Talk:Craig Ferguson/Archives/2009/July

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Scottish, Not British

Best to call him Scottish, Has always said he is Scottish search videos on Youtube from the Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson, He says he is Scottish in Several of them, Announced on Live TV. -- (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then provide a reference from a reliable source and do not revert again until you have a reliable reference to support your claim. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[1] -- (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a reliable source; it's user-created content. You also need to provide a reference in the article itself, not a raw link on the talk page. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(Other editors may also be interested in this. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
What's wrong with the usatoday citation in the infobox? Tarc (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing - I just hadn't noticed it when this kicked off. The IP who initiated this is on a pointy crusade to make non-Scottish subjects British and Scottish subjects Scottish, regardless of consensus or reality. In this rare case I realised reality actually ran in the IP's favour ;-) The IP, incidentally, is the same editor who adds images and sub-headings to Scottish articles (and Scotland in particular). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 08:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the use of the term "Scottish" in this case, certainly not on its own. Mr Ferguson is a citizen of the United States of America and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the latter means that he is a British citizen. It is impossible to be a citizen of only Scotland which is a nation within the United Kingdom. The problem in this case is the non-specific nature of the term nationality, which could mean nationality as in the sense of personal identity- as in a person who identifies as Italian American, but actually is only a citizen of the US- or nationality in the sense of nationality law which doesn't recognise "Scottish" citizenship on its own. Mr Ferguson is a Scottish British Citizen. If I'm honest I don't want to deny the man his right to call himself Scottish, but I don't like that his legal citizenship isn't properly described... demonyms in the UK are sometimes complicated even for us British! Dan (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have many friends in Glasgow, and they are all proud Scots. They self-identify as Scottish, not British. As for his citizenship, Mr. Ferguson is an American now, so the point is moot.Gotmywaderson (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nationality" has at least three senses worth identifying in this case.
    1. Being a national of a sovereign state; in this case the nation is the United Kingdom (whose full name is mentioned above), and Ferguson was British and remains British-born.
    2. Belonging to one of many more or less clearly defined ethnicities or national identities (especially likely to be discussed in the case of those aspiring to a nation state); in this case, the nationality is that of the Scots, and Ferguson was and remains Scottish.
    3. Within some states, there are legal subdivisions that recognize and approximate nationalities of the ethnic kind; i believe Belgium (with a Flemish and Walloon subdivision) is a case of this, and many of the states of India at least in effect have this role. My understanding is that the British use "nation" in this sense, with at least England and Scotland being such nations. (Wales may in some sense be least among supposed equals: note the lack of any sign of the Cross of Saint David in the Union Jack, among other hints that it is closer to having been absorbed into and subordinated to England.) One would be justified in assuming that an Edinburgh-born British Londoner with a heavy Scottish brogue, unless maintaining a voting residence in Scotland, votes only for member of the British Parliament (not one in it and one in the Scottish one, as most Scots do), and is of no particular concern to those who administer the Scottish nation.
      --Jerzyt 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to identify him by the more informative term "Scottish". But lest anyone be unaware of it:

* Scotland is in Britain;
* England is in Britain;
* Wales is in Britain;

If I'm not mistaken, the areas named in the three bullet points above cover the whole island. Many Americans are confused about this and some confused people think "Britain" is synonymous with "England". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • "Britain" is ambiguous between an island and a sovereign state, so use of that term here merely heightens the confusion. I you live or were born in Northern Ireland, then British, Irish, Northern-Irish, and Ulster can all be applied to you in various contexts. (And "British" applies even if you've never crossed the Irish Sea to the island of Britain.)
    --Jerzyt 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Scottish douchebag

He says you can find him by Googling "scottish douchebag" instead of , but it's not true. I'm going to try creating the Rdr to the accompanying article.
--Jerzyt 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It was speedy deleted as "G10: Attack page", despite the subject not being doubted as the coiner. Deleter claimed BLP leaves no room. My mileage varies. [shrug]
    Ironically, for the time being, the search still produces him as first hit.
    --Jerzyt 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Not sure what's ironic about it. The only Ghits for it with regards to CF are from YouTube videos of the show. Before he made that little JOKE, it didn't bring his name up at all. Unitanode 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I misspoke: there was a period after the deletion when the deleted article was the first hit on the WP search, due presumably to caching of search indexes.
      In any case, let's not turn differing judgments about which jokes might be notable and what is ironic into a series of PAs.
      --Jerzyt 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      Not sure where you see any personal attacks, but I've offered none. What specific concerns do you have with what I wrote to you? Unitanode 19:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      There is a line in WP:PA of which you should be aware: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Please either point out where I "turn[ed] differing judgments about which jokes might be notable and what is ironic into a series of PAs" or strike through and retract the accusation. Unitanode 19:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I did not intend to imply (and BTW did not state) that an attack had occurred, but i was concerned that a minor matter might be too rapidly tending in an un-collegial direction to escape mention:
        I considered that
        1. your responding to the (IMO obviously) colloquial use of "ironic" (often derided, but neither ignorant nor innovative -- "the irony of the universe" appeared around a hundred years ago near the climax of G.B. Shaw's Passion, Poison, and Petrifaction), seemingly directing my attention to the encyclopedic sense of the corresponding noun, resembles (i would have thought obviously so, tho perhaps i erred in that) "Obviously i have to instruct you on the words you are using."
        2. your shouting-caps use of the word "joke" (especially in the context of a comedian who so seldom says anything not meant to be a joke, that he actually occasionally says "I want to say something serious") resembles "Obviously you are too thick to recognize a joke when you hear one."
      Either of those, if intended, would constitute a PA, and especially so after they had been uttered, together, in response to what i considered my two obvious indications (my paraphrase of YMMV, and my parenthetic "shrug" -- i.e., "no big deal") that the matter had become negligible to me. (I acknowledge that my use of "ironically" was ambiguous, and that my careless mis-description of the last search i had done was likely to be misleading, so that i can understand those two preceding cues being weakened. And i offer my apology for that carelessness.)
      I thot others were likely to construe your remarks as PAs, and felt myself obligated (to you and to the community) to raise the need to avoid both PAs and the appearance of PAs, by presenting you with the occasion to say that your (IMO) confrontational-sounding language was not intended as PAs, and to restate yourself in a way that will make that clearer.
      --Jerzyt 08:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I doubt very seriously that anyone merely stumbling upon this discussion would have construed anything I've written thus far as a personal attack. As I take collegiality quite seriously, I had a wikiaquaintance look at this little conversation. They were as confused as I was as to how you could possibly construe anything here as a personal attack. I would recommend that in the future you refrain from implying that the other party in a discussion is engaging in personal attacks, as making such claims is itself a violation of WP:NPA. If you have any further comments or questions about this, perhaps it would best be taken to personal talkpages, as this is not article-related. Unitanode 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)