 1911 Britannica: Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The articles refer to "Sir Robert" and "Sir Henry" for the time the individual in question held the baronetcy or knighthood. -- Emsworth 10:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * But 1911 also refers to everyone as "Mr. Lastname." I think this reinforces my point that "Sir Firstname" is the equivalent not of "Lastname" but of "Mr. Lastname", which Wikipedia does not use. john k 21:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Consider Stephen Grover Cleveland -- Emsworth 22:02, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm...so perhaps the use of "Mr." is confined to Brits... At any rate, I don't see why we should follow the style guidelines of an encyclopedia from 1911. john k 02:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me add that "Sir Ian" is equivalent to "Mr. McKellan" (if he were not a knight), and not to use of the last name only, which is used for both knights and non-knights. If we were the New York Times, I'd be all for "Sir Ian", but we are not. john '''k 04:09, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Noble titles and so forth are regulated by law. Are you saying that there's a law on the British statute book that says how a knight must be referred to?  If so, I would find that surprising.  If not, I don't see the relevance. Markalexander100 05:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * One must point out that British law is not composed just of statutes. One must also note common law, the Royal prerogative, custom and tradition. Now, it has been suggested that referring to knights as "Sir X" is POV. This assertion is completely without basis: the individual in question is a knight, insofarasmuch as the law is concerned, and in legal documents would be referred to as "Sir X." -- Emsworth 21:59, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * in legal documents would be referred to as "Sir X." I very much doubt that any legal document would be so imprecise.  It's also completely irrelevant: an encyclopedia is not a legal document, legal terminology is almost by definition not the usual terminology, etc. etc.  So until we end up drunk in a pub together, when we might want to continue this fascinating discussion, Is anyone actually worried enough about this to object to the article being featured in its current state?  If not, we can talk about something less trivial.  Markalexander100 01:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Then what, pray, would you suggest for a legal document, if Sir X is insufficient? -- Emsworth 10:24, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * My answer is both obvious and correct, but it's not relevant to this discussion, so I'll tell you in the pub. Markalexander100 01:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Noble titles are certainly regulated by law. The Duke of Westminster is the Duke of Westminster legally - it is not an affectation which can be disputed as "the Royal POV." I believe that much of the rest of it is also regulated by law - that sons of Dukes and Marquesses can preface their names with "Lord," that daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls with "Lady," and so forth. Certainly these people get passports, and other official documents, under such names. Some of it is not, of course, a matter regulated by law, but it is no more POV to say that there is a correct and an incorrect way of referring to people than it is to insist on correct spelling, or something like that. Just because the media is too lazy to get it right doesn't meant that there isn't a correct way to refer to people. But, at any rate, I don't think this applies to the question at hand. You would not refer to Ian McKellen as "Mr. McKellen." That would be incorrect - if you wished to do that, you should call him "Sir Ian" instead. But calling him "McKellen" is perfectly correct, and is just like calling somebody who is not a knight (or baronet) by their last name, which is done all the time. john k 06:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)