# Talk:Ewan McGregor

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ewan McGregor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Looks pretty good, however there are some dates like "On 22 July 1995, " and "born 7 November 2001" that are unlinked. All dates in the article either need to be linked or unlinked. Cheers.

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay passing Gary King (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that it lists McGregor as appearing in the soon to be shot SW live action TV series... is this confirmed? I have read that he has "expressed interest," but that is a far cry from being cast. If it has not been confirmed, my feeling is that it should be removed until a source can be found. 99.230.245.128 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I started this to avoid an undoing fight... the introduction is meant to summarize his major accomplishments as a person as well as what he is best known for. This does not include minor aspects of his personal life. If you will look at any other biographical articles you will see this. TheXenocide (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarize the entire article, whether it is personal life, or professional. However that depends on the extent to which aspects of each are covered in the article. In this case, the alcoholism and depression are mentioned very briefly, each to its own sentence, and I'm not convinced either are covered broadly enough to warrant what amounts to a "by the way" mention in the lead. Were he a leading spokesman for battling depression or alcoholism, then it would be appropriate for the lead. So... I agree, and I disagree. I did remove the statement from the lead again, based on this reasoning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, that sounds good. That's basically what I was trying to say, I just couldn't find the right words. TheXenocide (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)..

Hi there,
I was told by "CactusWriter" to post my thoughts here. My face was recently in the main picture on Ewan's wikipedia posting.  It was added this past weekend (taken at the 2009 Toronto Film Festival) and changed today when CactusWriter edited the picture. Although I was never asked permission for my face to be used in the original, I do know the photographer and I was very happy that it was there. I really do not think that the original picture at all takes away from Mr. McGregor's centrality in the picture, and my presence in the picture is so minimal that I was simply flattered to see myself appear. Is there any way the original could be placed back? I think Ewan would be happy to share a little of the spotlight with his adoring fans.  As the "blurred person" I am giving you my permission. :)
Thank you,
Debra
99.232.9.13 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It was me (PrimeHunter) and not CactusWriter who said you could post here when I replied to your post at Wikipedia:Help desk#My picture with Ewan McGregor (permanent link). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I know that it must be flattering to have yourself included in the main photo and I can commiserate with you, but basically, the main photo is only used as a means of visual identification of the main article subject and in general, we don't include photos with other people. There are personality rights involved as well, and although you aren't identified by name, your face was included. We really can't bend the precedent to include a fan in this image and not allow fans in other images. Wildhartlivie (talk)
You know, I say that the person should be kept in the pictures, but it should say something like "On the right is a fan of McGregor". Comments on this? Endofskull (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I am in agreement, being the person who was originally in the picture with McGregor!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.9.13 (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 

Is anyone here opposed to adding information about Ewan's scottish ancestry and his devotion to the scottish culture?  If I remember correctly , he had some kind of a feud with connery regarding the  scottish culture.  I would like to mention some specifics about his scottish upbringing.
For example 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery#Early_life
12.41.255.10 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Biker Biker: There is no legal definition of 'Scottishness', to describe someone as being Scottish in a Wikipedia article is misleading, not even akin to describing someone as a 'Californian', for example, as US state citizenship is defined. The best American Analogue would be to describe someone as a 'West Coaster' or 'a Southerner' - interesting detail to flesh out an article for sure, but hardly an appropriate opener. The best that can be said regarding one's 'Scottishness' is that they were born in or currently reside in Scotland. I have edited the article as such, please, instead of simply throwing an essay at me, actually consider the facts. Someone born (with a few exceptions) in Great Britain since 1707 is British, it is my understanding that Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral, non-political, source of information. Labelling a living British subject as 'Scottish' to my mind risks pandering to nationalist sentiment in the regions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.139.136 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 
The foregoing post is nonsense. Scotland is one of the four countries comprising the United Kingdom, and one of the UK's two kingdoms. To describe someone as Scottish is therefore germane. The British Government recognises Scottish sovereignty and Scotland has its own government, policies and legislature. People born in Scotland, or of Scottish descent, are classified by the UK Government and ONS as "Scottish". That should be good enough for Wikipedia.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.87.187 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 

Like I say on your talk page, read Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom - especially "do not enforce unity" and "do not edit war", recognise he has been listed as Scottish for a long time and leave it be. Or, let's wait to see what other people have to say and see if there is some consensus to change the entry. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, I read the guide and found a number of glaring inaccuracies most worryingly a claim that Scotland and Wales voted for their own parliament/assembly and that a "referendum for complete independence is currently scheduled for 2010". The tone of the article is political and although I fully understand the need to avoid edit wars it does also say to 'be bold' with a link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold I doubt an inaccuracy of any other kind would be allowed to remain simply because it had been there a long time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.139.136 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 

There is no problem with being both Scottish and British. Scottish reflects that Ewan was born and brought up in Scotland which is part of Britain, and forms the northern part of the British Isles. Ewan will hold a British Passport. He is not English, Welsh or Irish. Actors from these countries are also British, but not Scottish. Simples. I am Scottish having been born and brought up in Scotland and I am also British, holding a British passport. I am proud to be both. ScroobydrooScroobydroo (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)--Scroobydroo
Scottish nationality does not exist.  Scotland is part of the nation of the United Kingdom.  That there are two categories here for nationality and citizenship exist purely to further Scottish nationalist sentiment.  The continued allowance of this is a farce.  Either have them both as British or combine them and stop supporting nationalism via Wikipedia and keep it in the pubs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.107.12 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This person’s page is locked for editing while the pages of other actors are not. Yet there is no reason given for why this is the case and, as far as I can tell, . Is there not a danger that Wikipedia risks sending out the wrong message here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.87.37 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 

There are a large number of actors pages protected from editing to prevent abuse of the pages. The reasons given for this protection are available in the page history and in its logs. The reasons for the latest protection can be seen here (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: prolong protecton, BLP issue still around) Given that the Daily Mail have stated that McGregor is not the subject of an injunction in this article I expect that the rumours and accusations will have died down when the page becomes unprotected in a weeks time. As it is Wikipedia has to make sure that its articles are verifiable, particularly those articles relating to biographies of living people. I don't think there is any danger that Wikipedia risks sending out the wrong message here no, only that we are trying to prevent unfounded speculation and insinuations. Woody (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Woody, I beg to differ. The British press has now widely reported that Wikipedia is "locking" the pages of actors and other celebrities accused of having taken out super-injunctions. Just Google the articles. They appear in the Guardian, Times, Daily Mail, Independent and Telegraph. You really do need to check your facts. I also realise that Wikipedia is blocking many sites in an attempt to deflect attention from certain ones, but this hasn't worked. Some very close (inside?) Wikipedia has posted a blog about this and named the actors and the Wikipedia moderators involved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.87.187 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 

Yes, you are indeed correct.  This is all the work of a secret cabal! In fact we started locking pages from IP editing over 4 years ago so that we would be able to have the cover to say that there was no relation between the locking of this page and random claims of lawsuits. Active Banana  (bananaphone 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The semi-protection expires in three days' time. Hopefully by then, the penny will have dropped that the super-injunction claims about Ewan McGregor were dud (yes, amazingly, you can't believe everything you read on the Internet).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say secret cabal, just vacuous idiots. I used to wonder who would be a Wikipedia moderator. Obviously, someone with way too much time on their hands. And reading many of the posts, fairly illiterate at that. Many of the pages read like fan sites. You guys are certainly doing a bang-up job. But I do salute you for all your efforts in helping enforce our super injunctions. We always knew that your (American) pontificating about "inherent" Constitutional Rights was a load of dung and you help prove the point. I do fear you chaps give yourself too much credit. Frankly, I really doubt that Ewan McGregor or any other celebrity worth their salt cares about Wikipedia or needs your "protection". Richard Gere easily survived nasty rumors for years.86.165.87.187 (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is nonsense and trolling. Super-injunctions have not been treated differently from any other WP:BLP issue. Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, and Wikipedia would have looked foolish if it had repeated half-baked speculation from Twitter and then had to apologize to Ewan McGregor (and others). See also this BBC News interview with Jimmy Wales.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ewan McGregor and his wife got a new baby. Perhaps someone could please add it to the article?
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/cindy_adams/beginning_of_new_friendship_3n9sjO4z5KSkRrjEY59DpO --89.204.137.173 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC).
Undone. Every other biographical source states three daughters. Widely quoted interview from past three days also says three, so I don't we can add a fourth without further corroboration. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
In the source you quote, McGregor himself makes no specific mention of his children--the writer does (in a manner that suggests he used wikipedia as his source). In the interview provided by 89.204.137.173 (also dated three days ago), McGregor himself states, "Being home is a reward to my family. My wife and four girls -- 15, two 9-year-olds and a baby of four months -- often come with me if it's a holiday or my locations and their schedules allow." Unless you have proof that the New York Post falsified their interview with him, the threshold for verifiability has been met. I'm reverting your revert. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC).
I am suggesting that possibly, yes, an interview that was syndicated by the New York Post and others may not be 100% correct. I would like to see other reliable sources, not just one single interview, state that he has more than three. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
In the articles you quote they also say that Clara is 16. Clara is - according to wikipedia and also Ewan's own words - 15 years old. This mistake is in every article so it's highly possible that the writers simply quoted each other and copied the same mistake. So these aren't 100 % accurate neither. On the contrary the interview I quote - like Prayer for the wild at heart said - Ewan states himself that he has four daughters. Why should the New York Post invent a new baby? Or Ewan himself? Well just my two cents (sorry for some mistakes in my post, I'm not a native speaker) --89.204.137.228 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok perhaps this will do it? Two german articles refering to the 4th baby... good enough as a proof? (Meine Frau und meine vier Mädchen - 15, zwei Neunjährige und ein Baby von vier Monaten)
http://www.spielfilm.de/news/12186/kein-fruehaufsteher-ewan-mcgregor.html
http://www.stern.de/lifestyle/leute/beginners-darsteller-ewan-mcgregor-hasst-fruehes-aufstehen-1689257.html
the second is a really popular (no tabloid!) german news magazine. Yes, they also copied the news from NYP. But the article who said that Ewan has 3 daughters and that Clara is 16 was copied by other papers too. Sorry I don't want to annoy anyone. It's just the odd that the statement of the star itself shouldn't be a reliable source. I mean this is a "good" wikipedia article and so all the informations should be right, aye? And the next reporter who copies wikipedia will also write that Ewan has 3 daughers. That doesn't make a wrong information right.
oh and Ewan was honored at the Seattle International Film Festival for "Outstanding achievement in acting". Perhaps someone could please add this, at last there are more articles refering to this than to the new baby so it should be easier to prove... e. g. here: http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/05/22/actor-ewan-mcgregor-honored-at-siff/ http://www.movingpicturesnetwork.com/28241/siff-2011-ewan-mcgregor-tribute/ Cheers. --89.204.137.135 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
ok here are two new interviews from today. http://ca.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idCATRE75024I20110601?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 A: "We moved to L.A. from London two years ago and we love it. My wife is French. We have four girls and we try to spend summers in Europe so our kids can get a dose of it." and an other: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-fine/christopher-plummer-is-bu_b_869693.html. Ewan states (again) that he has four daughters... I guess this is reliable enough... so could someone now please add it? Have a nice day! --89.204.153.137 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (TC)
Summarizing, we now have three sources in which Ewan McGregor states that he has four daughters:
NY Post, dated May 25: "My wife and four girls -- 15, two 9-year-olds and a baby of four months".
Reuters, dated June 1: "My wife is French. We have four girls".
Huffington Post, dated June 1: "And I've got four daughters – that completely changed my life".
Clearly the threshold of verifiability has been met; it's going in the article. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC).
Hello again. Here is an other quote from Ewan (no idea from which interview it is originally) where he says that his forth daugther was born the 10th February. Perhaps you'd like to add this to the article. http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Things_They_Say/7847264 --188.103.169.72 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no current wikilinks to Scotland or Scottish people, which I found at first to be a glaring omission. Rather, it turns out to be a nit-picky rule enforced only on this page and found nowhere else in practice on wikipedia. Almost every biography I have ever come across contains a link to where they are from. City, [administrative region 1], [administrative region 2], Country. Simple and it doesn't hurt anyone. I'm not saying it should be over and over again throughout the article, or maybe one active link in the infobox, but not in the lede or vice-versa, but it should be there. No linking to countries? Or Nationalities? That's absurd, however would one get to those pages but not for links? JesseRafe (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK is quite clear about nations. That is why two of us have reverted your addition. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Biker Biker I think you are wrong here. WP:OVERLINK states: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,... Avoid linking the names of major ... nations." It doesn't say it is explicitly banned nor does it give a definition of major nations. Do we consider Scotland to be a "major nation", I wouldn't particularly class it as a major nation, or one that most readers wouldn't want to know more about: which is the whole point of wikilinks, to inform the readers. I think his nationality is particularly relevant to the topic of the article and I do think Scotland should be linked in the article, I would put it in after "perth". Woody (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If not just one link to Scotland (maybe in the infobox) so it won't intrude on too much, then there should be at least a link to Scottish (people), which I added as a compromise after Biker Biker insisted the Scotland link was inappropriate. When I added that link to the demonym I noticed that McGregor was there in the infobox in the collage of famous Scots -- all the more reason he should be listed and linked as a Scotsman, and even by extension Scotland to be linked to as well. As Woody said, the purpose of links and wikipedia as a whole is to inform the readers. If Ewan McGregor is important enough to be included right up front in the article about Scottish people, then Scottish people is important enough to the article about Ewan McGregor, no? This is just going to the relevance of include his nation and/or nationality as a link in the article. I'm not even touching the semantics of "overlinking" when something is linked only once. JesseRafe (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
User JoannaSerah clearly agrees that it is not necessary to link countries. This is nothing to do with removing Scottish identity - I'm all in favour of people being described as English/Welsh/Scots rather than British - it is simply implementing a long held (and increasing) practice on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Biker Biker, what is this "common practice" to link to countries??? If anything it is common practice precisely to do just that. Countries are linked to on almost all biographic pages, not just wars and currencies, but people have to do with countries as well. And pointing to an MOS entry is not equivalent to established what common practice is. JesseRafe (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Woody - why do you repeatedly re-insert the link when three separate editors have removed it? --Biker Biker (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See above: "Biker Biker I think you are wrong here. etc." Can you respond to the note above please. Overlink does not forbid the linking of countries. Note, please do not use rollback in an edit dispute. Woody (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't touch the link again because I'm past 3RR, for which I apologise. Clearly you are intent on ignoring consensus of three separate editors so I would urge you too to back off for a while and let's see what others think. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you care to respond to my quotation and explanation of the detail of the MOS that you cite in the reasoning in your edit summary? You are wrong in stating that OVERLINK states all countries should be removed. It all hangs on the interpretation of "major country" if we are getting down into all the semantics of it. Saying that, frankly the MOS supports both versions of the text, which makes it down to the article authors and wider consensus if needed. Woody (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Please let's remember that there are two separate issues lumped together here. Note the title of the section, it is Scotland and Scottish (people) that were both separately removed as links, and I would argue both merit inclusion irrespective of the other. Overlinking discussion should not only be about "countries". That being said, if the MOS is ambiguous or there is no clear majority among editors, then the tie should go to inclusion, because it harmless and not disruptive, and if anything, it adds to the utility of the article to the putative reader. JesseRafe (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sad to say that there are a number of things wrong with that reply. You need to provide a reasoning for your comments that they merit inclusion irrespective of the other linking back to our guidelines. The discussions need to be more article specific. Why are the links relevant for this article? Why should they be included. As the person who has changed something on this article, and been reverted, it is up to you to persuade other editors that the article needs to be changed. If you can't do that, then the status quo is retained. We don't have ties/votes etc here, we have consensus. At the moment, the consensus is unclear as the other editors involved haven't actually put forward their reasoning with specific reasoning that cites the MOS. Woody (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Searching for "Eve Mavrakis" or clicking on the link for Eve Mavrakis where she is listed as McGregor's spouse, directs the user to McGregor's page.  Should the link on this page be removed?  How does one remove the search result? Nabelekt (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate topic to above,
While explaining his tattoo on the Cold Chain documentary, he states that his 4th daughter is called Annouk, can anyone find a way of referencing this? If I upload the clip to youtube will this suffice? Dohertyben (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dohertyben, I think it would be good if you could upload the video to Youtube and then post the link here as some proof. Happyica99 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As per the BBC News Online Article referenced, I have included his New Years Honours.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantmitch1 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 

I saw someone edited it before to the correct spelling, but someone changed it back. The correct spelling is JAMYAN and ANNOUK. Here are pictures of Ewan's tattoo. Close up to the heart and dagger, Jamyan seen above and Farther away angle of his tattoo, you can clearly see that Annouk has 2 n's and it is indeed spelled Jamyan
If you will proceed to edit it though, please say here why. Thanks to all! XxxHappyica99 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It was listed as "Carole", and an IP just changed it to "Carol". The two sources we have contradict each other - one says Carole, the other Carol. I have no idea which is correct. Thoughts? Cannolis (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page.  The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors.  All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ewan McGregor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113013740/http://www2.stv.tv:80/tv/TV_Miscellaneous/JetSet/Episode1 to http://www.stv.tv/tv/TV_Miscellaneous/JetSet/Episode1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080503232645/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2007/05/12/arts/EU-A-E-STG-Britain-People-McGregor.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/12/arts/EU-A-E-STG-Britain-People-McGregor.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

stv.tv is a 404 error. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ewan McGregor. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://imdb.com/title/tt0444646/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524235524/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/58948.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/58948.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guysanddollsthemusical.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/awards/winners/display?contentId=90839
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.longwayround.com/press/october2004/DailyTelegraph_16thOctober.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is a 404 error. Others ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Could we just record here the rationale why he's described as Scottish and not Scottish-American (or American-Scottish) in the lead section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
WP follows the sources, the overwhelming majority of reliable ones describing him as a Scottish actor. MapReader (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe Tina Turner as American. The point? (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The point is that the descriptions of people (especially BLP people) in WP should always follow the sources, not editors’ individual OR.  MapReader (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
So nothing to do with the disctinction between nationality and citizenship? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Using ‘Scottish’ at all, as is done on many WP bio articles, makes that point, since it is a nationality but not a citizenship.  As it says in policy, “The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources”. MapReader (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@JimmyLough: you appear to be Edit warring to include the language "While the prequels received mixed reviews" instead of "While the prequels received criticism". While I appreciate that you may think this language is correct, WP:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's pillars, requires that we have a WP:Reliable Source endorsing this language. Since the only source provided currently does not use such ambivalent language about the reviews of the films, we cannot include the changes that you are trying to make. AlexEng(TALK) 02:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this page be locked? 2600:100C:B05C:86A6:F921:D976:A065:85EE (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has pending changes. This is enough when there isn't heavy editing or vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be protected to prevent vandalism. In other words, to where you would have to log in to do so. 2600:1702:46A8:D70:65B9:432A:2A43:1B51 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NO-PREEMPT. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

T2 Trainspotting reprised McGregor as Mark Renton (originally role Trainspotting, received critical acclaim), and received positive reviews from film critics. So yeah! 2001:448A:6000:6EFF:C049:689:2678:F8B1 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)