Talk:James Norton (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Disambiguation page[edit]

James Norton links to the disambiguation page for this name, where this actor is the first entry. Can this article be re-titled to avoid this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have now been done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit to Education section[edit]

Apologies for the repeated edits to the eductation page. I would be very grateful if the information about Catholicism could be left off. This is private information which, for various reasons, I would prefer remained private (I realise that it is in an article from a long time ago, something which I am going to try and remedy). Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your personal preferences count for nothing may sometimes appear to not count here, even if you are James Norton himself. This public domain source is being used: [1]. So unless you can show it's unreliable (or plain wrong), you'll just have to live with it, I'm afraid. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I am no longer a practicing Catholic, so the information is misleading, as the implication is that I am still a Catholic. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
James (if it is indeed you - not sure how we establish that), I agree that might be misleading - but we'd need to find another WP:RS source which said definitively "Norton is no longer a practicing Catholic", etc. I will not re-add the disputed fact, as I'm not sure it's very important. But obviously other editors may disagree! If you feel very strongly about this, I think you might be able to appeal to a Wikipedia administrator, as this article is covered by the WP:BLP policy. You'd need to prove your identity in some way. But, at the end of the day, what that source says is still a fact, albeit an historical one. Please mail me (via the Tools section on my Talk Page) if you feel you need to discuss further. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You could also post a question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are James Norton and have a Twitter account (or similar), you could post something explicitly stating you're not a Catholic (or are now an atheist/Hindu/whatever). It could then (probably) be used as a primary source to either nullify the other source or back up atheist/Hindu/whatever. Or, you could give an interview to a reputable publication and say it there.
However, a primary source like this can't cancel out a claim that is widely reported in independent reliable sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

(outdenting) The treatment here of someone who may be the subject a biographical article is not in the best interests or traditions of Wikipedia. While it is our policy that we don't automatically change an article to match the preferences of the subject (much less someone who may or may not be the subject)—a response such as "your personal preferences count for nothing here ... you'll just have to live with it" comes off, I am sure inadvertently, as virtually taunting the BLP subject.

We should be especially sensitive where an issue such as the subject's religious beliefs are concerned, a topic as to which the subject's subjective preference is relevant (it is not as if he were trying to obtain the deletion of some event central to his notability). The idea that someone should have to tweet to millions of people that "I am not a Catholic" in order to obtain a correction on his Wikipedia article is disturbing to me.

I refer editors on this page to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, and I refer Mr. Norton, if it is he, to Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, particularly the section about raising concerns by e-mail if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess a public correction wasn't the best advice, considering he'd prefer it remain private. My bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


Does it really matter that he has diabetes ... do we need to add it to the article because it came up on Jonathan Ross tonight? DBaK (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be considered trivial by many people. But if it's deemed worthy of inclusion in a national TV chat show, with his own participation, I'd say it should receive a brief mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Martin I'm deeply suspicious of your deeming skills and also of the importance to global encyclopaedic knowledge of this particular er er er er factthing. But I do like a quiet life, so I am going to go and put the kettle on rather than engaging in fisticuffs with you. :) DBaK (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I am one of the editors who added it back after it was deleted. I think if you actually watch the segment where James Norton and Johnny Vegas are being interviewed, it's very clear how important the fact that someone as fit as James Norton who has a form of diabetes came out publicly. That was sort of the whole point. I think it could help a lot of people to educate them on what someone like Norton who has type 1 looks like -- and maybe make people less judgmental about overweight people who _don't_ have diabetes. It was done very very well, I thought. Very classy on the part of Ross. And to me it was very educational and helpful. I see this as a good addition to Norton's page. It shouldn't be the only focus of his entry, but I think having a small mention linking directly to the video is completely solid as an edit. -- BrillLyle (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one doing the deeming. That's Wossy's production team. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, darn those dastardly deemers is all I can say! DBaK (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)