Talk:Christian Bale

English

He is NOT English. He is WELSH!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.33.146 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to write this too, he's Welsh. I would edit it myself but someone will just put it back since I'm not a regular contributor- would someone in the wiki hegemony please fix? 68.197.246.143 (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The article explains it at Early life. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not just use "British" to avoid the confusion? British is a factual statement (UK citizenship), Welsh as born there, over English as English family and was raised there, are in effect opinions that can only be given by Bale himself. Grunners (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Bale self-identifies as English, which means the term should be given weight per WP:UKNATIONALS and MOS:IDENTITY. KyleJoan^talk 12:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That aside, the people insisting he’s Welsh are clearly not reading the early life section which states he was born to English parents and grew up in England… putting more emphasis on birth circumstances than actually cultural upbringing is a bane of many individuals existence. SinoDevonian (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

change 'English actor' to 'welsh actor' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.100.200 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Bale was born to English parents, left Wales at a young age and self-IDs as English, though not to spite the Welsh I might add.--SinoDevonian (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Christian Bale nationality.

He was born in Havetfordwest, so that makes him WELSH not English.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 37.77.115.83 (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Born to English parents, lived nearly all of his life outside of Wales and from a young age. Not Welsh, just like myself, and I'm nearly half Welsh by maternal descent.--SinoDevonian (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Not quite right

• "Known to be very private about his personal life..." seems a little tautological for a Featured Article. It's not far off "known to be very private about his private life, as "personal" and "private" are pretty much synonyms in this context.

• "He has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent." In an encyclopedia article, we only write about things that have been "noted"; we even have a policy about notability. So it seems superfluous to say what he has been noted for. We could add this form of words to almost every sentence in the bio, but that wouldn't be right. As a general reader, this particular factoid frankly doesn't seem all that surprising in an actor. Are there sources to say that he does an American accent particularly well for an Englishman? That might be a good way out of this. But honestly, if all we have is that he has portrayed characters who speak in an accent other than the actor's native one, this must apply to almost every actor who has ever lived.

I tried to improve these infelicities, but was reverted with the edit summary "(partially reverted User:Wubslin's changes; being private and valuing privacy are not the same; this also pertains to his personal life in particular, so it's inappropriate to generally write what he values; it's important to specify that sources *note* the American accent aspect of his roles rather than just say he has done the accent; the same applies to his versatility (i.e., we wouldn't neutrally write "Bale is a versatile actor"))"

In a spirit of collegiality, I thought we could discuss this here. Any thoughts? Wubslin (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Personal" and "private" are not synonyms here. "Known to be very reserved about his intimate life" would denote a similar context but take away any synonymous nature. We also wouldn't write "known to be very secretive about his secretive life".

Yes, we only write about things that have been "noted", but how the things are noted in sources is important as well. Writing on Wikipedia that a subject is noted for being something is entirely different from neutrally saying a subject is said thing (e.g., The Dark Knight is the best superhero film ≠ it is regarded as such). I also disagree that the American accent is insignificant. Actors are also supposed to transform for their roles. Should Bale's transformations be removed? Surprising or not, sources have highlighted these aspects for them to warrant inclusion. KyleJoan^talk 16:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing he did with his weight is genuinely interesting and worthy of note. I think the fact he has performed roles with different accents is entirely uninteresting and not worthy of note, even though it can be sourced. It's something almost literally every actor who has ever lived has done. We could possibly find sources that he has a UK driving licence, but we would not need to say that he was noted for being a licenced driver, as it's so extremely common. This is almost at that level, it seems to me. --Wubslin (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The American accent is noted in sources as being more significant than simply something he does in character, so this goes back to how sources note things. The Atlantic lists him among those who "work least in their native accents", while The Independent highlights audiences' confusion toward how he does not speak in an American accent in real life. These aren't random articles mundanely mentioning that Bale speaks outside his native accent for his roles like all actors do. If sources highlight a UK license and stress its importance to Bale's status, then it would be appropriate to discuss including that. KyleJoan^talk 16:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Two solid sources highlighting his use of an American accent seems worth a mention. I would prefer a more specific summary of the sources, something like Although Bale's natural speech uses a Cockney accent, in most of his roles he has portrayed American characters. (<---needs fine-tuning but you get the idea) Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was driving at when I asked "Are there sources to say that he does an American accent particularly well for an Englishman?" We would be far better off saying something like "The Atlantic lists him among those who 'work least in their native accents'", than saying "He has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent." in my opinion. --Wubslin (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought the English actor who played Eddie in Stranger Things did a really good job with the American accent, but I'm unsure if the actor in question is known for doing American accents all the time, whereas Christian Bale is. Poorly-done and well-done accents are commented upon a lot so I think it is worth a passing mention as well.--SinoDevonian (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Some good suggestions there. I just don't think we can run with "He has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent." Something more explicit and descriptive would be better. --Wubslin (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Totally. I think the fact he is British yet nearly always uses an indistinguishable American accent is noteworthy - it's an interesting facet of his acting. A compact description would also be in order as well.--SinoDevonian (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've gone with User:Schazjmd's suggestion for now. I think it looks a lot better. --Wubslin (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

And I see I have been reverted again. Is "During interviews to promote films in which he puts on an accent, Bale would continue speaking in the given accent." really important to keep? Again, I think if it is it needs to be more carefully worded. Do we mean that he always or usually does this? That's what "would" implies. --Wubslin (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, the suggestion violates WP:SYNTH because neither source fully supports the material (i.e., The Independent supports "Cockney", The Atlantic supports "American characters"), with "although" inappropriately relating the two parts. Not only is "American characters" different from "American accents", but The Atlantic article's statistics are dated since Bale has appeared in nine more films since its 2013 publication.

If the intention at this time is to correlate and contrast his natural and popular accents, the article already does that with He has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent. In real life, Bale speaks in an "emphatic, non-posh" English accent. A semicolon to replace the middle period would clarify the correlation without the SYNTH issue. The quoted description is also more neutral since "Cockney" requires an understanding of what the word means as a noun. Expanding on the existing material (e.g., adding the quality of the accent's execution or the volume in which it is used) is a different point–I believe this requires more sources. The only appropriate expansion with the two sources is adding "work least in their native accents", but that would make the removal of "American accent" even more inappropriate.

I'm not understanding what "would" implies. It doesn't imply anything. Digital Spy supports that material. Even Bale's own words support what is written, which details how he publicly distances his personal qualities from those of this characters. Why do we need to specify how often he does it? KyleJoan^talk 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the due respect, that is appreciated. I think we have consensus that "He has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent." is poor and need to be improved. What's your suggestion? --Wubslin (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

When has the discussion been about that phrase being poor? I thought your issue was with the noted American accent use being uninteresting and not worthy of note? That aside, that's not my take on the consensus. My observation of it tells me that the accent use itself is due and appropriate regardless of how we could change and expand on the material. I understand you don't think we can run with just that phrase, but I don't see anyone else saying it should be removed unless we make it less uninteresting. My suggestions are to add a semicolon to tie the paragraph together and/or "work least in their native accents" based on your earlier point. On how to make the mere accent use more interesting, I have none. KyleJoan^talk 19:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Mere use of accents isn't interesting and cannot be made so. I am not even an actor and can easily imitate various foreign accents. (My South African one is the best.) This isn't noteworthy though, as it is something most adults can do. It is even less noteworthy in an actor, as this is essentially what they do for a living. Remarking that a professional actor can "do" accents other than their own, is almost like remarking that a professional driver is able to parallel park. I think "He has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent" is in this vein. When we discussed this above, User:Schazjmd said: I would prefer a more specific summary of the sources, something like "Although Bale's natural speech uses a Cockney accent, in most of his roles he has portrayed American characters. and SinoDevonian said I think the fact he is British yet nearly always uses an indistinguishable American accent is noteworthy - it's an interesting facet of his acting. A compact description would also be in order as well. I was trying to boldly implement User:Schazjmd's suggestion. Reverting is fine, but I would like to see your improved version. Again, I just don't think the present wording cuts it. --Wubslin (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

By your improved version, do you mean a revision based on the two changes I suggested? Here's what I had in mind: Bale has also been noted for portraying roles with an American accent, with The Atlantic's Joe Reid listing him among those who "work least in their native accents"; in real life, Bale speaks in an "emphatic, non-posh" English accent. If this still does not cut it, I'll refer you to WP:FAOWN, which I see Gog the Mild has explained in a more cohesive way than I could. Feel free to open a WP:RfC, and if a consensus ever finds that the mere accent use does not warrant inclusion on its own, then I'll support that consensus. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 02:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like an improvement all right. Yes, I'm familiar with FAOWN. It says "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." This article is far from perfect, and discussing ways to make it better here in article talk is very much what FAOWN recommends. We wouldn't need an RfC to see that mere accent use in an actor on its own doesn't warrant inclusion. Now that we have cleared that up, can we next look at "During interviews to promote films in which he puts on an accent, Bale would continue speaking in the given accent"? --Wubslin (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made the change. Now we can discuss "interviews". What is the issue with that material and what changes does it require?

Add: The FA nomination and this discussion tell us that noted mere accent use ... on its own specifically regarding Bale does warrant inclusion, so one user with a general view of what actors' BLPs should and should not include does not change this. Since the discussion has gotten repetitive and convoluted, it's important to state that the new phrasing of the material does not mean there is a consensus that the original phrasing was inappropriate. Now onto the next dispute. KyleJoan^talk 12:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much better. As regards "the next dispute" (I would prefer to consider it as a civilised discussion about how to tweak this already-excellent article to make it even better, but there you go), the source has

Christian is nothing if not thoughtful to his viewing public. If he puts on an accent in a film, he'll keep it going in all promotional interviews so the audience doesn't become confused.

which we have summarised as

During interviews to promote films in which he puts on an accent, Bale would continue speaking in the given accent.

It's the "would" that I find problematic. It can mean past tense ("when I was a kid, I would often steal apples"), conditional ("if there was another election, I would vote Green"), used in auxiliary function to express custom or habitual action ("we would meet often for lunch"), and several others which are not relevant. There is nothing grammatically wrong with using it like this, but its profusion of other meanings may create tension or even confusion in the readers mind. Do we mean, "he would do this, unless xyz"? Do we mean "he would do this, but then he stopped"? For this reason, a simpler choice of words is to be preferred, as the source has done. I suggest

During interviews to promote his films, Bale speaks in the same accent he uses in the film.

It's shorter, clearer and less potentially ambiguous. Could you live with that? --Wubslin (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Linking Rowan Atkinson

@KyleJoan: I've re-linked Rowan Atkinson in the article, undoing your edit. While Atkinson is linked once before in the article, there is no rule restricting terms to one link per article, and this is not only Atkinson's first link in the section, but also a long way down the article from the previous mention, which I think justifies the link. The fact that Bale was inflenced by Atkinson in quite remarkable, and I think deserves this prominence. — The Anome (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DL says one link is sufficient. The first and second mentions' apartness as a rationale is tricky because it is also applicable to several other instances (e.g., David Bale, Little Women (1994 film)). I don't see this as a strong enough reason to bypass DL since we have the "Find" command, and I don't believe the material about Atkinson's influence suffers in any way without the link. KyleJoan^talk 12:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the linking. MOS:DL says "it may be repeated if helpful for readers", and I think this is a good example of when that's the case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Would repeat links also be appropriate in the instances I presented? Furthermore, which films in the "acting credits" section would be considered distant enough from its initial mention to warrant linking for a second time? KyleJoan^talk 13:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not playing that game. The question here is about Rowan Atkinson and I'm not indulging in "If X is ok, is Y?" If you think your links are suitable, be bold and add them in to see if somebody disagrees and removes them - then discuss to reach agreement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

But you never explained how or why repeatedly linking Atkinson would be helpful. I was trying to understand the standard that would make duplicate links appropriate in this article's body so we could apply it accordingly. KyleJoan^talk 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The two mentions of Atkinson are separated by a wall of article text, but also deal with different contexts of Bale himself, meaning that it's likely a reader will not read or see the link for one of the other instances. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this when I was copyediting the article. I think strict MoS adherence would give us one link, and I wondered about even removing the first name and just calling him "Atkinson" the second time, but I left it alone in the end. I think this might be argued as a valid exception to the guidance of the MoS and we could justify two links. The MoS is our servant, not our master. Having a second link may help the reader and the guidance is to prevent intrusive degrees of linking from diminishing the value of each link. --Wubslin (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)