Talk:Jamie Dornan

message: Jamie Dornan is about 1,70 m tall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerissa-Marie (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: I am wondering where the information that Jamie Dornan's birthdate is 4 June 1982 came from. According to the IMDb website, it is 1 May 1982. PerriAlexis (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: Born 	James Dornan
May 1, 1982 (age 32) 
Holywood (Co. Down), Northern Ireland, UK  
--129.69.140.138 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place [Holywood] with link, please 

message: 'The' Teeside University? Nobody would refer to it like that. It seems some editors of this page are 50 Shades of Earl Grey numpties.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.119.166 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Teeside University. 

message: I know what the editor meant but I don't think titular is accurate, in that it is used incorrectly here as a synonym for eponymous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintBy (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'titular' character in 50 Shades of Grey? 

message: Please note that per WP:LEADIMAGE the lead image should be an image that is a natural visual representation of the person.  A face that has the eyebrows distorted is not the most natural representation of the person.  Until a better one comes along, I would suggest not to use that image as the lead image. Hzh (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Until a better one comes along" I suggest you do not change the best one available..replace an actual "headshot" with one taken from long range and poorly cropped where the actor is making "ODD" hand gestures with his mouth half wide open is far worse than him smiling with his multiple wrinkles showing..this is his best and recent image--Stemoc 13:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   There is a perfectly valid reason not to use a frowning face, and that reason is stated in WP:LEADIMAGE that the image used should be a natural representation. A distorted face due to frowning is not a natural representation, in the same way that you would try to avoid using image of someone yawning or making a funny face on the infobox. Hzh (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: he isn't actually frowning is he? and yet to replace a somewhat "natural" image with one where his mouth is half open and a weird hand gesture whis is NOT a natural representation of what the actor looks like in real life..you are not a Commons person so are not aware how hard it is to get good images of celebrities..we can't just take one off the internet, when one good and recent one comes along, it will be replaced..in the meantime, this is the best image of him which is neither odd, awkward or outdated..its a shame its not in colour or it would have been his best image overall..and also this pic was taken in public, like ever other images of celebrities on wikimedia, not a photoshot so will always be a bit weird...--Stemoc 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't matter if you want to call it frowning or not, his face is distorted because of his eyebrows, and his mouth is also somewhat pursed (yes, it does make him look odd and awkward).  The other image has less distortion, and is therefore preferable, and that is the better image as far as Wikipedia goes. All your Commons argument has no relevance here (as well as wrong, since I have contributed to the Commons for some years now under a different username, as well as this username since a global account was created). Hzh (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you can't tell the difference between a good image and a poor one, maybe my original comment isn't far from the truth..his face is not "distorted" and in the image you chose, all we see is a "side shot"..his mouth is "pursed" because he is talking to someone, same as the one you chose except with less mouth open..Those are the kind of images i vowed to "get rid off" as many times celebs complain via social networking sites how wikipedia makes them look like doucehbags with odd-timed images, the image you chose is odd timed, it makes Jamie look like a handicapped person with a speech problem..yes, thats how I see it, thats how the rest of the internet will see it as well..if the worst that can happen is his wrinkles being on display then i see it as a good image..I actually prefer we use "actual headshots" in infoboxes than long ranged poorly cropped images that is embarrassing to look at...the close range image is more of a representation of Jamie than that weird side shot ..--Stemoc 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not really sure why you think you have a monopoly on judgement or taste and that others who disagree with you have no judgement, but I would repeat that condescension is considered incivility that doesn't help with any discussion.  You are not here to act on behalf of celebrities complaining about their images, you are here to improve Wikipedia content in accordance with its guidelines.  You haven't add much insight apart from that it is a side shot, and his mouth is opened because he is talking (the hand is irrelevant since it can be cropped if needed).  Since your preferred image also has him with his mouth not in its natural position, the only thing you can claim that would make it a better choice is that it is not a side shot, but so far haven't cited any Wikipedia guideline that would support you on that.  As far as I can see, the eyebrows do distort his face which would make the image less desirable (or if you like, more "odd-timed" and "douchebag"-like). It is therefore a poorer image as a lead image in the infobox. Hzh (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its you who is acting like you have a monopoly, there was no problem with the image from the start, you just randomly came by and changed it without even discussing it..i just saw the change by chance today, atleast u can see his WHOLE face in the current image which is a MAJOR requirement of WP:LEADIMAGE... you have blatantly removed the original image with a poor one without any justification.... your reasoning is false as anyone can see the current image is FAR SUPERIOR to the one you have chose...I'm tired of fighting people who prioritize making wikipedia as ugly as possible..I have contributed to IMDB for 4 years and wikimedia for over 8 years so i'm waiting for input from other reasonable minded editors to comment here because i doubt anyone in their right mind would accept the berlin image as his "headshot" ..p.s, I'm improving content and images, its you who is trying to make it poor..let me specify the most basic rule of LEADIMAGE, and its the person whose image is used should be IDENTIFIABLE, a side long range shot is NOT IDENTIFIABLE...--Stemoc 16:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please avoid making false assertion.   I did make a justification - the image doesn't look like him.  You are free to disagree with that opinion, but don't make false accusation.  I did not see anyone discuss it first when someone put that image in (Was it you? Did you discuss it and get a consensus first? Why do you demand others do it when you don't?), that is not how Wikipedia works, not all edits needed to be discussed. Also I don't see having a whole face is a major requirement in WP:LEADIMAGE.  That image is identifiable to me, the me it is your image that is not readily identifiable because of its distortion.  It may come down to personal opinion, but your personal opinion doesn't trump everyone else's. Hzh (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  I see that indeed you did make the change from a reasonably good image of Jamie Dornan (of the three it looks most like him - ) to your one without any justification or discussion apart from that it is a different image - .  That image should be restored while discussion is proceeding. Hzh (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated an outdated image, what did you do? ..if you think the pic looks nothing like him then my first assertion of you getting glasses is most definitely factual...its practically my job on wiki to replace and/or update image so someone who randomly comes and removes an image without discussion is IMO vandalising, i'm sorry but i would need glasses with rose tints on them to accept your image selection as being "BETTER" than the current choice...if a person in the image is barely recognisable like your image than it should not be used as the lead image..the 2011 image of jamie was poor, badly cropped, poor lighting and obviously, outdated so it had to be replaced........and [3rd edit conflict], please LEARN to post everything at once, you are making it quite irritating for me to reply to your post even though i give you atleast 30 minutes between post and also, we keep the CURRENT PREFERRED image, you change it and i will revert you for [vandalism]--Stemoc 16:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it does change the whole discussion, given that you demand others discuss first before they change your edit, but instead you choose not to discuss your edit, using an image that looks less like him and distorted (therefore an inferior image). You are welcome to  take it to the administrator, since you are the one who violated the WP:3RR rule. Hzh (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed the previous image without discussion, the discussion would be to keep the current image, not to use the current image..its 5am in my country and i wasted 3 hours talking to someone who has no idea about anything nor how to post in a thread..please, leave the thread and leave the current image intact and let the discussion happen, you keep saying that the image looks "less like him" and yet you are not even trying to prove that it looks less like him..i have discussed this image on IRC before as well and no one ever complained..either you have vision problems or you have some personal agenda against the actor himself where you are intentionally trying to force a poor image to be used on his article, i will not allow it...reverting vandalism is not violating 3RR..and how petty of you to INTENTIONALLY vandalise to force me to revert you..pathetic..I'll be back in 12 hours...--Stemoc 17:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not addressing the issue of you changing a pre-existing image (it was the "current" image until changed it), without discussion, justification, or consensus which you demanded of others. Yours was also an inferior image per WP:LEADIMAGE, since the original was full faced, not distorted with odd facial expression, and has none of the "odd-timed" and "douchebag" issue you are concerned with, it looks most like him of the three.  Therefore it is up to you to justify the change of image first (I actually have no problem with people changing image without discussion, but you are the one who demanded it).  You should also know what is and what is not vandalism before you make such accusation.  Hzh (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar enough with policies regarding images and, frankly, I think both images aren't so great (even keeping in mind the difficulty of finding images for Commons) for different so I don't feel confident enough to weigh in. Regardless, I do believe, Stemoc, that you are veering toward incivility and that it would probably serve the discussion better to assume good faith. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the purpose of this discussion, there are three images to consider - 1, 2, 3.  None of them are perfect, but I would say image 1 looks the closest to him. Hzh (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any picture, headshot or not, is more appropriate to showcase his talent than one taken from the set of Once Upon a Time when he played a recurring character, Sheriff Graham. He's done many more movies and even a TV Show since then, so let's respect him with an appropriate picture Lightningeyes (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo in infobox 

message: So that we don't have endless revert, it would be appreciated if people can decide by consensus which of the Jamie Dornan's they would prefer -
*Image 1 
*image 2 
*image 3
I'd vote for image 1 because it is full faced, does not have any facial distortion, it therefore most resembles the person and satisfies the requirement for "images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic" best per WP:LEADIMAGE. Hzh (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Image 2 is the best picture, but I think image 1 is the most appropriate for his infobox. — Strongjam (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I'd say image 1 is better for the infobox too. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text: ahh, so he is getting people to vote via canvassing,so sad... as per my original stance, IMAGE 2 as its the most recent, best quality, best size, best cropped and best "representation" of Jamie...--Stemoc 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm merely inviting those who have edited this page the most times and those who are still active editors in Wikipedia according to here, recent editors, as well as those knowledgeable in the topic from the Image Manual of Style page in the hope of getting enough votes to reach a consensus. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text:   Do you actually read the policies you selectively cite, while ignoring others?  At WP:CANVASS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."  Dwpaul Talk    14:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm aware, but when you have to canvass to get people's attention, it generally means they were not bothered about the image in the article in the first place...--Stemoc 14:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are the one who demanded a consensus here. Hzh (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I think that the second image is better since it gives a clearer view of his face and it is the most recent. IPadPerson (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I've been asked to comment and my immediate reaction is, "None of the above." Images 1 and 3 are out of focus, with 3 suffering from clutter and from being a side view. Image 2 is in black-and-white, which doesn't disqualify it, certainly, but — and this may just be me — I'm not really finding that it looks much like him, or at least how he usually appears. If my back were to the wall, I'd pick Image 1 in the hopes that shrinking it to infobox size will make it appear a bit sharper. Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Preference for image

message: reverted my removal of the title "Professor" in the description of Dornan's father. This is a direct contradiction to MOS:CREDENTIAL: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor") should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title ". I would like for INeedSupport to explain why his/her opinion is more important than an official manual of style for biographies, or revert his/her edit. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a valid reason this time. Your edits has been restored INeedSupport (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , what exactly does "this time" mean? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to argue again. I think it's done. INeedSupport (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not arguing. I would just like for you to explain some of your hasty edits of issuing false warnings, making false vandalism reports, and reverting appropriate edits. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I mentioned earlier, you didn't violate anything. I was just trying to prevent you to break any rules. You didn't vandalized anything. However, the warnings are there just for you to become a better editor. The reason why I reverted your edits is because someone also previously reverted your edits. I hope you can contribute further to improve Wikipedia. Have a good day!INeedSupport (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , it seems that you are the one who needs to do some serious work to "become a better editor". You revert an edit without regard to an official manual of style simple because someone else reverted it? Again, why? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No editors are perfect. I still make mistakes to this day. INeedSupport (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , of course no one is perfect, but it seems that you decided to aggressively go after another editor just because he made edits that you didn't bother to consider might have been appropriate. First you issue a false edit warring warning. Then, without even taking a moment to look at the issue involved in the edit, you revert it simply because "someone else previously reverted", then you make a false warning about harassment, and finally you make a false vandalism report. This is not a simple mistake; it's impulsive editing without regard to what is appropriate on Wikipedia. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have revoked the vandalism report. There wasn't any vandalism at all. Thanks for telling me that. I'll learn from my mistakes. Although, the way you talked to me seems offensive to me. Have a nice Mothers day! INeedSupport (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Professor" title 

message: Thoughts? Pending is stopping a lot of disruptive editing constantly, however it seems that every single edit by a non-registered user is disruptive here and it's just taking people's time to constantly work with. Anyone object if we switch it to full protection for non-confirmed? Canterbury Tail talk 22:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done so. Canterbury Tail talk 22:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from pending to full protection 

message: I came to discuss about the crisis we are having right now with Canterbury tails. Fitzwilliams (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reverted section was removed as it contradicts WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. I'd suggest you read WP:BLP. As a relatively new editor myself, it's easy to fall foul of miriad of rules and guidelines. Biographies of living persons are a particular trap as they have much stricter guidelines than normal articles. It's fine to make mistakes here, but IMO important to understand why reversions happen. Sciencefish (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it a crisis. However I don't think a section on how their public image is perceived is particularly encyclopaedic. "he never namedrops", that's definitely not something suitable for an encyclopaedia. Someone finding him charming, is an opinion of that person, not a subjective fact. I'm sorry but I think all of that stuff is pure gossip magazine style fluff and not something you'd ever find on an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because something is on another page doesn't mean it's acceptable. Each page is often dealt with individually unless there is an overall policy. Ultimately this comes down to the fact Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Would you see the section in Encyclopaedia Britannica? This isn't supposed to be a profile in a lifestyle magazine, it's an article. Anyway lets see what others have to say. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

text: And I removed again a section about him donating a tie to a charity auction. This meets the very definition of trivial and is clearly unencyclopaedic. Bear in mind this is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column, not a lifestyle magazine, not an online celebrity blog. That someone donated a tie to an auction is not something that should be found in an encyclopaedia article, there is nothing notable about it. I will also point out that it is incumbent on the editor adding information to prove that such information is notable and why it should be included. It was added, I removed it, now it should be discussed not re-added. So edits aside, lets focus on the point at hand. Why do you think it's notable and important that the mention of him donating a tie he wore to a charity auction should be included in an encyclopaedia article on Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 02:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The public Image section 

message: Canterbury tail has twice reverted one of my edits and now I am here for other editors' opinions. Donating a tie to charity auctions seems gossip information to Canterbury tail. May I request you all editors who ever see this, go to Kate Winslet's wiki page and see the philanthropy. The second line says," she donated a blue top of her that she wore in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF A SPOTLESS MIND to a charity auction." Is this gossip? If it is why hasn't anybody reverted it yet? My question is for Canterbury tail, what was the difference between mine and this? Why do you mind this a gossip editing? If these are gossip  then you should also revert the one in Winslet's page. Even I mentioned something in your talk page. So , all editors are requested to point out their statements here.
:This isn't the Kate Winslet page, I've never looked at that article and as has been pointed out many times WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include it. On Wikipedia it is the responsibility of the person adding content to explain why it's notable and why it should be included. So I will ask this question. Why do you think that someone donating a tie, that they got for free from a past employer, to an auction, is a notable act of philanthropy worthy of being included in an encyclopaedia article about a person and taking up more room than many of their film roles? Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fitzwilliams, thanks for spotting the Kate Winslet trivia, I've removed it. Sciencefish (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing problems in philanthropy  

message: I have opened this topic to discuss about a song 'When I go' on Discography. There were no notable citation found anywhere for that song. So I wanted to know if it should be reverted or not. Editors are welcomed to help sort out the problem. Fitzwilliams (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal view (others views may differ) is that if we can't find a citation for it it means reliable third party sources aren't talking about it or mentioning it. This would suggest to me that the information is not notable. I think it would fails the WP:NLIST criteria and at best would be trivial. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for a song 

message: change citation 5 to citation needed - the website hosting the citation is no longer hosting the article - Also greer garson would be 117 years old at this point were she still to be alive, it needs to be investigated that someone at 39 year olds could physically be two generations younger than someone at 117 years old. 79.70.228.241 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the citation with an archive link; no need to mark as . As to the generational thing - the source specifically says that Garson was his grandmother's first cousin, and while I haven't looked into any specifics the 78-year age difference is entirely plausible. (My oldest grandparent was 69 years older than me and he had some cousins significantly older than he was, so I likely had similar relatives with a greater difference in ages.) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021 

message: citation 7 states that greer garson is Jamie's Great-Aunt, not First cousin Twice Removed as stated in citation 5 - this needs correction to make the article state "Jamie is the great-nephew to Greer Garson" rather than falsely stating that Jamie is her first cousin twice removed, which is physically impossible, based on what a first cousin twice removed actually means. (the child, of the child of the cousin) being that Jamie is 39, and Greer would be 117 79.70.228.241 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Given the more specific information in reference 5 that is pretty much the exact definition of what a first cousin twice removed is (as noted in the previous request), and the often-vague description of distant relatives within families, I'm inclined to leave it as is. The age gap is perfectly explicable, as noted in the previous section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021 (2) 

message: citation 5 EXPLICITY states he is greer garsons great nephew. the wikipedia article states he is a first cousin twice removed, this is infact wrong, as previously stated - article 5, and 7 both quote jamie personally as stating 'my great aunt was a woman called Greer Garson.' the line in the wikipedia article 'he is a first cousin twice removed' is specifically wrong, and is in improper terminology, he is infact the great nephew this line should either read 'he is the great-nephew to greer garson' or 'his great aunt, is greer garson' 
Please see this wikipedia article's graphical breakdown of what a cousin tree shows to be a first cousin twice removed, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/CousinTree.svg/1200px-CousinTree.svg.png, and what infact a great aunt is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Aunts.png 
this article implies jamie doesnt know his own family history and is meaning that greer garson is the daughter of his great aunt, which contradicts what he states himself. 79.70.228.241 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021 

message: Just reverted four possible vandalism cases. I Request the authority to impose semi-protection. Fitzwilliams (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection needed against Vandalism 

message: Hi there. I don't understand why you created a separate page List of Jamie Dornan performances in Sept 2021. Why not just put the relevant tables into this article under "Filmography". I was about to do that and then stumbled across the existing stuff that you had already done separately. I'd like to propose merging List of Jamie Dornan performances into Jamie Dornan. There is lots of repeated information in the lead and nothing new other than the filmography tables. If you agree, I'll just go ahead and do it, otherwise I'll kick off a proper merge proposal per WP:MERGEPROP. If you're worried the filmography will make this article too long and clunky, the tables can be auto-hidden, but I don't personally see a problem. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I also thought that the article was way longer with the awards and filmography tables. But I created that with another point too that the filmography is increasing day by day. So separating that table was a better choice to me. I think it should not be merged because sooner or later, it may be needed. If you have any problem with the repeated stuffs there, you can revert them if you want to. Fitzwilliams (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm happy to leave it as a separate article for now, but I'll do some work on it there. For a start, List of Jamie Dornan performances is a list class article, not a BLP, so it doesn't need an image up top (serves no purpose out of context of an infobox which is not used in a list class article), and the lead section should be cut down substantially (so it doesn't just repeat stuff already covered in the lead of Jamie Dornan). I'll have a go at it later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge proposal 

message: The Irish Times doesn't "acknowledge" anything about actors being in either from Northern Ireland or Ireland in its article.  It's a distinction that plays no part in list.  So Dornan's birth place isn't "acknowledged" any more than it "acknowledges" Brosnan is from Drogheda or Branagh is from Belfast.   Describing Dornan's listing as such is placing undue emphasis on a facet that is not evident in the source. Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is stated he is Northern Irish, which is actually an odd descriptor from the Irish Times, but I'm comfortable with it being left out. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Times Acknowledges