Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). England C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Theatre C‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Shakespeare C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This bit doesn't seem to have any proper context: "The actual author was identified as Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere or Mary Sidney (Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke." What is meant by this? Does this mean that in the play "I am Shakespeare" the actual author was identified as Christopher Marlowe etc.? Because some readers of this section may get the impression that the authorship of Shakespeare has been totally proven to be the writers above, when in truth the matter is still open to debate. I'd re-write it but I don't quite understand what the writer of this section was referring to. If it is meant literally, it is of course incorrect. It's impossible to really prove anything in regard to this subject. Needs correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.177.93 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am equally confused by this mis-written sentence. At first, I read it to mean that the list of names was a set of authors who wrote together as a committee, but then I took it to mean that different individuals have been proposed as alternatives to Shakesperare, as in "The actual author was identified as Christopher Marlowe, or Francis Bacon, or the Earl of Oxford, or etc." but I don't know what the editor who wrote it meant.

If it is a list of alternative proposed authors, the sentence could be clarified by the addition of of the word "either", and an Oxford comma before Mary Sidney, thus: "The actual author was proposed to be either Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, or Mary Sidney (Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke)."

Unfortunately, the one who wrote it has been blocked permanently for posting conspiracy theories, so he cannot be questioned. — O'Dea (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say something about this section, too - but I was going to point out that despite the section being called "Shakespeare controversy," there's no info about an actual controversy. The section just says that the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" was released, along with a bit of info about it, but doesn't say anything about the reaction to it. Alphius (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Rylance. 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/20160307144018/http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/officers to http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/officers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101120336/http://liftfestival.com/blog_entry/1920/news/news/olivier_and_tony_winner_mark_rylance_announced_as_lift_patron to http://liftfestival.com/blog_entry/1920/news/news/olivier_and_tony_winner_mark_rylance_announced_as_lift_patron

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the categories section at the bottom of this article includes: 'Male actors from Connecticut' and 'Male actors from Wisconsin' when it's clear to anyone that Mark Rylance is 'from' neither of those places? The article doesn't even talk about his living arrangements, but if he is residing in the U.S. he's not 'from' there, even if he officially immigrates. He can't also be 'from' several places; only 'in' some of them and 'from' one.

I don't see why it's even noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.113.142 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His maternal grandfather, Osmond Skinner, spent decades as a banker with the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. After being shot in the stomach during the Battle of Hong Kong, he was recuperating when he witnessed the St. Stephen's College massacre. He then spent four years in a POW camp. He was able to survive thanks to HSBC contacts who brought him food. He has a sister named Susannah, an opera singer and author; and a brother, Jonathan, who is a sommelier.

At what point do we stop referring to the grandfather and start referring to Rylance? I'm guessing it's at "He has…” If that's true, a new paragraph should probably start there, with "Rylance" in place of "He". In any case, it should be clarified, IMHO. [Irrelevant comments omitted, directed at cat instead] – AndyFielding (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The switch is after the reference. One reference is about Rylance's grandparents and his grandfather's adventures, the other about Rylance himself having a brother and sister. Although this is logical enough, i agree that in a casual reading of the text this may come over ambiguous. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change, which was reverted. This has just been announced in the news. 86.165.168.254 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable source? A09090091 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NATIONALITY: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Rylance lived in the US for 16 years (ages 2-16), and has lived here off and on ever since. Many multiple sources refer to Rylance as someone with an American/midwestern background. See: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

The stable version of this article is "British-American". Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, it is on the anonymous IP to use sourcing to justify the content's removal. This is hardly "contentious", no one is accusing Rylance of a crime, prejudice, disease, deficiency, illness, etc etc. If being "american" is that bad, we probably have some other issues to deal with.

I think given the sourcing we have here, I would also be in favor of "Mark Rylance is a British-born and American-raised actor...." or something similar. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great BLP violation. The fact he spent time in his youth in the States does not make him American. He is not a US citizen or national, nor a permanent resident. He did not become notable while living in the US only when in the UK. He returns to the US for work purposes. This does not make him American. The sources do not even call him American.

It is a falsehood to claim the stable version is British American, it was only added two days ago. The status quo to which the article should be returned is from before two days ago. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, it's a bit late now to begin discussing this issue here on the Talk page. I suggest that since your series of edits has now resulted in a report at AIV, we should continue this discussion on your Talk page, rather than discussing the issue on two different pages at the same time. General Ization ^Talk 22:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the correct place to discuss changes to an article is on the article’s talk page. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the AIV report is now moot, I would agree. My point was only that we should not attempt to discuss in two different places simultaneously while an AIV report was active. Please proceed. General Ization ^Talk 22:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP now seems to have gone silent. In order to try to resolve the dispute, and to preempt other editors describing the subject as "British-American" since it appears he has never formally sought American citizenship, I'd propose that the first sentence of the lead be updated to: Sir David Mark Rylance Waters (born 18 January 1960) is a British actor, playwright and theatre director who has lived, studied, and worked extensively in the United States. The citations you added should remain to support this amended content, and we should ensure that this is adequately explained also in the body of the article. General Ization ^Talk 22:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David Mark Rylance Waters (born 18 January 1960) is a British actor, playwright and theatre director who has lived, studied, and worked extensively in the United States

Yes this would be fine with me as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the lead sentence per the above. If the consensus should change after further discussion, we can update it again per WP:BRD. General Ization ^Talk 23:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP was busy doing other things, waiting for someone to reply to what I had written. The current change is now verging on the ridiculous, but as you’ve already edited the article based on a two-person consensus without waiting for a response, I’m sure you’re happy with the fair accompli. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you have yet to offer an alternative proposal, and while you suggest the change is "ridiculous", you have not explained why you find it so. It is fully supported by the cited sources. As I stated immediately after making the change, consensus can change, but not without constructive participation in the process. Your move. General Ization ^Talk 23:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a US citizen or national, nor a permanent resident
Source? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a source to claim otherwise? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a falsehood to claim the stable version is British American, it was only added two days ago
All you've succeeded in doing, IP, is demonstrating that you have repeatedly reverted this content despite multiple added references, with no attempts to resolve or discuss this on the talk page until being forced to do so. Not a good look. It's clear there's an effective compromise available here, as discussed above.

In the future, I would recommend you attempt to seek compromise based on the sources, rather than continually revert to establish your preferred version. That sort of behavior is very likely going to result in your being blocked sooner or later... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting sources isn’t a good look, neither is a BLP violation. Neither is posting falsehoods about what a stable version is. I tried to put it back to the WP:STATUS QUO, not breach BLP. You ignored BRD, you ignored BLP. The “compromise” is ridiculous - it’s supposed to be a lead that summarises the article, not something that regurgitates too much information. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, you should be able to back it up with a direct set of cited evidence. Differing interpretations of sources is not an automatic BLP violation, and as far as I can remember, no one made you the arbiter of what is "correct" about Mark Rylance. If you're going to directly accuse other editors of breaking policies, you should do it on user talk pages or the applicable noticeboards. Such discussion is off-topic here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted. That much is clear. And no, it's not off topic discussing it here: this is the place where discussions about the article should take place. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The opening line of the lead now reads that Rylance “is a British actor, playwright and theatre director who has lived, studied, and worked extensively in the United States”. Aside from the OVERLINKING and inconsistent punctuation with the serial comma, are you seriously telling me that is the best description you think Rylance should have? Crowbarring in nationalism just for the sake of it? Take off the last 11 words and you’ve got a good opening sentence. It’s late here, but my next move will be to get more eyes on this rather ridiculous sentence by opening an RFC in the morning. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This appears to be your opinion. OVERLINKING has nothing to do with this, as this compromise has no bearing on wikilinking. We should not link "British", you're right about that. Otherwise, this appears to be entirely your opinion. The proper procedure in something like this is probably WP:3O, but we already have multiple users compromising. An RFC is fine, but doing it too often over minor changes is a component of WP:TE. I sure hope you create such an RFC with a neutrally worded opening statement, since you appear to be directly skipping over WP:RFCBEFORE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, opening an RfC is tendentious. Oh dear... Oh, and you can stop the attempts at harassment and veiled threats on my talk page. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, opening RFCs too often over minor changes is a component of WP:TE. Please try to remain civil and WP:AGF. thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You have accused me of opening an RFC in bad faith and left harassing messages on talk page accusing me of being a sock or evading a block. I think WP:AGF is something you may want to look into yourself. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:655C:41A2:7382:EE32 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the opening line of the article contain the phrase "who has lived, studied, and worked extensively in the United States" and three sources? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No - revert to long-standing STATUS QUO. The long-standing previous version was amended a few days ago to the BLP-breaching description of "British-American". When challenged, the 11 words were added so the most important sentence in the article now reads that Rylance "is a British actor, playwright and theatre director who has lived, studied, and worked extensively in the United States". The addition of the information about him being in the US fails MOS:BEGIN, and (particularly) MOS:LEADBIO. It also breaches WP:LEAD as a whole, as it is not a reflection of the article. Where he spent his spent his life from age 2 to 16 is not part of his notability and should not be in the lead sentence or lead paragraph.

The opening line should be returned to the original summary of the subject: that Rylance "is a British actor, playwright and theatre director." The three sources shouldn't be in the lead - the information should be sourced in the article. – The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, nor should it call him "British-American". To quote an unsigned comment in the previous discussion above: "The fact he spent time in his youth in the States does not make him American. He is not a US citizen or national, nor a permanent resident. He did not become notable while living in the US only when in the UK. He returns to the US for work purposes. This does not make him American. The sources do not even call him American." That about says it all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This RFC does not contain all the applicable options, does not include any background info, and failed to WP:RFCBEFORE and is therefore malformed and should be closed and reformed. If we are to live with a malformed bad-faith RFC, then I think overall the question in this case is “is it DUE for the first sentence that Rylance grew up in America?” And the answer is “yes”, given the large preponderance of sources which include this info. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The RFC is not malformed. We have gone through the discussion above, where there was no agreement and one was not likely to come. As to this RFC being in bad faith, I think that is a spurious claim and you should think hard about striking the accusation: asking the community for their input is not acting in bad faith. You stalking me to other discussions, is a dubious step for an editor to take, and I'm both disgusted and chilled by it. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:655C:41A2:7382:EE32 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We have gone through the discussion above, where there was no agreement and one was not likely to come - Agreement must not be unanimous. Good wiki-conduct would tell us to wait for unrelated users to weigh in naturally. Since Wiki's project is never done, and there is no time limit.
  You stalking me to other discussions, is a dubious step for an editor to take, and I'm both disgusted and chilled by it. I'm not sure what you mean? You're an anonymous IP. If you're referring to recent discussions around infoboxes, my participation on those was based on an anonymous IP leaving a DS notice on a user's talk page who I know, respect, and talk page stalk, with the edit summary "Comment on the content, not other editors".

  I found this interesting, since DS notices are never meant to be punitive in nature. So I followed the discussion threads, and found some RFCs on infoboxes. Are you the same person who is commenting on all of those with the firm belief that such articles should not have infoboxes? The same person who, as User:SchroCat, was blocked multiple times for edit warring (even edit warring at ArbCom) about infoboxes? I apologize for discussing this on this unrelated talk page, but if you are that same user, you have resisted any attempt to discuss matters civilly on your talk. Reverting and calling such discussions harassment. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]