Talk:Ian McKellen/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Top 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_October_30#October_30. Maybe we could do a rotation of the two free images. Arniep 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Whether they regard their nationality as English or not, legally they are all British Tim! (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think I like the idea, but I wonder how long it will last! --82.4.86.73 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scot was the first ... Tim! (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: How is English less informative than Scottish? Tim! (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, you've hit the magic word "identity" as opposed to "nationality". Tim! (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's fine, wikipedia is not censored. Tim! 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swearing/Have I got News For You 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The Da Vinci Code" controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: He was a visiting professor (for a year), which means he came and gave a few lectures. HenryFlower 08:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Professor 

message: 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.
* 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. 
Lincher 00:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA awarded

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is Da Vinci Code best known? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Derek Jacobi 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Companion of Honour 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: "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)
replies: text: Fixed. Jafeluv (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  pescatarian 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  GA Delisting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ditto, if there is an article on modern Bible defacement perhaps it can go there.  -- Banjeboi 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Bible issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Changed my mind; using the first, unpaid performance instead.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Years Active" 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Tusker 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  David Copperfield link 

message: 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)
replies: text: I did not arbitrarily remove it. Per item 13 here Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Your continued violation of WP:CIVIL is noted. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  inclusion of Coriolanus: an idea map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Cold Comfort Farm (film)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Hobbit 

message: : (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)
thread_title:  McKellen's Gandalf impersonates Tolkien 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tattoo mention? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Information regarding quotation on Derek Jacobi has been removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing post-nominal Kt 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The lead needs to be expanded 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Marriage celebrant

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the detailed explanation C. Please update things as you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 15:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kighthood confusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for clearing this up C. MarnetteD|Talk 14:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the British Empire 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tattoo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reorder Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I found the original interview and fixed the citation in the article.Rosbela (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of a quote unclear 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion