Talk:Angela Lansbury

RfC on Sentence in Opening Paragraph

Question: Should the article retain or remove the following sentence from the opening paragraph of the lead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Although based for much of her life in the United States, her work attracted international attention."

Responses

• Retain. This wording was included as part of the FAC procedure that led to the article becoming a Featured Article in February 2023. It succinctly explains that Lansbury was based for much of her career in the United States, which is otherwise not obvious given that she is described as an "Irish-British" actor in the opening sentence. At the same time, this sentence highlights that her work gained international attention, which is not the case for all actors based in the United States. I would be open to possible alteration of the sentence, but would oppose its wholesale removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. If not, then Restructure at least.

The sentence is hollow and vague, just basic fluff that looks good but means little. And "based for much of" could be worded better, like "Although predominantly established in the United States, her work attained international acclaim." With that wording, it adds more emphasis to the success, and carries more weight. How does that sound to you, @Midnightblueowl: ~? --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Remove. The sentence is extraneous and could apply to a multitude of actors. It feels like filler a high school student would use for a word count. The "attracted international attention", would apply to most Hollywood actors. It's just completely unnecessary. Restructuring the phrasing doesn't make up for the pointlessness of the sentence. The One I Left (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Restructure as suggested by Mbo below, or Retain (Summoned by bot) what seems worthy of mention is that most of her professional life was in the US - this is not obvious at present due to the complicated 'citizenry'. How best to accomplish this I'm not sure, but it's possible that the most efficient way is already there. Pincrete (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Preferably remove—at least reword. I agree with previous editors that the information seems unnecessary and does in fact apply to many actors born outside the United States. Therefore it's not something that is notable specifically for Lansbury. If it is retained, then it ought to be reworded. It reads rather awkwardly. I'm fine with the suggested rewording by the editor who hates Dane Cook. pillowcrow 17:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Proposal for restructuring. I think the most important fact to retain is the initial part of the sentence, that Lansbury's career was largely based in the United States. However, it would be possible to integrate that fact into the sentence that precedes it in the lead. Thus, we could amend said sentence so that it reads: "In a career spanning eighty years, most of it based in the United States, she played various roles across film, stage, and television." Would that alternative gain broad support? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was an Irish-British and American actress and singer. In a career spanning eight decades, predominantly based in the United States, she played various roles across film, stage, and television.

  ^Just wanted to copy and paste the opening paragraph, to see how it would look. The interweaving works for me, @Midnightblueowl:, but phrasing it more articulately.

  So that's my submission, I guess: In a career spanning eight decades, predominantly based in the United States, she played various roles across film, stage, and television.

  Changing 'eighty years' to 'eight decades' & 'predominantly based in the United States'

  These 2 are not mutually exclusive. If everyone likes the latter phrase but dislikes using "decades", that's fine. But if you do like both, rather than one or the other, or dislike both alterations, please let us know! Thanks.

  ---------------

  I do have one question--For everyone here, this is the next issue to address. Would one want to append a sentence, or mention that those aforementioned various roles garnered critical acclaim? Not yet mentioning the awards per se.

  Mentioning the awards would be upping the ante even further. So I'm only contemplating whether or not to hint at the critical acclaim in the opening intro paragraph, foreshadowing the upcoming discussion of expanded critical lauding & accolades below in the latter portion of the lead. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this restructured version. Although mentioning that she was both Irish-British and American already suggests that she was accomplished in the U.S., I think adding where she was mostly based clarifies her notability.

  Regarding your other question, I agree with mentioning the acclaim. I think a few major awards she received could also be added. 23impartial (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would be more than happy with Cinemaniac86's suggested wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like the consensus is overwhelmingly for removal.The One I Left (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I think the "predominatly based in the United States" is unnecessary. Again, that could apply to a host of other actors. The reader can gleam that information based on the the titles in the rest of the lead. I would suggest something along the lines of: In a career spanning eight decades she portrayed various roles across film, stage, and television. Then I would add the notable awards she's won and her damehood.The One I Left (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning remove The first few paragraphs already describe her activities in the United States. A sentence can be added about how or why she became internationally recognized later in life. Senorangel (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support "restructured" one' An improvement. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove As another editor stated above, that sentence just seems like fluff. Some1 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Rephrase - The real issue is that the lead should be a summary of the content of the article. Which means we should consider the weight given in the article to her spending a bulk of her time in the U.S. I do think the wording is odd, and could be more concise. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Rephrase — Sadko (words are wind) 13:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. It's not even really clear what it means, as she spent a signficant amount of her career in London. The Lead describes her work, including her many Hollywood movies and American TV shows, as well as her theatre work in London and New York. The sentence is somewhat misleading as well as containing the statement about "international attention" that everyone has already agreed adds nothing. I would not muck up the previous sentence with anything about where she was "based", which impairs its flow substantially. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. The sentence is ancillary to an important, encyclopedic understanding of the person. "International attention" presumes the default is that celebrated actors known only in one country. Other reasons above are also persuasive. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• *Support "Proposal for restructured" phrasing - international seems clear from the first line "Dame" (DBE) and "Irish-British". That "Although" line seems odd to have here anyway per MOS:LEAD since that doesn't seem to be summarising something of the article body. And the existing wording starts oddly as a conflict with "Although" - as if being in the States generally prevents international attention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's precisely why I detest the wording as is. It's such clumsy prose, aside from being fluff.

  In a career spanning eight decades, predominantly based in the United States, she played various roles across film, stage, and television.

  That was my proposal^. But I quite like @The One I Left's proposal too:

  In a career spanning eight decades, she portrayed various roles across film, stage, and television.

  This one just crops out the "based in USA" portion, obviously. As you and others said, her being based here is covered elsewhere in the lede, so why force it in here?

  The "international attention" fragment, since it's in regards to the "Global Fame" section, can be mentioned in tandem with Murder, She Wrote down at the bottom lede paragraph. That's reasonable, right? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Update

The consensus thus far seems to be overwhelmingly against purely retaining it as is.

However, there is a near tie between Remove and Restructure/Rephrase, with scales tipped towards the latter. I'm a bit on the fence. I sided more with @The One I Left. But I'm open to at least restructuring it in a satisfactory way that would encapsulate what we need to convey encyclopedically. And 1 or 2 remove votes also seem flexible towards the latter, if necessary.

I have no clue if I'm being helpful in any way, aside from the person who seconded my rephrasing option and my comment about removing "fluff". But regarding this being a Featured Article, IF this is at all helpful, in retaining that status throughout the process of these minor tweaks, could we utilize Charlie Chaplin's article as a template/guide to follow? Just a suggestion. Or does it seem like that FA's lead is bloated too? Curious to compare, as it'll help put it all into perspective.

Anyway, that's where we're at now basically, a 5-4-1 mostly in favor of Restructuring. Do we prefer my version, Midnight's version, or shall we take The One I Left's suggestion and bring the awards up to the top of the lead? --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for staying on top of this. I really don't believe any minor tweaks to the phrasing of the specific line in question will do any good since it's "fluff". I would suggest a opening lead similar to the Featured Articles of Bradley Cooper or Emma Stone as a reference/template to follow.

Not to muddy the waters, but I would also suggest using them as a template for the body of the article. Right now on Lansbury's page has her Personal Life combined with her Career which is confusing. Her career is also split up into "Early life and career beginnings", "mid career", and "global fame". I would do away with all of those and have something similar to Emma Stone's where it's "Career" and then specific dates with descriptions. The One I Left (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's been a few days. It seems the overwhelming consensus is the removal of that phrase.The One I Left (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Best to wait for an uninvolved editor to come and determine consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean the consensus is pretty overwhelming.The One I Left (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You've used that rather vague word "overwhelming" three times now. I just don't think its true. You have a strong and particular POV here that is not supported by many above. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I'm inclined to suggest it's best we just Remove this fluff sentence altogether, rather than even contemplate a particular rephrasing. The tide continues to shift that way, and this dispute is at a stagnancy.
Furthermore, why not just interweave the "predominantly based in the US" part (worded any which way, not just my way) into the lede elsewhere, rather than let it linger up top, thereby eliminating the need to debate this issue any further. And let's move on to the next aspect: How to frame the awards phrasing.
The part that should remain up top is "in a career spanning eight decades" as been previously alluded to. I think @The One I Left was also in basic agreement with this, anyone else?
PLEASE NOTE: Someone edited the main page, up top. I did invite them to participate/contribute a vote, but to avoid further edits without consensus.--Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 22:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The above, unsigned, by Cinemaniac86 . Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad. I'm used to the reply automatically signing for me. I forgot that this time, I had typed it that way, cut and pasted it from there, and put it into this section via edit; thus, no automatic sign-age. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 22:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, right now here is the current Tally (after I went fully remove):

REMOVE: 6 These are the six that only voted remove, although one was "leaning remove".

Cinemaniac86, The One I Left, Senorangel, Some1, Ssilvers, Swiss Mister in NY

REMOVE or REPHRASE: 1 Vote leaned more for removal, but if retained, to rephrase via my wording.

pillowcrow

REPHRASE: 5 Five; one unofficial, but 23's reply to me was indicative of rephrase support.

Pincrete, Johnbod, 23impartial, MaximusEditor, Sadko

RETAIN: 1 One other cancelled their split vote; officially, Midnight's vote still for keeping.

Midnightblueowl

----------

@Senorangel's comment, just noticed, matches where I'm at now. But otherwise, the vote is not quite overwhelmingly in favor of anything, correct. It's a stalemate, and Midnight and I did try to work towards suggested compromises with rephrasing options. But we could certainly use some more input right now, to generate some discussion. This vote opened nearly 1 month ago. =) --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - so much for "overwhelming support for removal"! Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Other sentences in the lede describe or imply her activities in America, so the first part to me is not that useful. International attention, which is covered in the article's Global Fame section, should still be mentioned in some form. Senorangel (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Circling back for consensus, seems overwhelming in support for removal with only 1 vote for Retain. Maybe we should offer another vote for REPHRASE or REMOVE? The phrase in question is simply so broad it could apply to any actor of notoriety and therefore is meaningless and fluff. The One I Left (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Nationality RfC

Describing Angela Lansbury as a "British-American-Irish actress" may be inappropriate for a biography of a person with multiple citizenship. I've seen the article for Elizabeth Taylor, which appropriately describes her in the lead as a "British and American actress", while the article for Anya Taylor-Joy omits the nationality at all (thus describing her as just "actress") per talk page consensus; Taylor-Joy was born in the US and has British and Argentine citizenship. So I've formulated some plans to fix Angela Lansbury's nationality in the lead, while following the guideines stated at MOS:CONTEXTBIO. (Other examples that follow this are Olivia Newton-John, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Christopher Nolan, Dua Lipa, etc.)

• Option A: Change description to "British and American actress", while retaining the Irish citizenship in the infobox.

  How it will look like:

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was a British and American actress and singer. ...

• Option B: Keep the Irish citizenship in the lead, but reformat the lead to "British, American, and Irish actress".

  How it will look like:

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was a British, American and Irish actress and singer. ...

• Option C: Restore previous format "British-Irish and American actress".

  How it will look like:

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was a British-Irish and American actress and singer. ...

• Option D: Status quo: Don't do anything with the description and keep it as "British-American-Irish actress".

  How it will look like:

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was a British-American-Irish actress and singer. ...

• Option E: Just have it say "British actress".

  How it will look like:

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was a British actress and singer. ...

• Option F: Just omit the nationality at all

  How it will look like:

  Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was an actress and singer. ...

Thanks, RMXY (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you're addressing this, because I've found the issue to be quite a conundrum myself. The way I personally see it, for everyone, is that their nationality is basically where their homeland is.

I look at some examples such as Vivien Leigh or Joan Fontaine and her sister, Olivia de Havilland. The former was born in British India, but sent to the UK as a child. The latter two were born in Japan, becoming British citizens by birthright, but were sent to California by their mother because Joan was a sickly child and the climate would be healthier. Thus why Olivia and Joan are listed as "British-American" actresses: British by birthright, American by where they were raised.

Similarly, we could look at Paul Muni for one angle, and Daniel Day-Lewis for another. The former was born in Ukraine, when it was the Austro-Hungary Empire. But his family emigrated to Chicago when he was 7. He's listed as an American actor, because despite his ethnicity, for all intents and purpose, he was raised as a Jewish American, not a Jewish Ukrainian. But ethnically, he is Ukrainian.

Oh, another example: Claudette Colbert, born in France to French parents, but moved to the states when she was like 3. Thus basically considered an American actress. DDL, he holds Irish citizenship, much like Dame Angela. BUT, in spite of that, he is still only listed as a British actor.

Lansbury has Irish blood. DDL, I believe, has Irish blood. But if I were a famous person, I have Sicilian-Italian, French, and German blood. However, I've never even travelled sadly! I'd only logically be considered an American. So that shouldn't factor into things either.

And taking all of this into consideration: where they were born, where they were raised....I think Lansbury should be listed as a British actress, plain and simple. Born in the UK, raised in the UK. Irish citizenship came much later. OR British-American, because of moving to the USA to escape the Blitz. But the Irish should NOT BE PART OF THE HYPHENATE. At all. That is a tertiary citizenship.

She may have been career-based in America, but she still grew up 75% in the UK. This actually kinda ties back into our dilemma above, where the purpose of mentioning her being career-based predominantly in the US is essential.

TL;DR, I apologize, but like you, a lot of examples come to mind lately. So British actress or British-American actress are the two I'm good with.

I would absolutely revolt if British were removed, however! --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cinemaniac86 - I agree this is a rather contentious topic, and as much as I may disagree with some nationality wording choices, it ultimately comes down to things like WP:ETHNICITY and whatever the consensus is. For example, I strongly disagreed with Dua Lipa being called "English and Albanian", because aside from her dual citizenship that she obtained long after she first got famous, her entire life (from birth, main residence, first country to get notable in) has been he U.K, and her family, while ethnically Albanian, isn't technically from Albania itself (I know Kosovo is a touchy issue), but more editors disagreed with that.

Anyways, in regards to Lansbury, I always disliked the the convoluted choice of "British-American and Irish" or (at some point in time IIRC) "British-Irish-American". I'm fine with either just British or the current wording I see right now: British and American. Adding three national/citizenship terms or more is just ridiculous/clunky IMO. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)