Talk:Michael Fassbender

edit request

Michael Fassbender trained at the Drama Centre London, not Central school of speech and drama.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Baseball Watcher 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Town Creek

Please note that the "Town Creek" links were linking to the Town Creek, Alabama page, rather than to the film page. I've fixed it. please be careful ;) Hrhadam (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Collins

Very doubtful he is 'descended' from Michael Collins as he had no children any history book is aware of. Author probably means 'related' to Michael Collins and 'descended' from one of his siblings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.97.85 (talk) Agree! It is an established fact that Michael Collins had no offspring. The connection must be through Adam and Eve.

As in the case of most Wikipedia entries on celebrities, this entire entry reads like it was written by his publicist or a fan club. Witness the very liberal use of terms such as "critical acclaim". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.60.195 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fassbender wins Coppi.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fassbender wins Coppi.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:MichaelFassbenderSanSebastianFilmFestival.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MichaelFassbenderSanSebastianFilmFestival.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Peng and Michael Fassbender.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Peng and Michael Fassbender.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Peng and Michael Fassbender.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of the personal life section

There have been repeated attempts to remove information from the Personal life section pertaining to Michael Fassbender dating Nicole Beharie. The fact that Beharie is African-American and Fassbender caucasian is almost certainly playing a role in this. If the vandalism persists, then an admin should be contacted to place the page under protection. Malik047 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there has been vandalism on the Personal life section by a Fassbender fan pertaining to his relationship with former girlfriend Leasi Andrews. He was involved in a domestic abuse scandal that is documented in the links. His fans are attempting to delete the information and cited sources though no accusations against Fassbender currently exist. Bookmarkcollector (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Article fully protected

To stop the ongoing edit war, I have protected the article for a week. Please use the time to discuss whether the sources provided for the disputed section are adequate according to Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons. Favonian (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I think that per WP:BLPCRIME, it is not appropriate to include this accusation without a conviction. There would need to be much stronger coverage to warrant inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Any such claims made in the biographies of living persons need to be cited by a reliable source or be removed immediately, as outlined in WP:BLPCRIME. At this point, it is a given that these attempts at slander are originating from far-right or white supremacist circles as a consequence of Fassbender his choice in partners. This page will need to be watched. Malik047 (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a neo-Nazi. I came here to see if this story had been included; on examining the sources ([1],[2],[3]), I'd say they are reliable, but the material isn't significant enough to belong in this article at this time. We should try to avoid turning 'Personal life' sections into a gossip column, and only include negative allegations when they are highly notable. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from using red herrings in arguments; no difference of opinion is involved. When users began adding content to the personal life section regarding Fassbender dating Beharie, this sourced information was repeatedly being removed without any rationale provided in each edit, behavior consistent with vandalism. Shortly afterwards, continued attempts at slander were made in this same section, violating the guidelines outlined in WP:BLPCRIME. In both cases, the root cause of this disruptive behavior was making public the interracial character of Fassbender's relationships. Racism is a very real thing, and it nonetheless has no place here on Wikipedia. Malik047 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the recent discussion at BLPN showed a strong consensus against including this item in the article. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Biographical or Hagiographical? Wikipedia or Fanopedia?

I know next to nothing about Michael Fassbender, having only just seen him in Jane Eyre. I'm also a straight guy, so I'm little interested in his personal charms. I am therefore a disinterested commentator in remarking that the first paragraph of the current edit might be perfect material for a letter to a fanzine from an adoring fan, but in Wikipedia is nothing more than preposterous. Will someone who is informed and interested to do so please review and rewrite this. This is the first time I have come across something in Wikipedia which risks discrediting it entirely in my eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawbridge (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What are yuo referring to? Murry1975 (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Relationships

There's a bit of an edit war going on, re: Mr Fassbender's past and previous relationships, and which of them are to be included or not.

So here's how we're going to settle this.

The article can (but need not) mention Mr Fassbender's current romantic partner; today, that is Ms Ghenea. If/when that changes, Ms Ghenea will be removed from the article and replaced with whoever Mr Fassbender next dates.

If Mr Fassbender marries or has a child with someone, that will be retained in the article regardless of whether the relationship in question ends.

Sound good? DS (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary. As the "Article fully protected" thread up there exemplifies, Fassbender's Wiki page often becomes the target of persistent vandalism. It typically involves the systematic deletion of all sourced content about the women he's been involved with, and repeated attempts at adding slanderous and unsourced rumors that are aimed at Fassbender's person. There are indications that the users engaged in this disruptive behavior are linked to far-right or white supremacist groups, as their actions appear to be directly related to Fassbender's choice in partners (who often happen to be non-Caucasian women).

The last time things got out of hand, we locked the page down for a while. I will contact Favonian and request another lockdown if the issue continues to persist. Malik047 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourced or not, I contend that the identity of Mr Fassbender's previous girlfriends doesn't matter to the article, and that we need only mention the latest one. DS (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Biographies must adhere to neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research, as per Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons. All content in the Personal life section meets these requirements, rendering that contention a non-issue. Also, the attempts by right-wing and racist elements at censoring any information pertaining to Fassbender's relationships with non-white women are rapacious and ongoing. Our responsibility is to keep the article free from their vandalism, not acquiesce to it. Malik047 (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Were these relationships notable? If they can be sourced, properly ie not tabloids or tittle mags, that would show a level of notability after all. Actually agree with Malik047 on DragonflySixtyseven's point, just because its past doesnt mean its not notable, or Liz Taylor's article would be pretty thin :0 Murry1975 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but Liz Taylor married all those guys. I did say that anyone who Mr Fassbender marries should be mentioned in the article regardless of whether they stay married. DS (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The information on previous girlfriends should not be there. A tabloid will call celebrities 'dating' if they are seen at dinner together once or if they held hands once or if one was spotted leaving the flat of another in the morning. In the real world, we all know that none of that qualifies as a real romantic relationship. It's also not remotely encyclopaedically notable. I did a quick search about Michael and Zoe's relationship. According to a few 'gossip mag' sources, they started dating in the fall of 2010 and were split by the summer of 2011. Does this sound like a significant event in the life of a 37 year-old-man? By including these two previous girlfriends, we're kind of trying to say that this handsome guy didn't have even one girlfriend until he was 33.

In short, it is simply not notable to mention such 'relationships'. When celebrity relationships drag into years and are very well-established, or they have children together, or get married, or are current, then they are worth including.

Also irrelevant is the fact that a group we happen to disagree with ideologically doesn't want the information there. We uphold encyclopaedic standards and that's just an unlucky coincidence. Julia\^talk 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you do not cite any Wikipedia guidelines to substantiate this point of view, and that it is also not informed by consensus. Until one, and preferably both, are forthcoming there is no sound basis to arbitrarily remove content from the article which 1) is directly relevant, 2) is well-sourced and 3) meets all requirements stipulated by WP:BLP. Malik047 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's common sense, no guideline necessary, and the statements already made confirm that removal of that content is in no way arbitrary. Because he has dated other women, keeping the mention of two random previous girlfriends definitely is arbitrary. Why is it directly relevant if, say, his dating of Louise Hazel is not? As for well-sourced, Us Weekly calls itself a celebrity gossip mag, not exact a pillar of reliability. According to "who's dated who" websites, he hasn't had a relationship with a celebrity yet that has lasted more than a year. If we try to keep up with this, the personal life section will be a meaningless trivia of who he had flings with. The most sensible, neutral, and relevant thing to do is to state that Fassbender "has dated several notable women" in the past and then say, "and is currently reported to be dating so-and-so" (or is single, as appropriate). Julia\^talk 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that editors issue a rationale in the edit box when removing sourced content from articles. As can be readily verified, this article has a lengthy history of unregistered users attempting to specifically remove all references to Michael Fassbender's relationships with non-Caucasian women, and each time without providing a rationale for these edits. The behavior repeatedly turns so disruptive that it culminates in edit-warring, attempts at adding unsourced slander to Fassbender's good name, and article lockdowns by Wikipedia administrators. This discussion is a direct result of yet another such attempt by unregistered users at removing the content without providing a rationale for their edits. It is, therefore, striking that a position which was deemed vandalism by a Wikipedia administrator and resulted in an article lockdown in the recent past suddenly is finding itself sanctioned, as it were.

Moreover, it may be verified by examining the article's editing history that there are numerous editors besides myself who deem the content pertaining to Fassbender's relationships to be worthy of inclusion, as several editors have been reverting these disruptive edits as they occurred over the months. This long-standing consensus has, evidently, been overturned without a new consensus having been established on this talk page first. I'm sure you can appreciate how this raises a number of questions.

When content is being removed in a manner which bypasses the consensus-building process - while arbitrarily overturning a previous consensus - it's common sense to provide a solid footing for this decision by linking to appropriate Wikipedia guidelines that explicitly justify the hows and the whys of this action. That, too, is notably absent in your post. Malik047 (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No response to the previous post has been issued in well over a week. Additionally, I've contacted user Hullaballoo and requested that he would elaborate on his contention that my last edit on the article was not "compliant with consensus". I haven't received a response to that inquiry either. I am drawing the following conclusions from this:

1) Scrutiny reveals that there is no consensus binding the editors of this article into excluding information that pertains to Fassbender's relationships with non-Caucasian women. There is only an argument in favor of exclusion, which is unable to cite Wiki guidelines that might help substantiate its position.

2) The conspicuous lack of Wiki guidelines cited by the proponents of exclusion highlights that the removal of the disputed content has no basis in WP:BLP.

3) There is implicit consensus to keep the disputed content included in the article, which is evident in the acts of numerous editors who reverted all attempts at removing it over several months. I am merely one of these editors, incidentally the most active one at present.

The content is therefore going to be re-instated due to its compliance with the guidelines stipulated by WP:BLP, as well as per implicit and long-standing consensus. As a gesture of compromise, I'll make the effort to replace all citations that referenced gossip sites with sources that cite mainstream news outlets (such as ABC News, NY Daily News and The Huffington Post). I will also expand on said content, as several of these mainstream news outlets make mention of Michael Fassbender having been in a relationship with super-model Naomi Campbell as of this April. Malik047 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion, and purely disruptive additions will be removed until you can garner such. As for your racist accusations, I will give you a chance to to strike it or you will end up at any for continued breach of WP:NPA. Murry1975 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are not negotiable. It's been evinced at length that there is no consensus to support the exclusion of this content. There is merely a position being pushed which, upon scrutiny, is found to have no basis in relevant guidelines. The lack of argumentation to the contrary is an admission of this. An example of consensus-building in talk pages can be found here. The debate on this talk page has not observed the consensus-building process and consequently no consensus is established. In response to the accusation: This article's edit history will cogently illustrate to third party observers that a disruptive pattern of behavior has, to date, been exhibited solely by the proponents of exclusion. Secondly, WP:NPA clearly explains how comments directed at content and actions, rather than individuals, do not constitute personal attacks. Feel free to provide evidence where I accuse any one specific individual in this debate, rather than refer to actions (and their underlying motivations) that repeatedly provoke edit wars and are detrimental to this article's quality. Until such evidence has been forthcoming, please refrain from making attempts to veer the discussion off on a tangent, in an apparent effort to compensate for the chronic lack of argumentation that might help validate this content's exclusion. Malik047 (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Equally there is no consensus to support inclusion, these people he is dating are also BLPS in there own right. What is notable about his relationships that pertain to his notability as an actor. What is relevant about the fact he dates non-Caucasian women, other than possibly racism. Blethering Scot 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added the seemingly non-contentious statements from news sources about the women he has dated, but this content was deleted. Here is the content: "According to ABC News, Fassbender dated actress, singer and model Zoe Kravitz from 2010 to 2011.After that, he dated actress Nicole Beharie from 2012 to 2013.According to the Daily Mail, Fassbender was dating model Naomi Campbell in 2014. ."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Another editor says the bar for including a relationship is marriage or having a child. Is there any Wikipedia policy basis for that claim? I don't think so. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Fassbender first played the role of Burton "Pat" Christenson

Amongst the various spats that exist here, can I suggest that we return to matters of grammar?

So, it appears that "Fassbender first played the role of Burton "Pat" Christenson".

Now, what does that mean? Who "second" played the role?

I think what the phrase should say is "Fassbender's first [film?] role was that of Burton "Pat" Christenson". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.83.150 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good spot, done. Murry1975 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hackney v. East End

Hi, the box says he currently lives in Hackney but the Personal Life section sez East End. Which is it? Is it both? --Aichik (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fassbender's style with lady co-stars

Reading the above I know discoursing on the extent of M. Fassbender's love life is controversial. So, I thought I'd run this: He's kind of mischievous on-set, having a tendency to kiss his female co-stars full on the mouth: 1 and 2. What do you think? Reveals a little bit about his personality and working methods too.--Aichik (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic. Murry1975 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Explain WHY. There's a reason people consult Wikipedia and not the Encyclopedia Brittanica. --Aichik (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

German? Irish? German-Irish?

I don't know the guy and I don't have a dog in the fight, only having gotten here from reading the latest at WP:3RR. Seems like this should be pretty non-controversial: Born in Germany, living in Ireland, and identifies as an Irishman (from the section header 2011: Michael also had a small, yet important role in Steven Soderbergh’s Haywire as Paul. Soderbergh accused Michael of being irritatingly cheerful whilst on set. He also had a lead part in BAFTA winning short, Pitch Black Heist alongside fellow Irishman, Liam Cunningham and Directed by John Maclean). Seems like we should be able to agree about this one. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The initial problem was that there was no citation to back up the claim: a clear BLP violation. Place of birth ≠ nationality, which is a grey area. To try and claim he was one thing without any cittation was a clear breach of our policy: not a guideline or anything as wishy-washy, but a hardline policy. A citation has now been added (although I'd prefer to stick to Irish: the nationality he gives himself, not what some lazy-arsed journo calls him – possibly after looking at what was an uncited claim on this site). – SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Again an IP is reverting, with OR. Seems a good time to reopen. Murry1975 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"when he was struggling actor"

In good English this should read "when he was a struggling actor". Unfortunately I'm not allowed to edit the article, otherwise I'd make the change myself. The error also suggests to me that the article was written by a non-native user of English, since this is a typically German (and Dutch) mistake.188.230.248.85 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)