Talk:Richard Armitage (actor)/Archives/2015

Role in Robin hood

The link for North and South inappropriately links to the American Civil War book of that name, rather than the 2004 BBC mini-series, adapted from Elizabeth Gaskell's book of the same name.

The spelling of his role in Robin Hood is incorrect. The BBC uses the spelling Gisborne, without the U. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/robinhood/

Fair use rationale for Image:Armitage Guy.jpg

Image:Armitage Guy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a MAJOR plot spoiler in here (for Robin Hood that doesn't even relate that much to Armitage's craft or career. If it belongs at all, it should be in a list of other quotations about his work and should be headed with a "SPOILER" note. But I don't think it's worth having in here at all - I'm getting rid of it. For future reference, it relates to a key figure in Robin Hood being killed at his hand at the end of the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.27.112 (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit

I see in the History people have been going back and forth about this. For one thing Thorin Oakenshield is the third most active and important character in the book who is in it from the beginning to almost the end. He dies only after the final climactic battle and from there is it just Bilbo's journey back to the Shire with Gandalf. Peter Jackson has confirmed, in numerous sources, that there are two Hobbit films (it is listed that way on IMDB, heck it is reported that way on "The Hobbit Film Project" page on Wiki) and there is no reason to think that the character, and therefore Armitage, would not be in both of them. --KiplingKat (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute about his being cast in the films. The item that has been removed is a two year old report about the direction that del Toro wanted to take with the films. As a) he is no longer a part of the project and b)Jackson may or may not follow the path he laid out and c) it was only being used as a reference, I do not see the need for it being attached to this article. MarnetteD | Talk 11:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fansites vs. Message Boards

The fansites currently attached to this article are information-only sites with more details on the actor's career. A couple attempts have been made to add fan message boards, like the Armitage Army link recently. I do think there is a difference between the two, where one is providing further information and the other is just an advertisement that does not provide additional info. KiplingKat (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They're all the same, and technically, they're all linkspam. They should either all stay or all go. Since one's gone, I'm going to remove the rest. Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's positively draconian of you. The were NOT all the same. Had you bothered to clink on any of the links you would have seen that three of them were informational sites and the Armitage Army was nothing more than a message board. I'm not new to this, I'm been working on this page for months. Not to mention, the web administrator for RichardArmitageNet.com helped me track down the photographer in order to get the new pic verified and deserves a little credit. KiplingKat (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not, and please don't assume I haven't looked. WP:ELNO speaks clearly to fansites as unsuitable links. You've selectively removed Armitage Army for an arbitrary reason, and brought the policy into play. So, they all go. They were bound to; it was just a matter of time before someone familiar with the prohibition against fansite links came across this article and took them all off. Moreover, the length of time you worked on the article has no bearing on what content is appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines. If you have been working on it for months, you've had ample time to familiarize yourself with the policies around here. It was good of one of the site admins to help with the (vastly better) photo, but there's no quid pro quo for her having done so. Drmargi (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not an arbitrary reason. It was a message board that provided no additional informaiton. The person who linked to it was just advertising. And I noticed no one, including you, had a problems with those links until now. If anyone is acting arbitrarily it's you for ignoring these links until now. And if you had investigated these links, you would not have have said they were "the same." KiplingKat (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're arbitrarily enforced WP:ELNO, even if you don't realize you have, and that brought the whole link section under scrutiny. There's no time limit beyond which content cannot be removed; that someone didn't see it up to now doesn't mean that someone won't see it in future and make an edit just like the one I did. There's nothing systematic about how and when edits are made, as long as they follow policy, which all of mine do. You have no argument for inclusion of links that violate policy, and are going to have to live with it.

I am requesting you revert your final edit as a good faith gesture. "Pretty official" is not the same as Armitage's official site -- he's very clearly avoided a preference for one or another out of respect for each site as the more recent ones followed the original Amitage Army site; they all got the same Christmas message, which I'm sure you know, since you're claiming expertise on these sites.

Edits such as mine happen all the time. The Wikipedia isn't a fansite, as much as some fangirls might want to make it one. Moreover, you're now on the verge of edit warring (See WP:3RR or WP:EDIT); you're on three reverts now, so let it go. Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And BTW - You are incorrect. At least the most recent messages he has sent to Richard ArmitageOnline.com directly and then the administrator there disseminates the message to the other sites because they are nice like that. KiplingKat (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being a "fangirl" (thanks for the insult, very classy), it is providing additional, up-to-date information. Frankly the other external links suck as sources of information. I don't even know why they are listed as, thanks to me, the Wiki article contains ten times more information than they do. Even his agent has not updated his CV since the middle of last year while he was filming "Spooks." I was just trying to provide additional sources of info for interested readers. But hey, if you would rather people go through Google than here, fine.KiplingKat (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you were willing to break those rules to allow all the fansite if the link to the Armitage Army message board stayed up, but if that came down, only then were you willing to enforce the rule. What's up with that?KiplingKat (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you're playing games, and despite the informal warning above, are now in violation of WP:3RR. The whole idea in my request was to remove all the sites, not restore them all by selective reverting your last edit. You have a lot to learn about policy on the Wikipedia, and this will do nothing but get you blocked. You can try to spin the fansites and their value any way you want, but they ALL violate WP:ELNO and all have to be removed. Please remove ALL the fansite links that violate WP:ELNO or you'll force me to file a report that doesn't need to be filed. Please note, from WP:3RR

If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases, for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and appears to be genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.

I know you haven't made an error, but will let it go if you revert back to removal of all fansites, as requested previously. Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I already removed it. I'm also filing a complaint for your arbitrary enforcement of the guidelines. KiplingKat (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. You're going to lose. They'll enforce WP:ELNO, and you'll end up right back where we are. Moreover, I'll point out the WP:3RR violation which will very likely get you a 12-24 hour block. Drmargi (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was not your purpose at all, since you put the armitagearmy link *back up* and said if one goes, they all go.KiplingKat (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd avoid telling another editor what they're purpose was. I asked you to revert the selective addition of one site you arbitrarily designated as Armitage's official site, which you know it not true. That it took you two steps to make that restoration doesn't allow you to hide behind language, or an edit I made and restore them all, which is what you've done. Now matter how you word spin, try to shift focus or anything else, bottom line is they are ALL fansites, they ALL violate WP:ELNO and they ALL have to go. Drmargi (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They're all gone. Calm down. I don't care about the links anymore. They can stay gone. The only thing I care about now is your arbitrary enforcement of the guidelines and use of insults. KiplingKat (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither fansites nor message boards nor any other type of user generated content is suitable for either external links or especially use as an article source. This is particularly true for content about a living person. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're carrying things a bit far. I didn't call you a fangirl, I referred to what fangirls (in general) like to think Wikipedia is. BIG difference. Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE - Comment about content and not contributors and Treat other editors in a civil manner Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO does not prohibit fansite links. In fact it only mentions them once in its 20 clauses(Clause 11) and states that although most fan sites are a no-no, that those written by a "recognized authority" ARE permitted links.

So if the actor communicates directly with an informational only fansite (as Armitage does to disseminate his messages to the fans), can this be construed as a "recognized authority"?KiplingKat (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

An ELNO site that provides a unique resource can also be a legitimate link.(Clause 1) It is always helpful to read the wording of the guidelines and project pages as they frequently diverge from what may be presumed by reading the title alone.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who's behaviour is more outrageous: some of the posters or the moderator. The conduct of you both is absolutely deplorable. KiplingKat has the right to be treated with civility. The moderator has a role to perform but by behaving in a boorish manner, undermines his/her position.

This entire entry is poorly written, overly long, and pretty devoid of substance. It reads like it was produced by a PR company. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.96.131 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Citations

I thought this article was rather extensively cited. Can someone explain what needs to be cited? Some of the articles linked to only exist as part of his fansites now, but they are scans of newspaper articles or links to audio interviews. I can take those out, and that will leave the informaiton less cited that before. KiplingKat (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So, just because it is hosted on a fansite, this scan of a newspaper article has to be removed? http://www.richardarmitagenet.com/images/articlescans/DailyRecord2.jpg KiplingKat (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We cannot ever link to sites hosting copyright material that do not have permission to host it. The citation needs to be to the original publication. If there is not an appropriately licensed copy of the material on the web, so be it.Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

and as a clarification: "so be it" in the sense that we do not have a link to the source - a source does not need to be freely available on line to be used. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Will you at least give me a chance to try to find the original articles before you start tossing chunks of the article out? KiplingKat (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use the {{:under construction}} tag at the top of the article to let people know you are actively working on the article. (take out the ":" so the full banner appears) Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you for being civil and applying the rules fairly across the board. KiplingKat (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being a wench, but trying to find all the rules and guidelines on this site is very difficult. I took me days and finally an e-mail request to figure out what was required to get a a photo validated. Isn't there anyway the rules here could be organized so it was easier for people to understand what they should and should not do? KiplingKat (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being paper, there is not a front to back "guide for editing"; but the Welcome template on your user page User talk:KiplingKat is an attempt at providing links to important information in as organized manner as possible. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was where I started months ago. It's still confusing as all git out. I used to write manuals for rocket testing procedures, and there are ways to break down this stuff a lot more simply than what you guys have going on here. This look pretty much like Wiki kluged it together as they went along and now it has just become too unwieldy. There reaches a certain point where you have to step back, take a look at the entire picture and organize and simplify. KiplingKat (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

While I dont necessarily disagree with you, good luck with that ;-) Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you wished, you might be able to put your design skills to use in coming up with another and clearer Welcome template. There are at least 4 in widespread official use with many other user adopted ones as well. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the welcome template, it's the structure of the entire guidelines and rules and laws, etc. on the site. There is no reason for so many different pages on different aspects of what is essentially same thing. It should be simplified in a "Here is how to edit on wiki" with the most pertinent informaiton, sans the confusing legalese, and then post links to more detailed pages if the person has further questions. A centralized organizational tree. Right now, on a single "webpage" you end up digging through what amounts to pages of so much confusing crap just to get one little morsel of useful info, and that's if you can even find the correct webpage (Example: Today I ended up lodging complaints in two different places that were not correct), that it's daunting. As for consensus, that's what small committees are for. KiplingKat (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to citations, if I can not find live links directly to the publication quoted, I assume it would be acceptable to cite them as a written journal publications (I use Chicago Manual of Style)? Would that satisfy the citation flag you put up? And beyond the existing citation is there anything else I need to cite, or anything else I should include to make this a good article? KiplingKat (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct we do not need live links, just the proper information that someone can identify exactly where the content was published and someone with access to the original publication could then verify that the information in the article is supported by that source. see WP:CITE / WP:PAYWALL /WP:RS / Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you do me a favor and read over the article to see if I need more citations than I have? KiplingKat (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan: Wordpress is a self published blog/website and those sources are not acceptable. Using the actor's agent's website is sketchy - it can be used for limited non-controversial/non-promotional content - I didnt actually look to see if it is appropriately used. Otherwise it looks very good and I would not object if you removed the banner. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

David Stephenson is a professional journalist for the Sunday Express who hosts the raw audio of the interviews he writes up on his own blog. The wordpress link is to the raw audio of the interview with Richard Armitage that ended up being the printed article "Hero of a special Force" in the Sunday Express which is referenced earlier in this (wiki) article. He has full rights to that material. The Vulpis Libris interview (and it is a legit interview by one of the regular contributors to that blog) I think falls under the "Unique resources" clause. It is a "blog" about books that published authors and publishers have contributed to, not a fansite. At some point, I think Wiki is going to have to revamp their rules about web-published materials.KiplingKat (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And the link to his agent is JUST his CV. That's it.KiplingKat (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you very much for your help. KiplingKat (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW-The Sunday Times article is not a direct quote from him. The article stated it in giving his background. In 2007 he agreed with Lorraine Kelley when she asked if ran away to the circus when he was 17. Which then do we use? We have two conflicting stories from the source, and you can't just dismiss one because you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What more?

I am a little curious as to what information people feel this article is missing. If it is a "personal life" section, Armitage is a very private person and beyond the knowledge of the names of his immediate family and occupations of his parents we don't know much. Out of respect to him I have not chosen to publish the couple things that have come out about his romantic past.

Other than that, I fail to see what I have not included about his career. What else is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer. What else is required to take this article out of "Start Class" to where it belongs? KiplingKat (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Real world vs. Fictional world

This is a little strange:

"In March 2009, he began filming for Series 8 of Spooks, which began airing in November 2009. In July 2010 he finished filming series 9, which began airing in late September 2010. His real name was revealed in episode 7 as John Bateman. Bateman had murdered the real Lucas North shortly before North's admission to MI5, and had taken his place."

I do not know enough about him or Spooks to separate out real world from fiction. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that IS strange. John Bateman was eventually shown to be the real name of Lucas North, the character he played on Spooks. I'll fix. --Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Spooks plot detail in a biog

Specific plot detail does not belong in a biog. "Bateman had stolen North's identity and taken his place. Series 9 ended in a confrontation with Harry Pearce on the roof of the Enver Tower, from which Bateman leapt to his death." This text is out of place and belongs in the series article Spooks. There is no other plot narration in the article. This text was put here by an overexcited fan. Span (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we can find a compromise. Obviously, given the discussion directly above, the character name (which should be included) is a source of confusion. I think we can leave in the fact that the character was discovered to be "John Bateman," and remove the character's ultimate fate.KiplingKat (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should the end of a series plot line turn up in a biog of an actor? It makes no sense. Span (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care either way. I don't understand the insistence on it, nor do I think it detracts from the biography. Obviously, an explanation of the character's two names must be included. That's all I care about. KiplingKat (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Joined Circus at 17 or 19?

In the Nylon interview of Jan this year, Richard Armitage stated he was 19 when he joined the circus. The Wiki entry on him says he was 17. I wasn't able to check either of the sources cited in support of this fact as one is a tv show and the other provides a link to a page that has obviously moved.Anybody know which is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:419F:1900:C50A:FA60:D84D:BDE3 (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Several interviews prior he has stated it was 17. In the past he has been asked about it a great deal. I see the link to the original articles cited for that are dead. I will try to dig those articles up again. I suspect the Nylon interviewer may have misheard him as this is the first time I have heard he was 19 at the time. KiplingKat (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading that article and a couple older articles, and finding out that independent schools (like Pattinson College) in England go to 18 instead of 16 as traditional secondary education does, I have corrected the age to 19. Somehow 17 got stuck in the press' mind. KiplingKat (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The article cannot rely on your calculations, which are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please find a reliable source that explicitly states Armitage was 19, or we have to go with what the reliable sources provided say. --Drmargi (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The article quotes him as saying he was 19. http://richardarmitagecentral.co.uk/tag/nylon-guys/ There is not an electronic copy available, so I cited the author, magazine and issue. Please read edits in their entirety before you revert them.KiplingKat (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The source above is not reliable, and the edit is not verifiable, especially when weighed against a number of reliable sources that cite 17 as his age. If you cannot provide a verifiable source for his age, which you have not done, the edit cannot go in the article. Please assume good faith and remain civil while editing rather than baseless and intemperate accusations. --Drmargi (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It was not an "unverifiable quote." It was a direct quote, from him, in a magazine I cited the physical issue and showed you a scan of because I cannot find a copy of it online. What you are saying is Wikipedia does not accept sources that are not online and I find that hard to believe. KiplingKat (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nylon magazine, given with its link, publication date, is perfectly reliable and verifiable. It's not SYNTH. It's a direct quote from Armitage. See article. Span (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. KiplingKat (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

One source contradicts another. There are two others, one a television interview with a national morning show, where he's said 17. KiplingKat wants to be the sole arbiter of which is more reliable and which is accurate, but I find a TV interview and the London Sunday Times more reliable than a minor magazine's quote. KiplingKat needs to entertain the idea that the newer magazine contains the error. Related, WP:SYNTH was applied to her calculation of when he got the card based on when she believed he would have left school, not on the quote in the magazine, which wasn't posted at the time. One person's opinion is not arbitration, and it's just that. An opinion, one with which I disagree. This discussion should continue until there is consensus on one v. the other source, and KK refrain from forcing the edit. --Drmargi (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't help your case. I put in an official request for a Third Opinion. That's why Spanj weighed in. You can keep dismissing opinions you do not like, and then I will take this further up. Many publications said "17" without quoting him, possibly taking that information from this very article. He recently said, in a direct quote, in a verifiable source, he was 19 at the time. KiplingKat (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Oh, and BTW-I DID post the magazine citation, I DID post that despite earlier sources, he *stated* he was 19, both the first time the edit was made.

I saw it. And it's just that; one editor's opinion, not arbitration, and not binding. The prevailing policy is still WP:CONSENSUS. Your interpretation of the difference between the two is WP:OR, as I noted previously. Again, please AGF; I made nothing like a personal attack, and find your lack of understanding of a number of pertinent policies troubling. --Drmargi (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW-The Sunday Times article is not a direct quote from him. The article stated it in giving his background. In 2007 he agreed with Lorraine Kelley when she asked if ran away to the circus when he was 17. Which then do we use? We have two conflicting stories from the source, and you can't just dismiss one because you don't like it. The best option here is to quote both ages that Armitage has given the press, noting his discrepancy. KiplingKat (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interviewees are misquoted all the time. Why didn't he correct Lorraine Kelly if the age was wrong? We don't know, and it creates a contradiction. Let's allow others to weigh in and see where it takes us in a couple days. The sources have stood for several years; they're not going anywhere. Noting both ages and the contradiction may, indeed, be the best way forward. --Drmargi (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

At least we can now agree that neither RS or OR apply to the new Nylon source, which helps to clarify things. It is difficult when sources disagree, but in BLPs even the strongest sources often clash. It's also very common for celebrities to tell different versions of their lives (including giving different years of birth). I would agree with Kat that it is best and most transparent to mention in the 'early life' section of the article that Armitage joined the circus and add in footnote that linked sources vary on the age. The reader can decide on the relative strength of the sources themselves. Span (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we settled on this? Shall I update it to include both ages now? KiplingKat (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer we give other editors at least 48 hours to comment, and to see a draft of what is proposed agreed upon before updating the actual article. --Drmargi (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that it can wait a few days - it's not a burning BLP issue. Let's see what other editors may have to add. However you are the two most active editors of the article, adding the most of the content, and it's not a high traffic article. Thanks to both of you for your contributions over the years. Span (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I hate to leave things hanging, especially potentially wrong information with another Hobbit media blitz starting. Here is what I had in mind: "After completing Pattinson College, he joined a circus in Budapest for six weeks to gain his Equity Card. (In different interviews, Armitage has given different ages for his time with the circus: 17 or 19)" and add citations. KiplingKat (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The time allows for a cooling off period as well, which is never a bad thing. As you say Span, it will keep. I can't worry about a possible Hobbit blitz, or other what ifs. I'm not agreeing to anything more tonight. --Drmargi (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we can have a discussion that contains itself to the article rather than other editors. I also want to note, without exaggeration, I have added at least ten times more content to this article. I respect the contributions all all editors, but please do not say we have both contributed equally. It comes across as a little condescending. KiplingKat (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I am also wondering what the point of the Third Opinion request is if editors can chose to completely disregard it. I wondering what the point of Wikipedia is at all if editors can chose to dismiss verifiable sources and the information they contain. KiplingKat (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute over updating article with information that conflicts with previous sources):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Richard Armitage (actor) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

This is a tough one to evaluate. Generally, I look at cases like this by weighing the sources and using the Preponderance of evidence as the burden of proof. In this specific case, you have two reliable sources cited in the article stating he was 17. And apparently there are dozens more that state the same thing. Then you have an interview with the subject himself, published in a RS, which states 19. I think in this case the compromise suggested by KiplingKat is the best thing to do here... though from a copyediting standpoint, I don't think you need to set the second sentence off with brackets; just state it as the next sentence. Something like "...joined a circus in Budapest at the age of 17 or 19. He performed with the circus for six weeks, with the sole intent of gaining his Equity Card." Another option that you could consider, is just to remove the age from the article entirely. Ask yourself: does including the age really give the reader more information? We already know he joined the circus right after College, and the average reader knows that someone is in their late teens when they do so, and we can click the wikilink to Pattinson College, so see people graduate from there at 16, so... since there is this conflict, maybe it's better to let the reader figure it out themselves? I hope this opinion has been helpful. Feel free to ping me or reach out on my talk page if you want to discuss further (I won't be watching this page). Livit⇑Eh?/What? 12:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It is appreciated. Just for the sake of general clarity, people graduate from Pattinson at "16+" (it's in the Wiki article and on the School website) and Armitage did receive two A-levels which students are tested for upon completion of the optional Sixth Form at age 18. KiplingKat (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Livitup, thanks for your input. I would go with omitting the ages from the article and footnoting it if necessary. Cooling off is always handy. Span (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see what "cooling off" has to do with editing an article so it contains factual information. Omitting the ages is a viable idea, but I believe footnoting the conflicting ages is necessary because it frames how long he spent in musical theatre before he switched tracks to drama and attended LAMDA. KiplingKat (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I have edited the age to omit the actual age, but cited the GMT interview and the Nylon interview. KiplingKat (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You were asked by more than one editor to wait and allow discussion, as just reinforced by Span, which was the move you should have made. I get that you feel you WP:OWN this article; that's been clear for some time, but when you are asked to wait a couple days, allow other editors to discuss, and then made an edit, you wait. We had two different options for the final product (omit age v. include both ages) under consideration, and there's no consensus for one versus the other. This is about the best interest of the article, not your personal agenda or timeline. I'm not going to delete it because I know you'll just edit war it, but you need to remember that you are part of a collaborative process here, not a law unto yourself (and none of that is a personal attack, before you try to play that card again.) --Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Kat, cooling off is useful because Wikipedia is about editing as a group, through respectful consensus and discussion. Self-imposed time pressures and urgency make civil conversation and wise decision-making harder. Be careful with owning. It's easy to feel when you have worked a lot on one article and have a strong connection to it. Span (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really cooled down now after being insulted a second time. How respectful. I don't think I am the one you need to talk to about "cooling down." This is not about WP:OWN. I was only pointing out that mutual pats on the head was not appropriate (in fact it was a little condescending) and did nothing to ease tensions. What the problem actually is, is there is a printed article in a magazine containing a direct quote from the subject that contains conflicting information from what has been posted before. I updated the information with the article properly cited also noting that previous articles had stated one thing, but this was new information. That's it, that is all this is about. This could have just began and ended with "please include both ages and cite both articles," but NO. The dispute has blown up into a huge *thing*. The fact I have been repeatedly accused of making this up is bizarre, as are the repeated personal attacks. And when you insult another editor, projecting false motives on them to vilify them and undermine their position, discussing the editor and not the article as Wikipedia says, that is a personal attack whether the person who makes it calls it that or not. And of the claim that I don't know this is a collaborative process, I would point out that *I* was the one that put in a Third Opinion request. When one arrived *Drmagi* was the one who dismissed it because "it's just another opinion I don't agree with." I was the one that compromised. Now there is a second Third Opinion (and editors are supposed to remove Third Opinion requests after they answer so as "not to duplicate work," so if Livit followed procedure, there are no further unbiased opinions coming) and I am again at fault, "following my own agenda," for editing a compromise agreed on by three people out of four while one editor sits there accusing me of making this up because I have "an agenda" and feel I own the page. And somehow *I* am the one that doesn't understand "group consensus?" Who has really been dictating to the group here? Seriously, this is very screwed up. I refuse to sit here and be insulted because one person has decided that four people agreeing on a compromise and three out of four people agreeing on a way to phrase that compromise is not a group consensus. This has gone far, FAR beyond what it should have. I have reported it for Dispute Resolution. KiplingKat (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Public appearances section

Is this section really necessary? Out of all bios on WP, none have this section and I think it really is arbitrary and doesn't add anything useful. Delete? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 11:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it adds nothing. Span (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. This might have been important when his career was just getting off the ground, but now? not so much. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. It's not necessary. Not to mention, with so many appearances surrounding The Hobbit, simply not feasible to keep up with. KiplingKat (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)