# Talk:Michael Sheen

"Michael Christopher Sheen (born 5 February 1969)[1] is a Welsh actor, producer, and political activist"  That last bit of the first sentence is weird considering that the article contains pretty much nothing about his political opinions, political activism, ideology, party membership, etc - I'm essentially clueless.   Actually his charity work gets a headlined section but politics gets nothing.  Perhaps it should say he is an actor, producer, and contributor to charitable causes? 94.255.196.73 (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a section on "Political activism", but "Charity work" is a much bigger section. I'd suggest using both or neither. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor is repeatedly changing the description of Sheen as Welsh to read "British". Per MOS:ETHNICITY there needs to be editor consensus before any such changes to nationality (see note a). I am asking the IP editor to explain why that description is better so that we can then evaluate and reach consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The timings in the early life paragraph don't make sense. Hpw can they live in Newport for 12 years but also move to Wallasey when he's 5 and to Port Talbot 3 years later? ZoboneisetheOboe (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The family unit lived in Newport for a total of 12 years, which include years prior to his birth. 2001:569:512F:E700:645B:4A7F:F4D:178D (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Update: edited to clarify. 2001:569:512F:E700:645B:4A7F:F4D:178D (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Michael Sheen played Roland Blum on The Good Fight. This great performance is not listed on his bio pages. Perhaps an appropriate update should be researched & added. Thanks. 68.107.76.177 (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: this restoration. I'm sure that's factually correct. But might one guess that, through his active renunciation, he really doesn't consider it appropriate? I'd suggest it warrants explanation in the text, but couldn't it just be omitted from the infobox? Or perhaps at least have an explanatory footnote added there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Still doubt Sheen nor sources call him "Sir" against his wishes. The Sovereign doesn’t have power over what people want to be called surely, we follow sources. Seems a bit undue to push technicalities against a subject’s wishes or what sources use?
However while it may be true, is there a source to back it up? DankJae 18:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
It seems to be factually correct, as sourced in the article here. But it looks a bit like WP:OR along the lines of: "if he still legally holds it, it slapped has to be dipslayed after his name in the infobox". I'm pretty sure he does not use it himself, so why should it be forced on him here? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Agree with the last point, Wikipedia would be an outlier. Shouldn't the MOS decision above be applied still? Of which Sheen's renouncement was directly referenced for the RfC. DankJae 21:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Was wholly unaware of that discussion. Seems to provide the answer here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Martinevans123, so should it be reverted? DankJae 20:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Too bad we have had no input from João1963. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Martinevans123, thanks for trimming off Sir per MOS. Is it staying in the infobox? If it does, should it be mentioned it was renounced? Like OBE (renounced)? DankJae 17:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I would prefer to not have it there at all. But perhaps OBE (renounced) would be clearer and a stronger statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@Martinevans123, I would too, but you kept it, so thought you wanted to keep it, so suggested an alternative nonetheless. However the MOS discussion does also mention the use in the infobox, so best removed there too? DankJae 23:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
By all means remove. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Just coming across this, I am ambivalent. I'm not sure if it only applies to trans people, but as far as I am aware, Wikipedia generally has a longstanding policy of calling people what they choose to be called, but that policy is frequently broken, as for example with Tommy Robinson, which gives his birth name first and his preferred name second. I somewhat doubt, however, that this policy can be extended to titles anyway. I also doubt that "The Sovereign doesn’t have power over what people want to be called" is a qualified legal opinion. The view is a rather Anglocentric one: the idea that people may choose their own names is one based purely in common law, whereas in most other states, the State absolutely has the power to insist that you use only the names and titles you have been given. So, unless otherwise proven through cited legal opinions, I would prefer to assume that the British sovereign can confirm unrenounceable legal titles on his or her subjects. This is supported by the fact that, legally speaking, his renouncement is without legal effect. I am not convinced your personal opinions about freedom of identity should be allowed to affect the established facts which Wikipedia has a duty to report. While I nevertheless agree with your sentiment, I very slightly side with the idea of listing his knighthood alongside his name as normal. Perhaps his renouncement of his knighthood could be made more promininent, however, for example with its own subsection. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not a knighthood it's an OBE. And an OBE is not really "a name". But I don't wholly disagree with your argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC) p.s. also not sure it's fair to compare a feted actor like Sheen to a convicted criminal like Robinson.
This isn’t really related to everything already discussed, but: when someone renounces a Royal honour (after receiving it) they do not lose it. Even though Sheen has renounced his OBE his full title is still Michael Sheen OBE whether he likes it or not. Had he turned it down in the first place that would be different. Therefore it would be factually correct to still include it in his name – however one could argue that renouncing it (however much this does not null the title) is his choice and should be reflected in the article. – Dyolf87 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

An RfC discussed it and backed that if a subject renounces an honour it should be omitted. You'll have to develop a new consensus there to override it. DankJae 23:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This section is constantly being vandalized. Can someone put a long term protection on it? Chnguynnthu (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection again. I think it's up to the admins to determine the time period they do it for. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)