Jump to content

Talk:Jason Isaacs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJason Isaacs was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 25, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Jason Isaacs was never part of 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'

[edit]

Jason Isaacs was never part of 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'. Yes, 'Lucius Malfoy' was mentioned a few times in the film, but that's just about it. Jason never made an appearance in the film, and he was never part of the cast. And, by the way, the year of release is also incorrectly mentioned. The film was not released in 2003, but in 2004. If someone has to put in incorrect information, at least make it look as authentic as possible.

If you want to add his appearance in a Harry Potter film, add 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' where he appears as a moving portrait (of Lucius Malfoy) in the film (and nothing more).

59.184.181.46 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who

[edit]

It should be mentioned that Issac played the third on screen regeneration of Rassilon the founder of the Time Lords in the Doctor Who special The End of Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.202.89.11 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Timothy Dalton. Franey (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English people and being Jewish

[edit]

He is not ethnically English he is Jewish so keep it to British and referring to Great Britain and not English and referring to English people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion that people who are not racially English cannot therefore be described as English even when they have been born and raised in England is a contentious issue. After all, the same prejudice does not seem to have been applied to people born in Scotland (i.e. Paolo Nutini, Katie Leung, Darius Danesh) or Wales (i.e. Josie D'arby, Kimberly Nixon, Victor Spinetti). However, the citation provided shows Isaacs describing himself as "English" - his words and no one else's - so that is good enough to warrant Wikipedia describing him as English, never mind that fact that to most people he would come across as the classic English gentleman. 81.178.254.50 (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

[edit]

Under the Selected Works section it lists "Black Hawk Down" and "Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets" as winning back to back Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards for Best Ensemble Acting. When you go to the Wikipedia page for the Society's awards, however, neither film is listed among the winners. The official website for the Phoenix Film Critics Society does not offer an archive of past winners so I was unable to verify. Someone should verify these and the other awards listed for accuracy. Peace! Renegadefl (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British American

[edit]

The article describes him thus "Jason Isaacs (born 6 June 1963) is a British-American actor". In what way is he American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.74.46 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of a vandal edit a few days earlier, from someone claiming in the edit summary to be his wife and telling us how Isaacs was tricked into signing up for an "International Imposters Association". I've reverted all this and restored "English actor". --McGeddon (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage to Emma Hewitt?

[edit]

User:Aurora Prince has been blanking sections of the article insisting that Isaacs "is not married and has no children", and that Emma Hewitt is merely his "good friend". The user claimed to be acting both "at behest of Isaacs family" and that Isaacs had asked the edits to be made personally, but apparently ignored the suggestion that Isaacs himself should contact Wikimedia through WP:LIBEL if he had concerns. A brief Google search shows many press sources referring to Hewitt as Isaacs' wife, and mentioning his children.

(This goes alongside User:Sera Nowitzki claiming that Isaacs is actually married to Emily Rose Martin, and IP editors also making the Emily Rose Martin claim, stating that Isaacs actually has the surname Nowitski, fabricating surreal quotes about the "International Imposters Association" and claiming to be his wife and blanking the entire, sourced personal life section of the article, golf photo and all, as libel.)

Aurora Prince's most recent edit was to correct a press quote of "Emma Hewitt, his wife of 20 years, and his two young daughters, Lily and Remy" to "Lily and Ruby", apparently having accepted that he may actually have children. Checking the source out of curiosity, the original quote was actually "Emma Hewitt, his partner of 20 years (to whom he invariably refers as “my wife”), and his two young daughters, Lilly and Ruby" - an IP editor changed this with no explanation in October 2012.

There's a 2004/5 interview with The Sun floating around online where he says "We met at drama school, and have been together for 17 years. We're not actually married, although we call each other husband and wife otherwise people get rather peculiar. It seems a bit weird to call someone your girlfriend when you have a child. I have proposed and, bizarrely, Emma accepted, but every time we think about arranging a wedding I get a job." but I can't find an original copy of it, so it shouldn't be taken at face value. But it does look like he may just have been casually calling Hewitt his "wife" in interviews, which was then reported as fact by journalists.

Do we know if they've gotten married since 2005? --McGeddon (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that we now have a 2015 interview source for them now being married: "We got married in the end, my wife and I, for insurance purposes." --McGeddon (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hab, I note that Jason Isaacs recently, mysteriously acquired a middle name. Is there any source for this? (and apologies for messing up any formatting here) CPTDisgruntled (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)CPTDisgruntledCPTDisgruntled (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the page

[edit]
This discussion by a block-evading editor has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi to all who are interested in editing this page! As we can see, this page is a particularly troubled one, thus the need for the sticker requesting help editing it to meet Wikipedia's standards for Biographies of Living Persons. It appears the most pertinent issue at the moment is with improperly or incorrectly cited information. In line with the Wikipedia policy, which states that all biographical information about a living person must be accompanied by an inline citation from a reputable source (i.e, no blogs, fan forums, dubious looking online publications etc), regardless of whether or the information is of a neutral nature, I am beginning by removing or material that is either not cited at all or cited using a now non-existent source or dubious source. I will continue, as I have previously, to include a clear reason for the removal or material or insertion of new citations and material. I would politely ask that people refrain from immediately undoing edits, especially prior to having checked the Edit History of the page in order to determine the exact material being edited and the reason for it, as it simply slows the process and creates problematic situations for admins to deal with. All Talk of a reasonable and non-accusatory nature is very welcome here, especially with regards to suggestions for up to date and reputable sources of information to add to the articles development. Happy editing to you all, and hope to see a constructive and reputable article for actor Jason Isaacs built here soon! Basic BicycleBasic Bicycle (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Basic Bicycle: while I haven't gone through your changes with a fine-tooth comb, I was somewhat concerned that one of your earlier removals was for material apparently supported by an 'archive link' – it's worth making clear that those kinds of references (provided they are archive links of reliable sources) are perfectly legitimate and should not be removed on that basis... Beyond that, I would encourage you to slow down, and discuss some of the bigger or more controversial changes you plan to make here (esp. if it involves deleting material that is sourced) – the kind of big removals of content that you have been doing up to this point can often be considered controversial, so detailed Talk page discussion first to explain on what basis you are removing the material would be strongly preferable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IJBall and thanks for your comments. If you consult the Wikipedia page about how Biographies of Living Persons are supposed to adhere to very specific standards, you will notice that all material, regardless of opinion of editor or other editors that is unsourced (including material that is supported by a citation now found to be no longer in existence, from a broken link or a dubious source) needs to be removed immediately, regardless of what individuals may believe to be the truth. I would really like to suggest that you do go over , the edits carefully, when you have the time, in order to reassure yourself that the material I removed was indeed seriously violating Wikipedia's standards. As for the line that was supported by a web archive page, it was not a valid or legitimate source, as the actual article itself had been removed. Sites such as webarchive.org are not considered to be reliable nor reputable as they act without authority from the publication itself (which may well have deleted the article due to false or controversial information) and represent the opinion of a minority of the public who are attempting to keep the article online to fulfil a personal agenda or belief. Sources on Biographies must be supported by actual articles and anything of a dubious nature needs to removed. I apologise if you are finding the updates to be too rapid for you to keep up with, but perhaps you could wait for a while, and then check back in a few weeks to read the improved article in its entirely? It might be easier to digest that way. In the meantime, the page really does need to be cleaned up and made coherent and checkable in order to avoid being removed by Wikipedia entirely. Up until now it appears to be little more than a muddled mess of dubious sources and fan speculation. Thanks once again for sharing your thoughts and if you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to post them here. Basic BicycleBasic Bicycle (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sites such as webarchive.org are not considered to be reliable nor reputable as they act without authority from the publication itself (which may well have deleted the article due to false or controversial information) and represent the opinion of a minority of the public who are attempting to keep the article online to fulfil a personal agenda or belief."

Basic Bicycle, what you say above is just flat out not correct: please see WP:DEADREF (note also that WP:BLPSOURCES makes no mention of "archive links", and specifically doesn't mention any requirement to exclude or remove them) – web pages disappear all the time and going to archive.org and using an archived version from there is not only legitimate, it is often encouraged, as having an "archived" version of a web-based reference is better than not having one at all in most cases. Because you seem to be pretty new at editing, it's not surprising you don't know this. But that is the policy.
Also, you need to understand that article content is governed by Wikipedia's content on CONSENSUS. This: "I apologise if you are finding the updates to be too rapid for you to keep up with, but perhaps you could wait for a while, and then check back in a few weeks to read the improved article in its entirely?" is the kind of comment that is considered "bad form", especially when some of your changes have already been met by editors "reverting" you. When that happens, you are supposed to go to the article Talk page to discuss your changes, not continue on with controversial edits until "you are finished". (Please review WP:BRD.) Once people object to your edits (as some already have), it is your responsibility to go to the article Talk page to discuss and explain what your are doing (and why, when applicable). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and I hope you will note that I have now responded to those who queried certain edits on the Talk page. However, given the enormous amounts of potentially libellous and defamatory information that needed to be removed immediately, I considered that a brief summary of each edit provided along with the edit itself was all that was necessary at the time. It became apparent that those who disputed edits (and there were really only a couple, including one very suspect IP editor indeed!) had not bothered to check the View history section in order to ascertain what the edits were and why. From now on though, I will endeavour to copy each edit that I make along with the reason for the edit into the Talk page once I am finished. I'm not going to pander to those who make repeated reverts without explanation themselves, as these are very much against the rules, as well as vandalistic. Those who revert an entire page with prior discussion or any provided reason, as this individual did, and four times repeatedly at that, are simply engaging in vandalism and do not deserve any respect or courtesy in return whatsoever. Why the user was not blocked permanently is beyond my comprehension. I am of course very happy to respond and discuss with those who abide by the rules and are courteous and clearly well-intentioned. This page has been very difficult to work with given the obsessive and somewhat rabid nature of a (hopefully) small collective of people who are quite vehemently against the construction of a valid page about Isaacs. Hopefully things will soon improve with new, constructive editors on board. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Basic Bicycle[reply]

Hi there again, IJBall and thanks once again for your reply and comments. I did have a look at the link you provided regarding the validity of web archive material and noticed that archive sites are generally considered acceptable. Therefore, I plan to leave that one for now, pending further research on my part into the credibility of the particular web archive cited in the Isaacs article and also whether the policy differs when it comes to Biographies of Living Persons, especially one as controversial as this. In the meantime, I'd like to put it out there as a suggestion that we try to utilise sources that are from existing, respected publications rather than archive websites, as it is always best to err on the side of caution when writing about people in the media. Also, just to add, this account is a new one but I have done quite a bit of work in Wikipedia in the past! Not that this fact is entirely relevant here, of course. I absolutely get what you are saying about consensus, and that is entirely why I created this Talk page, in the hopes of encouraging sensible discourse on edits rather than vandalistic, self-fulfilling editing and name-calling. However, I will keep harking back to the very clearly stated Wikipedia policy on the necessity of having correctly cited sources for all information provided about a living person. There is absolutely no way in which a consensus opinion of even the most enthusiastic fans or editors with an interest in the page can override this rule. Simply put: If no citation is provided, the content needs to be deleted immediately. There is really no room for debate on this issue. As you can see, I have summarised all the reasons for the edits next to the edits themselves and you can check this for yourself by looking through the edit history. In addition, I would strongly advise you and all others editing this page to check all citations by following the provided link and verifying that it indeed exists and provides the exact information that is utilised. A huge number of references on this page simply don't exist and must be deleted immediately. I apologise if this seems awfully pedantic, but as you will note from the warning banner on the main page of the Jason Isaacs article itself, this page is of a very poor standard and needs sorting out quickly. Presumably I don't need to remind you of the reasons why erroneous information about an actual person can prove very problematic. I know that Isaacs may not be everyone's favourite actor or media personality, but we do all need to leave those personal opinions aside and adhere to the rules which are put in place in order to treat public people with respect and regards to their own privacy. Many thanks for reading and, as always, please don't hesitate to add further ideas and thoughts here for discussion. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Basic Bicycle.[reply]

Just to be clear here, I'm not saying that you aren't correct overall about this BLP here, Basic Bicycle; nor am I saying that your edits aren't 100% good faith – in fact, I said as much at WP:ANI. And you are quite correct that everything at a BLP needs to be scrupulously sourced. All that said, though, it is absolutely still worth it to spell out an editor's rationale for any edit at an article's Talk page, once it has been reverted – further discussion may very well show that an editor's original edit was in fact correct, and convince other editors of exactly that. That is precisely why such Talk page discussions are useful (and necessary). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Note Re: Policy and Consensus Opinion

[edit]
This discussion by a block-evading editor has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi there to all reading and editing the article about actor Jason Isaacs. I just wanted to use this space to clear up a matter that appears to be causing a bit of disagreement amongst a few who are interested in editing this page. As we can all see from the top of the article itself, there is a very prominent notice urging editors to ensure that all material provided on this page is cited, properly and from a reputable and existent source that is linked to and available for all to access themselves. This is an extremely important point and is very necessary to adhere to, regardless of what the consensus opinion of the few current editors is. Obviously, it is imperative that all edits are in accordance with policy and that those that violate it be pointed out to the editor who made the edits. It is also of course necessary to make others aware of the reasons for your edits, which should be done at the bottom of the Edit page, just before you save your changes. Any other editor can then check through your edit themselves and verify that you did what you say you did and that it was in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Removal of an un-cited source may well be unpopular amongst some editors and/or fans of the actor himself; however, the policy is extremely important and must be adhered to at all times. If people continue to re-insert or unnecessarily dispute changes that are in line with the stated Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons, they can indeed be blocked or banned by admins. I'd advise people to really familiarise themselves with this policy as it seems that some are under the impression that popularity of an opinion on a public person's personal life, beliefs, relationships and career can override the availability of verifiable online and publicly available evidence to support the statements. For example, it may be a well held fan opinion that a famous person such as Jason Isaacs holds a particular belief, and this may well supported by forum posts, blogs and reports of fan meetings, sightings etc. However, if there is no verifiable statement contained within a reputable online source that can be correctly cited within Wikipedia's policy guidelines, then that information cannot be placed on his Wikipedia page. This is not a matter where a majority vote of editors can win out. If you are unable to provide a citable source and/or that source is found to be one that is not considered to be credible under the Wikipedia guidelines, please do not place the statement here. Existing statements without sources are being deleted immediately, as we are all required to do, but of course can be later replaced alongside an actual source by anyone who wishes to. Happy editing to you all, and please don't hesitate to post any queries or misunderstandings here for reply and discussion. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Basic Bicycle.[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think there's been a problem with any of your removal of unsourced content (I, for one, certainly have no objection to that). The issue has been the removal of some of sourced content that you've done previously (e.g. this). This is where discussion needs to take place – if a source is considered by one editor to be, say, a WP:UNRELIABLE source, then other editors need to come to the same conclusion. If there is any question about whether a source is "not reliable" or not "appropriate", that needs to be discussed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you've come late to this party, I see! There was indeed one (or perhaps two) anonymous editor who took extreme exception to my deleting unsourced content. Thankfully, they seem to have now disappeared and/or ceased causing trouble to this article. I haven't actually deliberately deleted any sourced information other than the webarchive.org one which you pointed out and is now back up there. To be honest, I'm still not convinced it is a valid source and plan to look into it further, but for now am leaving it be. I'm somewhat confused by the noticeboard incident you linked to; I did indeed log a complaint about an IP user who reverted changes four times in twenty-four hours and sent abusive messages to me, but hadn't received notification of the comment added by user "Dennis Brown" who is apparently trying to claim I reverted 12 thousand edits, which is of course entirely untrue! Please don't believe everything you read without verifying first, that is, going through the revision history of the discussed page (Jason Isaacs) and then referring and linking to each individual edit that you are attempting to dispute. It's very difficult to have a sensible discussion when absurd numbers and throwaway statements such as those are being bandied around without any actual reference to what precisely it is that you are objecting to. Repeatedly accusing someone of an action with absolutely no evidence to back it up whatsoever is very poor form indeed. Finally, Wikipedia has clearly altered the policy on web archive websites since I was on here previously. It used to be that these were considered entirely unvalid sources and not to be trusted in the slightest (ie. immediately deleted). So I think you can forgive me one very minor error and cease from inflating, exaggerating and attempting to imply that I am not editing within the policies and rules. Thank you for your co-operation. Basic BicycleBasic Bicycle (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One additional thing: Wikipedia has quite clear guidelines about what constitutes a reliable and appropriate source. Indeed, there are certain publications and websites that are flagged as not to ever be used as sources. I suggest you read up on the articles about sourcing and citing as there are many instances of inappropriate sourcing that are not matters of personal editor opinion. Again, specific examples of edits that you are contesting are needed here if you really would like to continue to make these statements. Basic Bicycle (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Bicycle, your tone here is coming off somewhat patronizing – I know well about WP:RS (I've been editing Wikipedia for a while...). The issue is that, with some sources, it is not always clear-cut as to whether they are "reliable" or not; or, at the least, whether they are or not is controversial among editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, sincerest apologies for the patronizing tone; that was certainly not my intention. Indeed you are correct that the Wikipedia guidelines most likely do not account for every single possible source available to users, and therefore it may at times arise that there is an issue about credibility that needs to be discussed and a compromise between editors reached. However, the real issue here seems to be that you were contesting my removal of some material that was web-archive sourced. As I have pointed out to you now several times, the contested material along with the relevant web-archive link is now back in the article and I have not attempted nor intend to remove it since. I do intend to look further into whether that particular web-archive site fits within the guidelines, as it is not the one that the they cited when stating it was fine to use these as sources. However, I will of course present something on the Talk page prior to taking any action on the article itself should I find anything that contradicts what you stated. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current and Recent Edits

[edit]
This discussion by a block-evading editor has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi there all. It's been suggested by one or two other editors interested in working on this page that we provide details of any edits we have made to a separate Talk page, hence why I have established this section. Any questions or requests for further explanations can be made here from now on. Please note that this is just an additional feature designed to help others who may have difficulty interpreting the information provided in the Revision History section alongside each individual edit and is not in any way intended to replace the need to summarise edits before submitting them. Though I am happy to do this in the interests of community harmony and consensus, it would be great if editors could try to use the Edit Summary feature as much as possible (available by clicking on the 'View History' tab). Thanks and best wishes, Basic BicycleBasic Bicycle (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday 14th/Monday 15th: Removed non-sourced and un-cited material regarding various Television, Film and Theatre roles in accordance with WP:BLP and strict Wikipedia orders to remove material that is not cited. Basic Bicycle (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Basic Bicycle[reply]

Update: Deleted further unsourced material as well as material from sources no longer available in line with same policy as above. Material deleted was mostly unsourced career material but I also had to remove a very contentious statement that Isaacs classifies himself as a non-religious Jew, which was not stated in the article itself nor anywhere else as far as I can tell.Basic Bicycle (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why did you remove the portion that mentioned The Golden Globes (which included a reference to The Golden Globes, which is certainly acceptable in terms of WP:RS)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Globes portion was removed due to a lack of a linked, cited, source. Referencing "The Golden Globes" is not sufficient by any standards. The person who wrote the material about the Golden Globes needs to include the actual article that the information came from as a source and in-line citation. As this was not available, the material had to be deleted. I hope that makes things clearer for you, IJBall. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Referencing "The Golden Globes" is not sufficient by any standards." According to who? According to you? Well, you're quite wrong about this... I am now starting to have serious concerns about your edits, as you do not seem to have a firm enough grasp of WP:RS. From this point forward, I would strongly urge you to stop removing any sourced content without discussing it on the Talk page here first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me if my wording led to a misunderstanding here. What I was pointing out is that writing "The Golden Globes" in a article is not in itself a reference to a source in the context of Wikipedia or any other information sharing venues. A reference in this sense involves the use of a source (such as an online article), a copy of the author, publication, date etc, as well as a working link to the source itself. I think we may well have crossed wires here. This is not to say that an article about The Golden Globes cannot be used as a source; rather, that would likely be perfectly legitimate. Your concerns are well registered and I would like to do my best to reassure you that all of my edits are made carefully and in very good faith, and in accordance with the Wikipedia policy on the Biographies of Living Persons. This is isn't about opinion here, IJBall, and I do hope we can work together to improve this article in a manner and at a pace that all fans of Isaacs are comfortable with. However, ultimately, rules must be adhered to, even if it makes some people feel frustrated. If you are able to find and link to an article about The Golden Globes, I am sure that would be more than welcome. In the meantime though, please do refrain from simply restoring unsourced information as that is what we are all working so hard to try to clean up. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basic Bicycle appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Aurora Prince, who - per previous talk page sections - was making some strange edits and claims regarding Isaacs' wife and children. They were blocked indefinitely in March, and have tried to evade their block in the past. I've raised an SPI. --McGeddon (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi McGeddon. I have just posted my response to the sockpuppet investigation on the relevant page of the 'Aurora Prince' account. Once again, I'd like to reassure all that I am not, and never have nor will, participated in any sockpuppeting whatsoever. Furthermore, I have not tried to evade any blocks, as evidence by the 24hr block I was subject to recently and very patiently waited out when asked to do so. All of my edits on the pages mentioned have been in excellent faith, rarely contested and have not, in any way, been 'strange' by any definition, nor have I made any 'claims' regarding the matters you refer to. I sincerely hope this misunderstanding gets resolved very rapidly indeed. Yours sincerely, Basic Bicycle (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have blanked sourced content about Isaacs having a partner and two children. Let's just wait for the SPI to resolve. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there McGeddon. I haven't blanked out the new material - just moved it to the Talk page until we get a better idea of consensus opinion. Please do join in the discussion as your expertise is always very welcome and helpful. Thanks Basic Bicycle (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the family info, with several newer reliable sources. That should make everyone happy now, shouldn't it?  :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 15:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is WP:BLOCKEVASION it should all get dialled back. But we should be careful about referring to Hewitt as Isaacs' "wife" - per an earlier talk thread, we have him on record as saying that he's called his partner his "wife" for the sake of simplicity, in interviews in the past. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed – if the SPI pans out like you suspect it might, we will need to revert to a version of the article previous to all of these recent changes... Then the rest of us can go through the article, and focus on just removing unsourced content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, unsourced content has been diligently removed by me, as you well know, despite your protestations. Please be patient regarding addition of new sources until we all reach a consensus opinion (as per Wikipedia stated policy) regarding whether the information is credible or not. Like I said before, this is not personal nor a battle of any kind, so let's all try and keep it in perspective and act in the best interests of quality editing. Cheers, Basic Bicycle (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Edits

[edit]
This discussion by a block-evading editor has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Greetings to all reading this and interested in working on this article. I think we really need a space to discuss propositions about new material insertions and recent material insertions. Wikipedia is very clear in its guidelines that non sourced information must be removed immediately with no discussion required, but that when adding new ideas, group discussion is essential. A user name Ebyabe recently re-inserted some highly controversial information about Isaacs' personal life, which had previously been removed due to a mysterious lack of actual sources associated with it (all of them led to broken pages, fan forums etc) and included at least 5 assumed sources to back up the material. Two have already been removed due, respectively, to one referring to a completely different person by the same name as Isaacs' proposed partner and the other being clearly a fake article. The Jewish Chronicle has a very distinctive format, and the one this web-catched page tried to present was very clearly not it. Given the very controversial nature of precisely what Isaacs' relationship status, orientation, lifestyle choices etc is (pretty sure all fans or those with any interest in the man at all are familiar with this), it seems to be rather inappropriate for one individual to so hastily post such a mass of 'evidence' to support one side of the debate. This is clearly a matter in which sensible discussion and consensus opinion is going to need to be employed. For now, I would like to move all of this controversial material, including sources, to this Talk page for further discussion before we make such a hasty and potentially libel or defamatory decision to publish contested and controversial material. Hope everyone is okay with that and we can continue the discussion to a productive conclusion.

Proposed Material to add to Jason Isaacs Personal Life section of page: 

partner      = Emma Hewitt
children     = 2

Isaacs has lived with his partner BBC documentary filmmaker Emma Hewitt since 1988. The couple began dating at the Central School, and have two daughters, Lily and Ruby[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Custom byline text:  Susan Swarbrick (2013-05-11). "Jason Isaacs: Case Histories, family ties and a brush with Bond". Herald Scotland. Retrieved 2015-06-15.
  2. ^ Gerard Gilbert (2013-05-18). "'It was mass hysteria': Jason Isaacs on groupies, theatre bores and snogging James Bond - Profiles - People". The Independent. Retrieved 2015-06-15.
  3. ^ "Jason Isaacs: this much I know | Life and style". The Guardian. 2014-03-13. Retrieved 2015-06-15.
  4. ^ TV and Radio. "Jason Isaacs in Awake, Sky Atlantic - interview". Telegraph. Retrieved 2015-06-15.

My thoughts as a long-time follower of his career:

All of the sources presently supplied seem to contain suspiciously copied sounding information. Of course it may not mean anything either way, and it could indeed well be that Isaacs has or did have a partner with children, but there is a peculiar dearth of photos of him with them. Most famous people or celebrity types are photographed out and about doing everyday things at least a good handful of times, regardless of how private they try to be, but there are none of Isaacs. Thirdly, a poster on a forum not long ago pointed out using screen shots of an older article (circa early 90s) of him with a female PA alongside a newer photo of him with the same woman and some accompanying text stating her as his fiance. Of course, we can't be sure either way, but I would encourage others to be a bit more savvy when it comes to online sources - they are notoriously easy to fabricate and sources such as The Independent are well known for fabricating the majority of their so-called "interviews". Anyone want to add anything or weigh in with their opinion? Basic Bicycle (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. What is controversial about someone having a spouse/life partner and children, in general? Thoughts? --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think the Independent is an unreliable source shows that you don't know what you're talking about. These are multiple reliable sources, and certainly more reliable than your unsourced ideas about his life. Your edits are disruptive, please don't do that again. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources seem fine here. Your personal suspicion, a rumour you heard and a screenshot you saw on a forum does not trump three mainstream British newspapers. --McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't got time to pick through the debris right now, but we should probably roll back the article to the version before Basic Bicycle started editing it, and re-apply the constructive edits made in that time. From the discussions above, it sounds as if Bicycle either didn't understand how sources worked or was pretending not to as cover for removing the line about Isaacs being married with kids, while making lots of other cuts, so we've probably lost some perfectly good content. --McGeddon (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: I will "roll" the article back to the last "good" version imminently. After that, I hope to take another look at this article over the next week, to see if it should be trimmed (it does seems like there's a fair amount of unsourced content that may need to go...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – OK, the refs for this article are somewhat of a mess... I will get to those when I can, but that will require more time than I have today for them. So, I'll hopefully get to cleaning up the refs, and looking to remove any unsourced content, soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jason Isaacs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jason Isaacs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jason Isaacs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jason Isaacs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse

[edit]

Hey, Jason isn't really married to Brit Marling, right? That's just a joke edit someone made because it's *SPOILERS FOR NETFLIX'S THE OA SEASON 2* reference to the last episode of that season that gets into a meta universe? 76.87.113.57 (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Organization

[edit]

Just wondering about this page, it doesn't seem to follow the conventions used on most of the actors pages I've visited Daddy (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_Isaacs&oldid=1207743688"