Talk:Hugh Jackman

Edit request on 07 March 2013

on the Filmography section, the movie "Silver Linings Playbook" (2012) is missing, i can't add it because i'm a new user, in 4 days i'll forgive to add it, please someone.... thanks!

Hugh Jackman

Who agrees that he is utterly gorgeous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.89.26 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice try Hugh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F09:AA9:781F:183A:D86B:D4D5 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

He starred in a movie called The Rat Tamer. This should be in his Filmography, no? Look it up on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.143.94 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin categories

I don't intend to insist on this but for so many actors' articles every single ethnic origin, with a proper reference, leads to the addition of the respective category e.g. American people of X descent, regardless of the actual "amount" of this origin (50%, 25% or 12,5%) and his/her self-identification with the one or the other ethnicity. I can't find any reason not to follow this line for Hugh Jackman. Why should this article be an exception?--Sthenel (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a statement from Hugh that he is of whatever descent, and then actual proof of it, then that would be an acceptable reason to have such a category. As it is, the reference is WP:OR, and does not actually prove or substantiate that Jackman's great-grandfather was Greek; it says that he, like his other siblings, was born in Constantinople. This is even beyond the concern that possibly being 1/8 or 1/16 Greek does not make someone "of Greek descent" for encyclopedic purposes. The fact that random editors are, against Wikipedia policy, using other wiki articles as soapboxes for their own favorite ethnicities (very common right now, especially with Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Kurds, etc., or anyone who hates the Turks) does not excuse spamming more articles this way. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jackman admitted his Greek origin to a Greek interviewer (this is why it became widely known only in Greece and not abroad) and here is the video [1] (look at 0.30 secs). His statement: "It is true, I have Greek origins. Bellas was the family name two generations back... I feel like I'm part Greek and I am actually by blood." His own statement is beyond any doubt.--Sthenel (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable case. If others disagree, then this would still be open to debate/discussion. I think if you add that as an additional citation to the article, the category has merit. (PS: Please remember to properly indent your Talk page posts with the correct number of colons for proper nesting under the post you are replying to -- I've fixed your post above for now.) Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WHY THEY DELETED MY CHANGES???

I made some changes to the text that had reliable sources but they deleting it! WHY?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roarkp (talk • contribs)

Some of the edits you are making to the Hugh Jackman are already mentioned in the article. It's also important to cite sources for your edits, which I see you have done in your latest edit but did not do earlier. As for the picture, the consensus seems to be that newer pictures are better, although I may be wrong. I think this article's recent edit history makes clear that additions concerning Jackman's 50 Most Beautiful People in the World designations are somewhat contentious. So it'd probably be best to discuss them here in depth before adding them to the article. wia (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Jackman at the Odeon Leicester Square premiere of Noah, March 2014" Pic has lower quality compared to the previous photo dats Y i changed it.Am i wrong?...And everybody knows that he has been selected as 'Sexiest Man Alive' and one of de 'Most Beautiful People'! Just check out on the internet , "people" mag , IMDb , showbiz papers..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roarkp (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the general principle when it comes to lead pictures of living people is that newer is better. It is true that the current picture is not as high-resolution as the one you wanted to insert, but the current picture is also three years more recent, which gives visitors to this article a better idea of what Hugh Jackman looks like today. As for the Sexiest Man Alive designation, that fact was already in the Mentions in popular culture section. Take a look for yourself. If you're dead-set on adding something about Hugh Jackman being one of the "Most Beautiful People", you'd be better off inserting it in the Mentions in popular culture section, rather than at the start of the article. You'll need sources for that claim; you can copy the cite web template and fill in the requisite categories to do so.

Another thing you should know is that when you make a discussion thread on a talk page like this one, put a colon (:) before your post to indent it for readability's sake. I've gone ahead and put two colons before your post so that it indents properly. You won't see these colons on the actual talk page, just in the source. One final thing: when you're done writing a post on a talk page post like this, remember to sign your name by typing four tildes, one right after the other. That way your post can be traced back to you so people know to whom they're talking. wia (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please look at these two page for brad and George.They refers to "SMA" twice, one on top of de page & one in "In the media" part :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Pitt#In_the_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney I wrote those just to supplement his bio! please dont undo my edits.... I'm a novice! ~_~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roarkp (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter. And don't worry too much about being a Wikipedia beginner—we've all been there. You might want to check out this page; it gives some helpful tips on contributing to Wikipedia. Glad you are willing to contribute to Wikipedia. (Also, don't forget to sign your post by typing four tildes (~) after your post.) wia (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

THNX.Roarkp (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think these proposed changes are necessary in the article. They've since been reverted, of course, but it's worth explaining exactly why. Adding statements about someone being generally considered one of the world's most beautiful people should probably be backed up by more sources than merely People Magazine. So I'm for keeping those proposed additions out of the article, at least for the time being. wia (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

More sources than merely People Magazine??! Its People Mag that chose him ,U want a more reliable source?!

Okay please check out :http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0413168/bio, http://hugh-jackman.starszz.com/Trivias.html, http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=posh21 2.181.80.23 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WHAT?? Its not unconstructive! Just tell me what's the problem?! I had reliable sources for my edits? why its been removed?! I talked 2 U bout it... DID U CHECKED MY SOURCES? DID U READ THOSE ARTICLES? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM? Why do you just oppose it? If it is to be removed every time I edit the article just because someone thinks that it's not necessary or authentic despite the fact that it has some source , so why it's called the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!! This editing that you called unconstructive is exactly exist in other actors page as i told you in talk page ( 26 January 2015 )...Roarkp (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First up, I didn't understand half of what you said. Second, from what I did manage to pull out, your logic is that as long as it has a source, you can put anything on Wikipedia. Well, that's not the case. wia clearly explained earlier that the information that you are trying to add, if it were to be added at all, should be backed up by more than People. And it most definitely doesn't belong in the lead section. Personally, I think that the information is trivial and doesn't belong in the article, however if it were to be included, the information shouldn't deviate from where it already is in the article. I wouldn't keep trying to add it, though, if you're not going to improve on the information and the sources that you've tried to provide. Hope that helps. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on Roarkp's talk page with some helpful suggestions and articles to read; namely, WP:LEAD, WP:BRD and WP:DUE. I suggested that he write some drafts of the proposed addition himself and then come back here to discuss them. wia (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

5 Aug 2013 He's sexy, he can act, dance and sing - and he can thank his Greek background for these numerous talents. Oscar nominated Australian actor Hugh Jackman has told Star TV journalist Elgka Ntaifa he's Greek. "It is true that I have Greek roots," said the actor, on a media junket promoting the upcoming instalment of the Wolverine movie franchise. "Two generations ago the name of my family was Bellas, and I feel that I am a Greek by blood." It was less than five years ago when Jackman and his wife Deborra-Lee Furness and their two children were in Mykonos, invited to a private party by American fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger. The Jackman clan then went for a mini excursion to Delos by boat and a trip to Matogianni for dinner. In the interview with Star TV, Jackman said he was ready and willing to take up any acting opportunities there may be in Greek film. "If there is a Greek filmmaker interested in a brunette Aussie, then let me know," said the Hollywood actor, who owes a part of his career in compatriot Russell Crowe. It was Crowe's suggested for Jackman to play the Marvel Comic immortal hero Wolverine after he rejected the role himself. "They suggest the role of Wolverine to him but rejected him and suggested me. And for that, I will forever be grateful," said Jackman. The two shared the silver screen together in the Oscar award winning musical Les Miserables. Aalexander1200 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done. No specific edit requested. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well according to Hürriyet Daily News (see here) he stated on 15/02/2015 that: "My father and uncle went to the place where my grandfather immigrated from, and from what they say, that region which is in Greece today belonged to the Ottoman Empire at that time... So I am the descendant of an Ottoman grandfather. Do not think that I’m saying this because I’m coming to Turkey, but I am a Turk. Yes, I think I may say that I’m a Turk."Turco85 (Talk) 11:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2015

There is a factual inaccuracy in the 'early life' section. Following his parents' divorce, Hugh's mother did NOT take the two sisters back to the UK - they stayed in Australia until each achieved the age of 18 before relocating. Both were wards of court of the state of New South Wales until the age of 18. I know this because I was married to one of the daughters in the 1990s!

Nickmoseley (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Unfortunately, we cannot accept your statement, based on personal knowledge.
All information in Wikipedia should be verifiable in reliable sources. The statement you are asking to have removed is cited to three reliable sources, so people can check it, whereas your claim has no such sources. - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

Greek to change to Turkish 124.190.220.153 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

Greek to Turkish: Please change Greek to Turkish because of more recent Hugh Jackman's new interview stating his great grandfather's origin as Turkish. This is also published in The Age newspaper and other international and local newspapers (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/hugh-jackman-says-he-is-grandson-of-an-ottoman-a-turk.aspx?PageID=238&NID=78365&NewsCatID=381) also mentioned in your website: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Turkish_Australians and at his recent interview also could be found in YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-j0hLQHUbE. "My father tells me You are partly Turkish. May be this is why I love Turkish coffee so much" Webstercraig2 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mentions in popular culture"

Why do we have this section? It's not appropriate for a BLP, and is pure unencyclopedic, obscure, indiscriminate, ephemeral, non-noteworthy trivia. I would like to see the section deleted. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

regarded as sexually attractive

What do you mean by saying that?? If It's not appropriate or needed so why is this mentioned in other actors bio TWICE?! like Johnny Depp , George Clooney , Brad Pitt , N ... Once at the beginning of the article and once in the Media section it's been written that they're described as one of the most handsome men and named as the Sexiest Man Alive! You shouldn't undo my edits just because u don't like it or think that is non-noteworthy cus I've had rational reasons and several reliable sources for it. Set fire 2 de rain (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The key issue here is that the information is not encyclopedic. If this kind of information is presented on other pages, then it doesn't belong there. Nobody here (especially me) is having a go at you, or reverting your edits out of spite. If the information's not encyclopedic, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. As for other articles, this is the kind of non-encyclopedic material that often finds its way into celebrity articles. Indeed, it's often hard to keep it out because too many fans think we should include it. However, Wikipedia is not a fansite, and there is generally no basis for inserting such silly material.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Those attractiveness statements needs to be sourced and phrased objectively from notable media such as the annual People's Sexiest Man Alive, Cleo magazine's Most Eligible Bachelor. But not every superlative needs to be mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Set fire 2 de rain (talk · contribs) has gone about this the wrong way, which is why I reverted Set fire 2 de rain at the Brad Pitt article, reverted and tweaked his or her content at the George Clooney article (as seen here and here) and tweaked his or her content at the Hugh Jackman (as seen here and here). Such content can be appropriate for celebrity articles, or other Wikipedia articles, as it is at the WP:Featured article Angelina Jolie (WP:Permalink is here). Context is key; if the celebrity's WP:Notability is significantly tied to their physical attractiveness, as is the case for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (as two examples), then that content should be in their Wikipedia articles, with appropriate analysis. In other words, instead of written in a WP:Trivia-like way, it should be presented in the way that the content is presented at the Angelina Jolie article. And it should be in the WP:Lead only if it is significantly covered lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Further tweaks regarding the Brad Pitt case are here and here. And like I noted, more tweaking/expansion is needed in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And this is what the Brad Pitt content currently looks like; more appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs) In what way should I write it to be acceptable? Can you improve and expand this section for this article like wot u did in Brad Pitt's 'cause I don't know what's the best way to write about it...Set fire 2 de rain (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I already pointed to the Angelina Jolie article example as the ideal example. But I don't think you are yet experienced enough as a Wikipedia editor to be adding this type of content to Wikipedia articles. Keep in mind that I am the one who reverted this addition you made to the Physical attractiveness article on May 30, 2015. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this section since the Hugh Jackman article is currently on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Typos fixed here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since Bbb23 has joined the conversation (and as I recall has this article on his watch list), I'm just going to throw something out there: Set fire 2 de rain is making the exact same edits that Roarkp was making to this article in January and April, for which he/she was repeatedly warned for edit-warring. Following Roarkp's last talk-page warning, Set fire 2 de rain created their account (and started editing) exactly 14 minutes after Roarkp made their last edit ever. Like Roarkp, Set fire 2 de rain also edited an article about a site in Iran. Both accounts have also edited X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and the bulk of each account's editing is regarding Hugh Jackman and/or the sex-symbol issue. I find all of this highly "coincidental", especially for two accounts with less than 60 edits each, if you catch my drift. No, I don't feel liking filing (I find doing so tedious; perhaps someone else will if required), but it's worth a check. Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can't believe I didn't think of that. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"In the media"

Why you deleted this section? Can you give me a logical reason?...So anyone can come to this page and delete any section he wants?Set fire 2 de rain (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, regarding this and this, that's your cue to respond. For context, see the #regarded as sexually attractive section above. Set fire 2 de rain was clearly looking to expand the material you removed, though I've been clear with Set fire 2 de rain above that I don't think that he or she is the right person to expand such content. Also, the content you removed consisted of two sentences, not one. Flyer22 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you [also] mean that is 4TheWynne's cue to respond, since that second edit was by him. I removed the section because one-sentence sections are not allowed on Wikipedia, and because the sentence does not merit its own section even if there were consensus to keep it. 4TheWynne and others have been removing the information when placed in the lede, because there is no consensus to include the information and because there is currently a consensus not to include it, and the editor(s) who keep trying to add it have never gained consensus. Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You've basically responded for me. Don't reckon I could have explained it more accurately. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, no, I did not mean 4TheWynne. 4TheWynne already commented in the "regarded as sexually attractive" section above. And, when reverting Set fire 2 de again, 4TheWynne stated, "If it was removed by someone else already, then discussions should continue." The dispute was was over, as far as I could tell. It continued because you removed the "In the media" section. You are also incorrect that "one-sentence sections are not allowed on Wikipedia." What you must be referring to is MOS:Paragraphs, which is a guideline I cite often; the only relevant part of it as far as this discussion goes is where it states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." It is a guideline, not a policy, and nowhere does it state that "one-sentence sections are not allowed." It states that we should generally avoid them. Generally is the keyword there. Sections often start out with a little bit of material and are then expanded. Also, I've been clear that it was two sentences, not one (though this still classifies as a short paragraph). As for the lead, like WP:Lead notes, things generally should not be in the lead unless significantly addressed lower in the article. So, yeah, that text is not lead material. As for you removing the content because there seems to be WP:Consensus to exclude it, that is a solid argument if such WP:Consensus actually exists. But no matter the supposed WP:Consensus on this matter, I see no solid argument for keeping the material out of the article and why it cannot go somewhere in the Career section. That stated, I don't care much about this article; so whatever is done with it does not bother me much. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, if you are going to talk about someone else's edit(s), then don't involve or mention only me. If a knowledgeable editor had reverted my edit, I would have been OK with that (if that was in line with consensus). If you want to talk about my edit(s) only, please only link my edit(s). Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been clear that I linked to the two most relevant edits and mentioned you because this dispute started up again because of an edit you made. I mentioned you and Set fire 2 de. I saw no need to mention 4TheWynne, who was referring to your removal when reverting Set fire 2 de. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So in which section we should mention to this issue (being named as the "Sexiest Man Alive" and ranked as Forbes most powerful actor)?? Set fire 2 de rain (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Singer

I have to agree that Jackman is most definitely a singer, and that should be indicated in the lede and infobox. He has performed the singing leads in Beauty and the Beast, Sunset Boulevard, Summa Cabaret, Oklahoma!, Carousel, The Boy from Oz (one-man show, three separate years, multiple venues), Les Miserables, and Hugh Jackman, Back on Broadway (one man show) , and as host of the Tonys (four times) and Oscars. He has won numerous major awards for his musical-theatre performances. He is certainly much more of a singer than he is a producer. Softlavender (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

HE IS! He is a singer and dancer too...Set fire 2 de rain (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree he was a theatre performer, but this is already covered by actor, but he does not have notable studio albums to distinguish those occupations. Same with dance, it is in the context of his music theatre / acting career. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Eyes needed at List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman

Eyes needed at List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. Right now only two are listed, and all the others have been removed. And if you try to add the others back in, you get a block message that prevents that. Please put the page on your watch lists. Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem, Softlavender. The message told you that you couldn't add the awards and nominations without providing citations to reliable source validating each and every award received. You didn't do that: instead, you just tried to trip the filter over and over. How about finding citations to reliable sources that validate each and every award you add and including them in your edit? Then, your edit will comply with WP:V and the filter won't block it.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww, citations are not specifically absolutely required for each and every single award in a List article for an extremely notable person, unless there is actual reason to doubt their veracity -- these awards are all a matter of public record. Cf., for instance, List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman, the awards listing for a Featured Article. Or List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep. I would appreciate it if you would restore the 60 awards and nominations you have removed from the article, and if you would also remove the edit-block. I do not believe that the edit-block is within Wikipedia policy; nor do I believe that removal of 60 awards and nominations without notice and without Talk-page discussion is within Wikipedia policy. If you want more citations, please place a tag on the article. Right now the article has only a single award and a single nomination, making the article highly inaccurate. I believe that blocking auto-confirmed editors from restoring mass deletions without a WP:RFPP by an uninvolved admin is against Wikipedia policy. Can you tell me who created that edit-block feature and under whose aegis/guidance/discussion? Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Citations are required for every contentious statement about a living person. Every one, without exception, per WP:BLP, and all such statements can and should be removed on sight. Statements that someone won a particular award are inherently contentious. I will not violate WP:BLP by restoring unsourced contentious material about a living person. The filter isn't specific to Hugh Jackman, and I'm not planning on removing or disabling it.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to ask again, since the edit-block filter codes/coding is invisible (at least to me) and so its origin/purpose/acceptance onto Wikipedia is unclear: Who created the edit-block filter, and under whose aegis/guidance/discussion? Could you please point me to the discussion regarding its creation / purpose / documentation / etc.? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's intentionally invisible, and I am the author of the filter. It simply enforces a fairly obvious consequence of WP:BLP, and, if you wish to discuss it, I would suggest that WT:BLP is the appropriate location. Be certain to mention that the reason you discovered it was because you attempted to add a massive amount of material about a living person without taking the time to verify that it was true, in violation of WP:BLP, restoring it after its veracity had been challenged, in violation of WP:BURDEN. Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning.

Or, alternatively, you could simply comply with our policies about sourcing and not trip a fairly non-controversial filter.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP policies about contentious material are there to prevent false negative allegations, rumors, or reports being publicly placed onto Wikipedia. Awards and nominations are neither negative, libelous, controversial, provocative, nor scandalous. What is controversial, provocative, and negative, is for a list of Jackman's awards and nominations to only list one award and one nomination. Blocking the restoration of mass-deleted relevant material without due process and with a tool developed and applied without due process is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to false allegations, both negative and positive. As for "contentiousness", when an award is miscredited, it does cause harm to the person or persons that actually won. There's nothing preventing you from restoring material after you have found citations to reliable sources verifying them. There are a lot of things preventing you from restoring the material before you've found a reliable source that indicates they are true, and I would hope that your own desire to not include untrue information would be high on the list.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww is on a crusade and is ignoring any form of common sense that would suggest he asks for references, or (shock) finds them himself. The censorship of the article is inappropriate in extremis, references can be requested using {{ref improve}} or {{citation needed}}, and that's much better than just deleting the majority of the article. But Kww is determined to remove easily referenced information from Wikipedia like some kind of crusader. It's very odd from such an experienced editor, I think perhaps a wikibreak is in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How quaint!

Okay,we must not mention that he sings, dances and plays in theater and stage musicals, we must not mention that he has been named as sexiest man alive, ranked as Forbes most powerful actor or other things....'cause ALL OF THESE are not needed and they're non-noteworthy! So THIS is a complete and informative biography?!...Set fire 2 de rain (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)