Talk:Michael Fassbender

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)

"the users engaged in this disruptive behavior are linked to far-right or white supremacist groups" - LOLWUT? I've kept eyes and ears in several such groups for many years and I can guarantee that NONE of them have ever discussed or cared about Michael Fassbender's dating history. In general, unless a celebrity has appeared on Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs or is doing the "My fellow white people, we should all feel bad for being white" routine, they won't appear on the alt-right's radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2020 (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)

Under Irish nationality law, he'd have been considered an Irish citizen at birth, despite being born abroad—the "German-born" tag therefore seems to me not just lazy but also rather misleading. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Slight tangent, but still relevant to this section.
An IP editor has twice added that Fassbender is British in the info box. The first time with a link to a site that does not even mention the actor, nor make any claims on his citizenship.
I removed this, but it was reverted almost immediately with the edit history of - "Everybody knows He is British by his English accent, He grew up in England, went to college in England, won BAFTA British actor and still lives in London England". This is all incorrect anyway.
He has an Irish (Kerry) accent, although that is not relevant to citizenship.
He grew up near Killarney in Ireland, and went to school there.
Living in England does not make him British.
Non-British people can win a BAFTA.
A new ref was added, but this was just a commentary about GQ magazine claiming several Irish actors as British. I'm reverting for now, but will invite the editor to the discussion.
Anyone else like to chime in.--Dmol (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He has been living in England for over 20 years, went to college in England, started his actor career in England and became naturalized British Citizen. and He won BAFTA as " British actor of the year " you hear that? "British actor of the year" "British actor of the year". He is British and and lives in London and been living in London since 1996, working in London for his whole life, so He is a super mega naturalized British citizenship. End of Story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.102.242 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's not the end of the story. It still needs reliable references.--Dmol (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't even need a reference for that. It is just common sense. He has been living in England for 20 years. so He gained a naturalized British citizenship. no foreigner can live in England for that long, just over 1 month there you would get deported. But He became a naturalized British citizen, for working and living there for over 20 years, according to the UK laws. and BAFTA (UK Government organization) gave him an award called "British actor of the year" so that can also obviously tell He is British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.102.242 (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This IP seems entirely unfamilar with British (or, indeed, Irish) rules on residency and laws on citizenship. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Willis was born in Germany and moved to the USA when he was 2. He had one German parent and one American parent. He is classified on Wikipedia as "American" and not "German-American". Similarly, Fassbender was born in Germany and moved to Ireland when he was 2. He had one German parent and one Irish parent (be her Northern Irish). This represents potential Wikipedia bias towards the USA. Either change Fassbender to "Irish" or Bruce Willis to "German-American". You can't have it both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.238.190 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If he was born in Germany and moved to Ireland, wouldn't that make him German-Irish, not Irish-German? 73.70.13.107 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

He has a German father (and surname). A Northern Irish mother (unclear whether she identifies as either Irish or British or something else). He supposedly speaks English, German and Irish fluently. He potentially has multiple citizenships, seems to have lived most of his life in England. His identity is obviously a lot more complicated than simply 'Irish'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.124.224 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what has (seemingly correctly) already been pointed out by comparing this article to the Bruce Willis article; going by Talk:Ruth Negga#Ethiopian-Irish, again it would seem like Fassbender's lead should simply state "Irish", not "German-Irish". CeltBrowne (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, I wonder if we should describe Fassbender as "German and Irish" cuz I've just noticed this interview, which has already been cited in the article. Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2023 (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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Fassbender. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726072801/http://screencrave.com/2009-08-10/michael-fassbender-talks-jonah-hex/ to http://screencrave.com/2009-08-10/michael-fassbender-talks-jonah-hex/

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) 14:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life - Dating History

Today I edited Fassbender's Personal Life section to reflect two definite past partners of Michael's who were for some reason not present, Zoe Kravitz and Nicole Beharie. I am new here, but I reviewed the talk page and the Wikipedia policies regarding Biographies of Living Persons and used trustworthy sources. I know this information used to be here but was deleted and I am hoping it doesn't get deleted again because I don't know of any good reason it should be. If I am missing something, I appreciate the guidance of more experienced Wiki editors. Butterynutjob (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User bb23 undid my edit with the note "Wikipedia is not fan magazine." In that case, shouldn't all his relationships be excluded? he hasn't married anyone. Butterynutjob (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

bb23, why does Maiko Spencer meet your criteria for inclusion when the other women do not? Are there official guidelines anywhere on Wikipedia about how long someone needs to have been with a partner for that to be considered a noteable relationship? Or is that your preference? I think removing all relationships is a reasonable compromise, not disruptive behavior.

This reference is pretty low quality fan stuff rather than serious journalism discussing Fassbender's personal life. Perhaps that was the concern. Otherwise, the two relationships you introduced are, I think, appropriate enough for the biography. Are there better sources? Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Binksternet, but I bb23 didn't mention the quality of the sources so I feel their rationale for why the relationships should not be included is different. I used ABC News because I was under the impression it was a trustworthy source, but there is a GQ interview of Fassbender where he talks about his relationship with Beharie. I would edit to include that but I got a scary notice that I am on notice for being part of an 'edit war'. Here's the GQ article: http://www.gq.com/story/michael-fassbender-gq-june-2012-interview. I'm not sure if there's as good a source for Kravitz, but I will look. Butterynutjob (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Taking into account the concerns expressed by bb23 and Binksternet, I have removed Maiko Spencer from Fassbender's dating history since the source referenced was a non-existent book (can't be purchase either online or in print form). I have added Nicole Beharie back in though because she is one of the few girlfriends that Fassbender has acknowledged in an interview. Please advise if you consider these changes to be disruptive or vandalism, and I will be happy to talk about them further. Butterynutjob (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia whitewashing is mentioned in this article. [[1]]. It’s going to be a lot harder to suppress the information now. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Fassbender. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726224322/http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2011/03/mia-wasikowska-and-michael-fassbender-for-w-magazine-2.html to http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2011/03/mia-wasikowska-and-michael-fassbender-for-w-magazine-2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322131748/http://movies.yahoo.com/person/michael-fassbender/biography.html to https://movies.yahoo.com/person/michael-fassbender/biography.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320181850/http://www.alesrybarik.com/knockout-has-begun-filming-in-dublin/ to http://www.alesrybarik.com/knockout-has-begun-filming-in-dublin/

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) 17:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Abuse allegations in personal section

These allegations are unsubstantiated and do not give an accurate picture of what went down. The ex girlfriend applied for a restraining order 9 months after he allegedly attacked her and when he had moved back to the UK. There were no witnesses and no evidence to support her allegations. She had also behaved in a similar fashion towards a previous ex prior to Fassbender, filing charges to obtain money that were later withdrawn. The way this currently reads makes it sound like she magnanimously withdrew the charges, not that she had to due to there being zero proof.

In addition, the only reference given is TMZ and when the link (65) is clicked it doesn’t direct to any article.

As this page is protected I can’t edit it, but am requesting this section is removed for the reasons given above. Londoneyes (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph, it seems to me that it is in violation of WP:BLP. --Tobias (Talk) 22:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Fassbender. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420090152/http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-4816-ridley-scott-michael-fassbender-start-alien-covenant-benedict-cumberbatch-wraps-doctor-strange/ to http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-4816-ridley-scott-michael-fassbender-start-alien-covenant-benedict-cumberbatch-wraps-doctor-strange/

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) 18:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Fassbender. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809070029/http://bifa.org.uk/winners/2008 to http://bifa.org.uk/winners/2008

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) 01:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

My proposed edit is probably controversial but this statement below, which is taken exactly from the article which is cited, is untrue: "and he speaks German fluently,[13]"

There are several interviews in German available on YouTube and in none of them is he speaking "fluently", which I claim as a native German speaker. I am sure every other native German speaker would agree as well, not sure how one would exactly test if language skills are fluent or not, but based on the following example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBvpOCWc73g he demonstrates a severe knowledge deficit in German vocabulary, his declension of most nouns and tenses of verbs are wrong, and most strikingly of all his pronunciation is bad. How is this fluent?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluent
2 a : capable of using a language easily and accurately
While I agree that it is probably easier for him to express himself in German than foreign speakers, by no means is he using the language accurately.

I don't know how the original author of this controversial statement from The Guardian is, but I doubt they are able to judge if someone can speak a language fluently or not.

My suggestion for this edit would be to omit this controversial statement from the article completely.

Thanks. 188.98.103.36 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

His fluency would be best described as that of non-native speaker of German, but because he was born in Germany, he can't technically be called a non-native speaker. It's obvious that his proficiency level is not highly fluent, but there are degrees of fluency — so calling him "fluent" is not completely a misnomer. Basically, if he can communicate without a translator then he's fluent. (Although some might argue that it's the Germans who would need a translator to understand his German.) Spintendo ᔦᔭ 08:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Nihlus 20:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Can this be included?

IndieWire has published this article today. Can the accusations be included?--Gonzalo84 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the original Daily Beast article. [[2]] Looks legit. Too bad - he seemed like a good guy. Expect to see other media outlets pick up on this. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018

These reports are not included in his wikipedia and are National News, please add these links and stories. https://www.selmafonseca.com/michael-fassbender-leasi-andrews/2018/2/13/why-are-we-turning-a-blind-eye-on-michael-fassbender https://www.selmafonseca.com/michael-fassbender-leasi-andrews/2018/2/13/michael-fassbender-legal-papers https://www.selmafonseca.com/michael-fassbender-leasi-andrews/2018/3/6/why-are-michael-fassbenders-stans-victim-blaming https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shocking-abuse-allegations-against-michael-fassbender http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/michael-fassbender-abuse-allegations-sunawin-leasi-andrews-1201927946/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/02/13/michael-fassbender-abuse-allegations-resurface-following-kung-fury-announcement.html http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/celebrities-gone-bad/shock-abuse-allegations-against-michael-fassbender-resurface/news-story/1a0c56a05e14e967c72c5f7b5fee5baa http://www.showbiz411.com/2018/02/13/two-time-oscar-nominee-michael-fassbender-alleged-to-have-physically-abused-ex-girlfriend-described-in-2010-police-report http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5392861/Michael-Fassbender-domestic-abuse-claims-resurface.html Selmafonseca (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Selmafonseca: I've attempted to summarize the allegations and (lack of) response like so. Thanks for gathering those links! I cited the original TMZ report and the Daily Beast article picking it back up; if there's information not covered by those two sources, I haven't seen it. (Also, we can't cite the Daily Mail in most circumstances, as they have a policy of fabricating quotes.) grendel|khan 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of unsubstantiated allegations - Michael Fassbender page

This piece has recently been added. It amounts to no more than an unsubstantiated allegation by someone with a questionable motive. No evidence was produced, no restraining order was given and the police found no case to answer. This topic was mischievously resurfaced by the Daily Beast (reputable??) under the pretext of being relevant to the #metoo campaign. It was a deliberate attempt to damage his reputation which Wikipedia is now collaborating with and it should be removed. Btw - the original “source” back in 2010 was TMZ .... no other In 2010, Fassbender's then ex-girlfriend, Sunawin Andrews, filed a restraining order against him in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that he "threw me over a chair breaking my nose" in 2009, and that he had also dragged her alongside his car, injuring her her ankle and knee, as well as causing her to burst an ovarian cyst.[73] The Daily Beast resurfaced the allegations, to which Fassbender had not publicly responded, in 2018 in the wake of the Me Too movement.[74]“ Londoneyes (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Londoneyes: I did my best to cite only what we could verify: a restraining order was requested, a complaint was filed, and an allegation was presented. We do not know that it was "a deliberate attempt to damage his reputation"; similarly, we don't know her motives. There were reportedly medical records as well as police reports, both of which are types of evidence. I admit that this seems murky to me; if you'd like to open a WP:RFC for wider discussion, I'd encourage that. (If you'd prefer I open one, please let me know.) grendel|khan 23:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Why does it no longer state that the restraining order was requested? All the information about these allegations is gone now. 1.145.170.169 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Michael Fassbender

@grendelkhan I think your reply to me sums up what flimsy information there is. Yes a complaint was made and a restraining order requested. But no restraining order was granted and there was no medical evidence to substantiate her claims; if you take the time to investigate further you will see her medical bills were not for the injuries she alleged, they bear more resemblance to bills for cosmetic surgery. The police did investigate at the time and found no case to answer. Indeed there is no “proof” Ms Andrews rehashed her tale this year to try to damage his reputation but it was coincidentally timed so as to maximise publicity at the same time as Mr Fassbender’s wife was promoting her Tomb Raider movie. Interestingly Ms Andrews’ vociferous friend who earlier this year was pushing this tale has now deleted all her tweets and references to it. I am surprised that Wikipedia would consider such unsubstantiated allegations worthy of inclusion. Londoneyes (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no single agent named "Wikipedia"; I don't represent such an entity any more than you do. We're all trying to do our best here. I see a lot of guesses about motives, and a lot of unsourced statements. I'm opening an RFC; see below. grendel|khan 09:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about allegations of physical abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Personal life" section contain allegations of physical abuse against Sunawin Andrews? grendel|khan 09:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Fassbender fits the definition of WP:WELLKNOWN under WP:BLP - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis per BLP). I see two sources citing that paragraph, with one of them being TMZ -a tabloid news website, and the other The Daily Beast. So unless multiple and reliable sources can be found, leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I cited TMZ as the original source which broke the story, and The Daily Beast as the source that brought it up again eight years later. It's since been reported in Business Insider [3], Elle Australia [4], The San Jose Mercury-News [5], Fox News [6], news.com.au [7], and others, all of which cite TMZ and The Daily Beast. The latter cites a police report, which you can (I think) see watermarked scans of here: [8]. Given that a police report was filed, and that multiple news sources have reported it, does that change the calculus here? grendel|khan 00:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Νο per WP:BLP. All the references cited by the nominator are mirroring two (rather gossipy) sources: The Daily Beast which although described in WP:RSP as generally reliable, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons, and then the TMZ online tabloid.

Here's Wikipedia's lowdown on it, again per WP:RSP: Most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. There is no reason to add Wikipedia to the sites mirroring such sources about a living person. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• No in agreement with both Isaidnoway and The Gnome Aboudaqn (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes given the new citations to multiple respected and reliable sources cited above (for example Mercury News which have picked up on the story and verified the credibility of the TMZ sources. Just because a news story was first covered by a publication with low reliability does not mean that story will never become significantly covered in the press by reliable sources. Prior to these more recent publications, I would have voted NO. But given the citations provided by Grendelkhan, I believe the allegations have become notable as per the cumulative coverage in these other sources.––Saranoon (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per the additional sources that grendelkhan mentions above (a couple of which should be cited in the article itself). However, due to the limited reliability of the original sources, we should mention them in prose: "In 2010, TMZ reported that..." In this case, there's two levels of distancing: a source reports that X reportedly did Y. This is certainly enough to satisfy BLP; we would be saying categorically true statements which have received much media coverage. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• No - Both sources are poor and because they are only allegations at this point. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot) - if the only sources for this are two gossipy sources, or other sources citing those two sources, then I would have concerns about the reliability of the information. If other sources have actually independently verified the story, and are just crediting TMZ for breaking it, then there's a stronger case for inclusion. -sche (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• No one poor source regurgitating another does not BLP-compliance make. ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motorsports?

Not sure if anyone wants to dig into this and add it, but evidently he's collaborating with Porsche motorsport and doing some low-level racing with them? Porsche created a promotional video about it here on their YouTube channel. I assume there's a citable source about this out there somewhere, if anyone's interested. RobertM525 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sunawin 'Leasi' Andrews

• Leasi Andrews
• "Michael dated the actress from 2008 to 2009. The following year, she filed a petition for a restraining order, alleging that he had physically assaulted her."
• "The actor's former girlfriend, Sunawin “Leasi” Andrews, says she was the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of Fassbender in 2009."
• "Michael Fassbender enjoyed a torrid — and rather public — reunion with an ex-girlfriend, "Dante's Cove" actress Leasi Andrews, early Monday morning."
• "“Leasi, a model, claimed that the Killarney man attacked her in a drunken rage after a film festival, breaking her nose and causing her to fear for her two young children,” the article stated."
• Leasi Andrews - Getty Images
• Sunawin Andrews - Model - Elite Model Management - LinkedIn
• "Michael Fassbender and Sunawin "Leasi" Andrews arriving at the Irish Film and Television awards (IFTAs) held at the Burlington Hotel, Dublin. Saturday 14th February"
• "Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by Zachary Holland against Sunawin Leasi Andrews"
• "But (Lawrence) Bender is said to have disapproved when gorgeous Leasi, who has dated Leo DiCaprio and Terrence Howard, started seeing one of Tarantino's stars, Michael Fassbender."

24.7.104.84 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing word

The article seems to be protected, so I'm not able to add a "he" in the "future projects" chapter: "And HE will star in Next Goal Wins ..." 89.204.137.28 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal life: German fluency

"Fassbender is fluent in German and has expressed interest in performing in a German-language film or play"

A lot of his dialog in First Class and Apocalypse was in German and I think that's worth adding. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

He is part Irish 2A02:8084:26C1:1F80:9124:774D:A32A:F57E (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting abuse allegations

Years on from these discussion, how is it that the abuse allegations and restraining order are now mentioned nowhere on this Wikipedia page? Even if you don't believe the allegations, surely they are notable enough to make the cut for inclusion. People can decide for themselves what they think the veracity of the claims are, but surely the editors making the decision that they're unfounded on behalf of readers and deliberately obscuring the information is against the principles of Wikipedia and accessible information. 1.145.170.169 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

there are definitely non-tabloid sources covering this: [9] Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become a democracy where people's feelings matter more than facts. This entire conversation proves that the people in charge of editing this page don't know what facts are and don't care. Allowing such people to have any type of power over information basically turns wikipedia into a popularity contest as opposed to an encyclopedia that makes publicly available facts easy to find. When the people put in charge of information pretend to be blind, we all have to contend with their blind spot. 2601:18D:4600:3050:574:3FE0:8C46:3539 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The main sourcing for the legal filing backing up the TMZ report appears to be The Daily Beast, which has been deemed by Wikipedia to not be reliable enough above, which was why it was closed. The amount of consensus needed to reach that original decision was not nearly satisfactory in terms of the number of people that contributed and I'm cynical enough to believe some came from his team and any pushback now will be from someone promoting his new film post race car career to film. What we need is a new petition on here on the sufficiency of that source. Onan808 (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News (not regular Buzzfeed) recently released an article about it. From what I understand Buzzfeed News is considered a reliable source. Here is the article link. I'm new here so I can't add it as a citation (glad to see it's semi-protected now) but maybe y'all can Elehnsherr (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is a reliable source, but such an allegation will require more than just one source or else there will be a neutrality issue. That’s why it’s best to wait. Trillfendi (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that policy or guideline. Could you point to it, please, or explain how it is a "neutrality issue" if there was only one source? We can always report on what sources say. Regardless, there are now several reliable sources in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You can read it here. Trillfendi (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of our neutrality policy, it's one of the five pillars. Above, though, you're implying the existence of only one source would cause a neutrality issue. This does not seem to an actual policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The weight of such controversial subject matter would be undue with only one source. So yes…. Trillfendi (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. Say for example The Baltimore Sun (a reliable source) did an investigative article about a local politician involved in an affair or some similar scandal. Most if not all other articles about said incident (including some from reliable sources) will all say at some point "[xxx] from the Baltimore Sun reported...". Does this make that a neutrality issue? I agree with the above, the existence of one source causing a neutrality issue is not an actual policy. (At least in my interpretation, I could be wrong) WP:Undue isn't about that, the examples they use is "Don't talk about Flat Earthers on the page for Earth", since that is a minority view and should not be given undue weight. A legitimate source reporting a legal matter related to an incident of alleged abuse does not seem to apply to that.RF23 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding is the same as my understanding. If Trillfendi can point to policy, she should do so (specifically, to the point in a policy that backs up her position, not a link to a full and broad policy page). The point is moot, though, given there are now multiple reliable sources in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Abuse allegations

The Irish Sunday Mail:

"Regarding the case on Fassbender, LA county Steve Cooley continued the investigation after Andrew's charges were dropped. Two unnamed witnesses were interviewed by victim services of LA county. DA. Cooley concluded, no evidence appeared in statute to require any investigation against the german born-irish actor. The actor gave a ICO.8 statement and no charges were filed." Hoya117 (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Walter One did not appear in Prometheus; only Alein Covenant. I just wanted to amend this. Thanks Domhonmong (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fassbender has said he is a German passport holder; not an Irish passport holder

In a 2017 interview with Time Out, Fassbender said the following:

"I’ve actually got a German passport! I’ve been meaning to get an Irish passport for years and just never got around to it."

Fassbender has of course identified as Irish many times, played Irish characters in many films, and since his mother was born on the island of Ireland, he is by default entitled to Irish citizenship.

As he is a German citizen (as per his German passport), and entitled to Irish citizenship, wouldn't it make sense to change 'Nationality' to 'Citizenship' in his infobox, and list 'Ireland' and 'Germany'? And also perhaps to list him as a 'German-Irish actor' or 'German and Irish' actor? Athousandcuts2005 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Nationality

Hi, shall we omit Fassbender's nationality in the lead sentence and explain later? There's a recent conversation on this. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not start a discussion about it, leaving things as they are? Avoids the back & forth, saves time. -The Gnome (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's add back the nationality as "German-Irish" since he has identified himself as Irish, considering he has played many Irish characters. GTAGamer245 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GTAGamer245, I'm afraid your arguments aren't strong enough. I find hyphenated terms kinda ambiguous. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hyphenated terms are fine. Rovingrobert (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)