Talk:Angela Lansbury/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

First paragraph nationality decription

The first paragraph describes Angela Lansbury as a British-American actress. This fits the usual Anglo-American bias of Wikipedia.

She is described as British as she was born in London. She is described as American as she has lived there for many years and taken up American citizenship. So British-American would seem like an apt description? Wrong!

Angela Lansbury is an Irish citizen. She has been an Irish citizen from birth. (She has also been a British citizen ship from birth.) She has lived in Ireland for many years and keeps a house there. So for many of the years that she "lived in the USA" she also "lived in Ireland"

She holds an Irish passport. Obtaining a passport requires an action - as opposed to accidental citizenship which you can do nothing about.

So objectively she is more "Irish" than she is "American" i.e. Irish parent,lives there, holds passport v lives there and (probably holds passport)

So if she is to be described as American in the opening paragraph she should, on the same grounds, be described as Irish.

So she is British,Irish, and American. Any disagreement on that?

Whats the best way to put that? Anglo-Irish-American?

Any other suggestions? Kevinc565 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source testifying to the claim that "She has been an Irish citizen from birth" as I am not sure if this is strictly correct. I think that "Anglo-Irish-American" could work, or alternately we could refer to her as an "English actress" and then mention that she has also acquired American and Irish citizenship? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"She has been an Irish citizen from birth" is normal Irish code for "She has been qualified to be an Irish citizen from birth", as Lansbury would have been with a mother born in Belfast. It does not necessarily mean the person ever went to Ireland, had an Irish passport, identified as Irish, or anything like that. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't need a passport to be a citizen, not do you have to have visited the country in question. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean by "Irish code" (talk) 02:17, 05 September 2020 (UTC)

The only citations in the article that mention citizenship prove that she is an Irish citizen -- the Irish government had to approve her UK honors. She was born in the UK, so that covers her British citizenship, but I see no evidence here that she acquired American citizenship. It seems to me that we should either prove it or remove it. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Article currently says English-Irish-American. I think in line with the source this could be "English-born Irish", "Irish-British" or just "Irish". I agree the "American" should go, based on this source. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been 2 years since anyone has commented further on this issue. She identified herself as an Irish-British actress in this article in 2016

References

In line with the previous comments above, I will add Irish in the first line of this article. It may be useful to find other articles where she has identified her nationality rather than an organisation determining it for her.37.18.134.184 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Earliest surviving Academy Award nominee

That's Glynis Johns, for The Sundowners (1960). She was born in 1923 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.48.115 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Johns is the oldest living person to have been nominated for an Oscar but that's not what the article says Billsmith60 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Amend years active as actress

Angela's last theatre, movie and television roles were in 2019, 2018 and 2017. 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:1DCB:4C1F:31B4:6C36 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Angela Lansbury has dementia or Alzheimers

She's been slowly regressing for about 15 years. It's been evident in Broadway performances. I do not feel right adding this info in to the Wiki profile, but Wiki editors may want to discuss it so that's why I'm mentioning it here. The source is some of the reviews and interviews of her in NYC papers over the past decade as well as broadway.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyBig (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen no sources stating she has either dementia or Alzheimers. Unless it's backed by a multitude of good sources, it won't be appearing in this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

OP, it is completely normal for someone of her considerable age to show signs of forgetfulness or word finding difficulty. Also, if she had Alzheimer’s over 15 years I doubt she would be alive by now.2.30.55.86 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Narrator for Beauty and the Beast stage show

How recent is the narration done by Lansbury? Is it confirmed that Angela is still performing because she was notably absent from the 75th Tony Awards. 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:5DA5:7464:28E2:F390 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"one of the longest in the entertainment industry"

The lead section currently says that her career was "one of the longest in the entertainment industry". Her career certainly was very long (about 75 years), but do we have a source for the "one of the longest" claim, or is that an editorial comment that originates on Wikipedia? For comparison, Norman Lloyd's stage career spanned 98 years. Renerpho (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

heroin addicton of son repeated ? and Well

Well done on a great article. Not concerned about overemphasis [WP:BLP] just mentioning that it's repeated . But well done, especially the choice of quotations Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Table

Could Angela Lansbury's Filmography, Theatre and Television appearances be put in table form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

See Angela Lansbury on screen and stage. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Organization

The organization of this is a mess! Wis2fan (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wis2fan: You're very welcome to fix it. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking of Dame in info box

It has been claimed by Muboshgu, without providing any clear evidence to support it, that MOS:OVERLINK applies to the linking of Dame in the info box. In fact nothing in this part of the MOS mentions titles as being among the kinds of things which shouldn't be linked to in articles. So the claim is at best highly questionable (especially when it is also the common and almost universal practice in info boxes to link a person's title, including the titles of "Sir" and "Dame"), so asserting a personal preference not to based on a questionable interpretation of the MOS needs to be challenged. Also, such titles as these are neither universally known or understood except in, mostly, British Commonwealth countries. How many readers from other countries would have a clear understanding of the nature of her Dame title? Not too many I would strongly suggest. Therefore it seems very appropriate that it is linked to in the info box and this is entirely consistent in my view with MOS:UNDERLINK which states that "In general, links should be created for: Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully .... This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question." Angela Lansbury's title of Dame is very clearly "relevant to the article in question" and "will help readers understand the article more fully". On this basis I believe that the link should be included in the info box. I will be interested in other editors' views on the matter. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol without providing any clear evidence to support it. I mentioned specifically in my edit summary that User:Ohconfucius/script/Common_Terms.js, a script designed to unlink common terms, unlinked it.[1][2] I ran that as a test, and the script seems to think it applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking commonly understood prefixes, such as "Dr", "Sir" or "Dame", is unnecessary, gratuitous even, per MOS:OVERLINK, hence the lack of a link to Dame in the lead sentence. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually maybe a more specific wikilink would be better. Why is she Dame? Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire? Meridiana solare (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's linked directly underneath her name in the infobox, abbreviated as DBE. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

1994 Rose Parade Marshall

No mention in biography of Angela Lansbury was parade Marshall .. 2603:8000:1A00:31C6:F169:17B0:6B83:C194 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Time of death

Why did her family make a point of mentioning the time their mother died? 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:1127:470B:E262:52B1 (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Trivia in Personal life and death section

five days before her 97th birthday is unencyclopedic trivia, IP's/editors keep re-adding it. This is pure trivia and Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How do her children know exactly what time she died? --50.32.147.41 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Death certificate ? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it isn't necessary, as well as the 5 days before birthday, these are trivial facts and unencyclopediatic.--Malerooster (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In your opinion. Why is the date of her death relevant and encyclopedic but the time of her death is not? Ithizar (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my opinion. Because it isn't. --Malerooster (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree: "five days before" is trivial. It's not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I get why the five days is "trivia". Age is apparently considered encyclopedic, and she was almost 97, a point I wouldn't have noticed without the mention. Peacedance (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the "cutoff" for this trivia? 5 days? 10 days? 15 days? Just stick to the facts. --Malerooster (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Peacedance: "she was almost 97, a point I wouldn't have noticed without the mention", wouldn't the death date in the Infobox tell you she died just before her birthday? I realize that the information is both interesting and emotional, but not Encyclopedic. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

But that's the point. It is easy not to notice. If age is encyclopedic, and her true age is almost 97, then it is relevant. I don't care if it is "emotional" or "interesting." It is factual.

If it were changed to "almost 97" or "shortly before her 97th birthday" that would be fine too. I agree that the actual number of days isn't the point and is trivial.

I don't understand why this small addition is such a debated issue. It is one small point that clarifies her age. It doesn't swamp WP with irrelevant data. Peacedance (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats the whole point, those other ways of saying this are NOT fine. Being factual is not a standard for inclusion. This "fact" does not clarify her age. Her "real" age is listed in the info box. Would this be ok, if it was a month before her birthday? Again, where would a cut off date be for including this? Its a big deal because these"little" things will add up if they are not addressed. The onus for inclusion is on the people wanting to add this and I don't see that. --Malerooster (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I do wish I was good at RfC's, it would be nice to have a guideline on this subject to refer to, in the spirit of this one. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing consensus for adding the 5 days before material. There needs to be consensus for this addition. --Malerooster (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(IMO) It's either trivia or it's not, I don't see how a timeframe is relevant. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to say where is the cut off for how many days before a birthday we would mention it. I for one, would leave it out. Also, including the exact time is stupid, period. Editors are just showing their ignorance by edit waring over this and should be blocked. --Malerooster (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for including the time of death, so just leave it out until that happens. --Malerooster (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

info box picture

what should be Angela Lansburys info box picture 4me689 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

vote

the info box picture has been disputed. and there's no consensus for it, so this is a !vote section just for it. make sure you go and your vote on that section as well.

Cast your !vote

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3

I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) (there has also been a dispute on the 2022 to talk Page on her death section image here at Talk:2022#Angela_Lansbury_image, were this talk section was split off from) 4me689 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

1. Of these three options, this one is the best because she's still clearly recognizable as the same person as the older actress. My first choice would be something from during her Murder She Wrote run because that's how more people around today know her. It's still on the air and it's dicussed on YouTube. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
2. The best option of the three. Agree with Darkfrog24. In this image she is recognizable for her full age range and entertainment career. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

1. The One I Left (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
2. TheScrubby (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
3. --Ortizesp (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
4. With a half vote to option 1. SWinxy (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
5. Best of the three, but not great. ~ HAL333 04:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
6. Some1 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
7. Yes, not great, but better than the others. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

discussion

I am going to ping everyone on the other discussion for thoughts and to let them know that this discussion exist, @Alsoriano97:, @Blaze Wolf:, @TheScrubby:, and @MrMimikyu1998:. 4me689 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• My vote is Options 2 The One I Left (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  @The One I Left: sign your name under your choice to cast your vote. 4me689 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Shouldn't editors explain their opinions per WP:NHC? Consensus is not found by counting votes. What is wrong with the status quo? Nemov (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well I do not know how to open a rfc, I initially added this rfc because I wanted to get more responses, but now I am having second thoughts about opening a rfc here so I am probably gonna remove it. But I do not know if I will 4me689 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

My first choice would be something from her Murder She Wrote days because she's the most recognizable with that face. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Death Section

Death section still not created?? Percy2345 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for a specific "Death" section in an article. Lansbury's death is mentioned in the "Final years: 2003–2022" sub-section and some of the tributes that appeared in its wake are included in the "Honours and legacy" section. A specific sub-section on "Death" is only really required if there is considerable information about the circumstances of a person's passing to warrant it, for instance if they died in suspicious circumstances. In Lansbury's case it isn't due. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of resting place

Have removed her resting place of Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery. Her Find A Grave page says the staff have confirmed she is not buried there. BritFlicks1 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't add anything in if it isn't from a verifiable WP:RS. Some exceptions apply. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on nationality in the first sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No Consensus. While some proposals have seemed to gain ground, it does not seem like that a majority, let alone consensus, seems concrete confirmed. It does seem like that most people have stated they prefer Irish mentioned, but a clear pattern has not been solidified. I also find the strength of the arguments to be mostly equal, but I do think that Lansbury's personal preferences give a bit more weight to the Irish side. Still, I do have to close as No Consensus due to the lack of clear phrasing or a clear concrete preference. Per our No Consensus guidelines, the status quo prior to the RFC of Irish-British and American stays put for now, though as always, I will remind the participants that consensus can change. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should the first sentence say "British and American", "Irish-British", or some other option? Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Irish-British and American I think the status quo meets MOS:NATIONALITY where it says: In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity. The examples given are Arnold Schwarzenegger who is described as Austrian and American and Peter Lorre who is described as Hungarian and American. In my opinion Lansbury falls into this category. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Irish-British and American- In case people haven't actually read the article:

"Lansbury defined herself as being "Irish-British". She became a US citizen in 1951, while retaining her British citizenship. According to a 2014 article in the Irish Independent, she also held Irish citizenship." -I don't think that leaves us much choice. Very premature Rfc! Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• British and American I can understand why she called herself Irish-British, but I'm not sure that makes much sense here. She was born in England and became an American so British and American fits MOS:NATIONALITY better than the status quo that's added a 3rd nationality to the mix. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

But she also took out an Irish passport, not to mention living there for long periods. How does this not "make much sense"? Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, MOS:NATIONALITY doesn't give examples of people holding more than two citizenships. Irish-British and American seems fine, but the problem is that it combines ethnicity with citizenship. She was Irish and British both in citizenship and in ethnicity, but she was American in citizenship only, of course. The hyphenated Irish-British is a construction that denotes ethnicity, but the and denotes a citizenship. That's not the end of the world, obviously, so I'm fine with maybe disregarding that. But there are other ways perhaps to make a construction. Here are just some ideas: (1) was a British and American actress and singer who also held Irish citizenship. (2) was a British, American and Irish actress and singer.(3) was an actress and singer who held citizenship in the UK, the US, and Ireland. Pillowcrow (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok with 2) and 3) - 3) maybe best. Irish-British is not really a thing, at least in British English. But all three need to be there. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Irish-British" is what she called herself. It has also the advantage that it does not just describe her citizenship, but also her ancestry. If we don't want to use that I think (2) is an alternative. I don't particularly like (3) for stylistic reasons. A few more variations: (4) A British actress and singer with US and Irish citizenship. (5) A British and American actress and singer with Irish citizenship. (6) An actress and singer of Irish and British descent with UK, US, and Irish citizenship. The last is iffy as far as MOS:NATIONALITY is concerned. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that last option actually. If it's alright, here's a slight rewording: ...was an actress and singer of Irish and British descent (or "ancestry", if that sounds better). She held citizenships in the UK, the US, and Ireland. Pillowcrow (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think 6) is the best of these, & could live with that, or the rewording. MOS:NATIONALITY does not really cover this situation, so we must just work round it. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand it MOS:NATIONALITY discourages mentioning ancestry, although it doesn't explicitly say so. But if no-one has objections to (6) I would be perfectly fine with it. It is definitely the clearest one. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

I think when we venture into these waters, it's important to use the WP MOS as our compass. Since MOS:NATIONALITY does discourage ancestry in the first sentence, I lean towards Pillowcrow's Option 3 as the best option. It's certainly the clearest choice, reads well, and doesn't touch on ethnicity. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It explicitly discourages mentioning ethnicity, but I would say that implicitly it discourages ancestry, too. I wouldn't object to (3), but if it comes down to a choice between (2) and (3) I would prefer (2) for stylistic reasons. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• British and American Or as an alternative, briefly relate the narrative (British born, acquired US, then Irish citizenship). "Irish-British" conveys completely the wrong implication, especially as there are - literally - millions of British people of Irish ancestry - which the hyphenated term usually means. In Lansbury's case, what should mainly be conveyed is that she acquired Irish citizenship, fairly late in life. Her sense of "Irishness" may have been important to her personally, and should be recorded later, but we are mainly conveying autobiographical fact when we relate citizenship in the opening of a BLP. Pincrete (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • She seems to have had a house in Ireland for the last 52 years of her life, and citizenship for at least most of that period - despite what the infobox says, I don't think we actually know when she took it up - she would have been automatically entitled to it because of her mother. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

    she would have been automatically entitled to it (citizenship) because of her mother, not sure about that since her mother was from Belfast (N. Ireland) and never a citizen of 'the South'. It wasn't until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 that all N. Irish people acquired the automatic right to either/both citizenships, and even then it wasn't 'inheritable'. Seamus Heaney didn't become 'legally' Irish until after the GFA, though he had always asserted his Irish-ness and objected to being referred to as 'British', though that is what his passport would have been.

    Ireland has quite a long history of welcoming - and granting citizenship and tax incentives - to artists/creators who choose to make Ireland their home. Hence Anjelica Huston growing up in Ireland. Lansbury may have followed that route.

    With these complex cases, I always think rendering the complexities in terms that a layman can understand, is more important than the actual 'label' used. Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

    • That's not correct: essentially the GFA changes abolished the old Article 2, under which Eire did not recognise the border anyway. There aren't really any "complexities", unless you are determined to create them. She had Irish citizenship, and we should record that along with her other passports. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

      The GFA had many strands, including Irish Republic abandoning and UK each abandoning their unequivocal claim to the territory. But it also in annex 2 said "the right of "the people of Northern Ireland" to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold British or Irish citizenship or both) was recognised. By the words "people of Northern Ireland" the Agreement meant "all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence." There had been no recognised right for a N.Irelander to become a citizen of Ir Rep before then - certainly not their 'foreign-born' children to do so.

      Of course we should mention both her Irish citizenship and her sense of being connected to "Irishness". But all the indications are that her Irish citizenship was acquired AFTER her UK and US citizenship, and not by 'birthright' AFAI can see. That's what the sources appear to record. Irish-British doesn't convey that at all, just as Italian-American doesn't ordinarily mean an American who acquires Italian citizenship at some point. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

      • • The point is, under Article 2, "the people of Northern Ireland" were as Irish as the people of Co. Wicklow. Once that went, new rules were needed. How does it matter if "her Irish citizenship was acquired AFTER her UK and US citizenship, and not by 'birthright' AFAI can see"? It doesn't in the least. I don't like "Irish-British", just because it is not a commonly-used term, in the British Isles at least. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

          How does it matter if "her Irish citizenship was acquired AFTER her UK and US citizenship It only matters as it's a fact! TS Eliot decided to become British - Hitchcock decided to become American. Each of these people (and many others) have their own reasons and processes by which they acquired citizenship - most of us just inherit ours. If we are going to bother to record people's citizenship(s), why not record when/how/why (if known) each was acquired. There is definitely no advantage in using a term ("Irish-British") that's almost certain to be misunderstood. Pincrete (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

          • She was born with British citizenship (in 1925, almost before the Irish Free State was issuing passports, let's remember). Later in life she took on US and Irish citizenship, probably in that order. For some reason you want to treat these last two in different ways. But I see we are moving to a close a little above, which is good. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

            I don't want to treat the US and Irish differently from each other, I do want to treat them clearly differently from the 'born-with' citizenship, but no more so than any other 'acquired' citizenship. It is a choice someone makes, even if we don't know why someone makes it, we know they did. I apologise if I am at all in error about the GFA provisions. Whenever the GFA is discussed in UK, the fact that it granted the automatic right to either/both citizenships to all N.Irelanders for the first time is always emphasised. Maybe it was either NI or UK that placed obstacles to dual citizenship before then, or simple geographic obstacles (an apt address) I don't know. Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

            btw I think this is slightly confused by the fact that when Lansbury speaks of being British/Irish, she is often talking about her own sense of herself, and her sense of her inherited identities and cultures - rather than what her passport(s) might say. Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

            If we want to make a distinction between original and acquired citizenship (4) "A British actress and singer with US and Irish citizenship" could work. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

            It could work for me, though IMO better if it said ""A British-born actress and singer who acquired US and Irish citizenship". I think the narrative sequence is worth recording (briefly). Pincrete (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

            • That's all below, in fact 2 lines down "Lansbury was born to an upper-middle-class family in Central London". This the first sentence we're talking about. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 as presented by Pillowcrow: "was an actress and singer who held citizenship in the UK, the US, and Ireland." It's clear and it adheres to MOS:NATIONALITY.

We don't want to make a distinction between original and acquired citizenship. That's not in-line with MOS:NATIONALITY.

We don't care, in this case, what Lansbury calls herself. We are relaying to the readers what her citizenship is, period. And her citizenship is British, Irish, and American.

According to MOS:NATIONALITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." And as others have said above, using a hyphenated version of "Irish-British" potentially conflates ethnicity and citizenship. We're not concerned with her ethnicity. We are concerned with her citizenship. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 (Brought here by RFC noticeboard) I do like the third option presented by Pillowcrow MaximusEditor (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support "An actress and singer of Irish and British descent with UK, US, and Irish citizenship" as recommended by User:Random person no 362478479 above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Nothing in first line, or "American"... - this is a case where I think MOS:NATIONALITY allows us to just leave it out at least for the first line rather than immediately get into complexities of citizenship that are not needed to "provide context for the activities that made the person notable". Otherwise, I would think "American" by MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:NATIONALITY "where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable" since the vast bulk of her fame and life was in the United States. "British-born" seems unnecessary since mention of her birth covers that, and Irish or "Irish-British" seems a reference to her parents so mentioning that would be her ethnicity and these run counter to the MOS:NATIONALITY part "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." And again the birthplace, heritage, and nationalities will be in the article as appropriate and just are not so important to get LEAD prominence. Further, WP:NATIONALITY policy does mention leaving it out when unclear and this triple citizenship is getting muddy enough to start thinking that better rather than leading with a tangle.

Dual citizenships seem not truly rare, and people do seek three or more passports -- though having nine passports is rare -- and where to draw the line on what to lead with or even give much mention seems a question of how important is it for that person's story. I take as some examples the handling of dual citizenships elsewhere in Emily Blunt, Tom Hanks, Freddy Mercury, Samuel L. Jackson, Natalie Portman, Boris Kodjoe, Jordana Brewster, Kim Cattrall, Sofia Vergara, Angelina Jolie, Kirsten Dunst, Charlize Theron, Mila Kunis, Ludacris, Nicki Minaj, Sandra Bullock, Wayne Gretzky that even a dual one is not prominent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2023 (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.

Angela Lansbury lead section structure

Hey. My only main article edit was to add that template. I first noticed it on Vanessa Redgrave's page and found it appealing, so I made it for several other notable actors, Lansbury being one of them. It definitely serves greater purpose on the sub-pages, such as awards or noms, to quickly navigate to pictures/quotes if desired. And/or it's just an appealing aesthetic that connects all of the articles together under one collection, including the characters in some cases like Jessica Fletcher. (Although I forgot to edit that into that article.)

I understand it being a sudden change. On a bio page, it's the least useful, since filmography and awards have sections with links to expanded separate articles, plus the sidebar for Commons/Wikiquote. It is a bold edit. But I believe that other users might agree that it ultimately adds both a nice aesthetic, the quick-nav factor, and is just a nice feature to have for her that is worth keeping on this page. Another plus would be the lack of the bottom box in her name. (Sorry, I forgot the term for that box.) Please, input? @The One I Left @Midnightblueowl @MissMaryMack14 Tagging recently active users minus IPs, but ALL are welcome to chime in on this. Thanks. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't mind the template. I have significant problems with the Angela Lansbury page the way it is now. I do have problems with the way the page looks now, mainly the lead is bulky, hard to read, with erroneous credits, and wordy language that seems unnecessary. The body of the article is very clumsy and hard to read at a glance. I tried to fix these problems basing them on pages like Judi Dench and Maggie Smith but was reverted but there are many issues I have with this article so I'll bring up each individually:

• We should note that she was nominated for three Academy Awards and the films for which she was nominated.
• The theatre portion of the lead is far too short and adds random credits that shouldn't be there such as The King and I. Would make much more since if it mentioned the amount of Tony Award wins (since she won 5) and then the credits for which she was Tony nominated for.
• The Murder, She Wrote mention in lead is far too wordy with such extraneous trivia that should be in the body of article rather than lead.
• I have never seen the body of the section like the one in Lansbury's right now, where it has a Early life and Career beginnings" then "mid career" then "Global Fame". This looks too silly and I would suggest splitting it from "Early life" to them "Career" which would have subheadings of specific dates.
• The photos at the end of the article are...shall we say less than appealing. Again I tried to correct this but everything was reverted.

Adding below, what I had changed the lead to which is similar to other pages of actors of such stature such as Maggie Smith and Judi Dench:

• "Dame Angela Brigid Lansbury DBE (October 16, 1925 – October 11, 2022) was an Irish-British and American actress and singer. In a career spanning eight decades, she played various roles across film, stage, and television. Among her numerous accolades were five Tony Awards, six Golden Globe Awards, a Laurence Olivier Award, and the Academy Honorary Award, as well as nominations for three Academy Awards, eighteen Primetime Emmy Awards, and a Grammy Award. She received numerous honors including the Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award in 1996, a Kennedy Center Honor in 2000, and was made a Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE) in 2014.

• Lansbury was born to an upper-middle-class family in Central London, the daughter of Irish actress Moyna Macgill and English politician Edgar Lansbury. To escape the Blitz, she moved to the United States in 1940, studying acting in New York City. Proceeding to Hollywood in 1942 she signed to MGM and earned three Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress nominations for her roles in Gaslight (1944), The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945), and The Manchurian Candidate (1962). She also acted in National Velvet (1944), The Harvey Girls (1946), and The Court Jester (1955).

• Moving into theatre Lansbury starred in her first Broadway musical Anyone Can Whistle (1964). She established herself as a star on Broadway earning Tony Awards for Best Actress in a Musical for her roles in Mame (1966), Dear World (1969), Gypsy (1975), Sweeney Todd (1979), and for Best Featured Actress in a Play for Blithe Spirit (2009). Her other Tony-nominated roles were in Deuce (2007), and A Little Night Music (2010).

• She achieved worldwide fame as the sleuth Jessica Fletcher in the American whodunit series Murder, She Wrote, which ran from 1984 to 1996, becoming one of the longest-running and most popular detective drama series in television history. For the role she earned 12 consecutive Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series nominations. She also became known for her roles in children's film such as Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971), Beauty and the Beast (1991), Anastasia (1997), Nanny McPhee (2005) and Mary Poppins Returns (2018)."

Looking forward to the feedback The One I Left (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of the sidebar, I cannot see what advantage it really brings to the article. However, as long as it remains closed, rather than spilling down the right hand side of the page, it would not cause too much trouble. The biggest problem with sidebars is usually that they take up a lot of space and force images and text to the left, hindering the overall aesthetic.

As for restructuring the Lansbury article to more closely resemble the Judi Dench and Maggie Smith articles, that would be a mistake. In its current form, the Lansbury article is better than those two articles in almost every respect; that is why it is a Featured Article and neither of those are even Good Articles (nor are they anywhere close to being listed as such). The Dench and Smith articles now have leads that are top-heavy, with the listing of awards in the opening paragraph looking clunky and poorly structured. It is much better to include the awards in a closing paragraph of the lead, where we can provide an overview of the reception and legacy of the actor in question.

Please bear in mind that the Angela Lansbury article is a Featured Article. That means it has been extensively scrutinised by many editors, who have decided that it represents some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. It should not be altered without reaching consensus at the Talk Page first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the Lansbury article, I have no clue how it became a featured article. It is lengthy, clunky, doesn't mention her Tony Award winning performances, and has extraneous content that should be in the body of the article. Lansbury's article is beyond poorly constructed. When did it become a featured article? Because it looks like in a state of disrepair and needs to be updated. I'm trying to gain consensus right now and listed the extensive issues with the article.The One I Left (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, I completely agree, such as on awards pages where irrelevant awards are compounded atop the major awards, when you expand that sidebar. Then it shrinks the table, and throws the page out of whack. It's a minor kerfuffle, easily solvable, but I can see it being a bother. Especially if someone mobile has no interest in the app. That'd be even worse. (The app avoids such issues.) But good, I'm glad you both are comfortable with keeping it, thank you. Thankfully, this sidebar does not expand. It's more like a plaque.

These all seem like reasonable requests. I'm sure it'll be easier working this out together. In the opening, good emphasis surrounds The Manchurian Candidate, thankfully. (Oops, rebuking prior comment, as it was already in intro, thankfully!) Gonna reply to TOIL now. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a personal argument on this, The One I Left, but I really don't see where you are coming from here. As someone who has been at Wikipedia for nearly two decades (and notched up over 35 Featured Articles in that time), I am confident in saying that the lead of this article is of perfect length, is not clunky, and contains no extraneous information. Conversely, I think your proposed changes are really not an improvement, especially as they over-burden the opening paragraph with non-essential information and display an unnecessary fixation with awards. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but please respect that this is a Featured Article (a status it received only in February 2023) and do not WP:Edit War again to try and force your changes into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

None of this is personal, it's just in my view the lead is a mess. Like this sentence, "Through Corymore Productions, a company that she co-owned with her husband Peter Shaw, Lansbury assumed ownership of the series and was its executive producer during its final four seasons." This is an example of "over-burdening the opening paragraph with non-essential information" and is not necessary for the lead. Also I would mention her Tony Award winning roles in She established herself as a star on Broadway earning Tony Awards for Best Actress in a Musical for her roles in Mame (1966), Dear World (1969), Gypsy (1975), Sweeney Todd (1979), and Blithe Spirit (2009) as well as other Tony-nominated roles were in Deuce (2007), and A Little Night Music (2010). Not sure why The King and I is name checked here since she wasn't even nominated for that performance.The One I Left (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

~Mind twins~. See below. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad you're cool with it. As for some of your points, I agree about The King and I. Why not just replace it with Dear World and sum it up with her batting 4/4 at the Tonys back then? (To counter-argue with myself, does that then create two potential issues: 1) We must cite her 5th win for Blithe Spirit; or 2) we must mention the other three nominated works. Hmm...? Tricky situation.)

Next, I am glad that they do mention the most important films really: All 3 Oscar-nominated films. I think AT LEAST mentioning that in the intro couldn't hurt, especially since it was so rare to acquire a one-two punch with her first 2 of 3 films. Or just mention it with Manchurian. Again, slippery slope though....

Finally, Murder, She Wrote. Again, awards. This one is an easier one to address. Now, we could casually mention at the end of that one sentence that for the show running 12 seasons, she acquired 12 consecutive Emmy nominations. That alone was a record, which doesn't have to be mentioned up here. But, here I go again playing Devil's Advocate lol. Is some editor gonna come along and say "well, we mentioned the Emmys, but how about her having the most losses?" or "the other awards", like above or 6 Golden Globes.

But fwiw, I tended to agree with The One I Left, because I had gotten so used to that format since it was direct. It's just missing a bit of an element of warmth for Lansbury above, so let's say IF anything...

...My vote would be to combine the two concepts: The current one now, but implement the slight structure in small doses in order to address some of those key points.

That was about my only confusion. I thought articles were supposed to keep it much shorter and simpler than even Angela's is now, BUT I also see your point that it's almost too clinical and robotic to be all about the output and the reward factor. Hence why I say, why not combine? Talk about the Blitz, her husband, the production company, her being a gay icon (super important, hi there ^_^)~~in addition to the films, plays, and awards--just the major, significant ones. The works that stood out/got critical notice, (sometimes awards, not always); the awards being Damehood, Oscars, BAFTAs, Globes, Tonys, Emmys...SAG maybe, doesn't have to be, but that's the bar unless I'm forgetting something.

K, my novella is complete. I shall now shut up. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I must agree with your opening statement. I, too, have no issue with the sidebar. In my opinion, it makes the page more personal, more like an interview. I also agree that I have a problem with the way the article is now - "bulky" is the correct description.

The bulkiness is why I edited the section which just hours ago was entitled "Early Life." Now, someone decided to jam early career into that section. I have no issue with adding entertainment jobs she took as a teenager to Early Life. However, once Ms. Lansbury starts making movies,I believe that should begin a separate section.

Why? As a reader, I want to find the information I'm looking for as fast as possible. I don't want to Wade through dozens upon dozens of lines to get to facts that most reasonably belong in a chapter of their own.

The same sentiment goes for the articles desperate need for the prose to be broken down into easily digestible and easily followed paragraphs. This was what I did only a few hours ago. Without making significant changes to the sentences.

Now, I don't know what an "FA Rated Article" means, but that phrase was used as the reason for reverting all of my edits within hours of my making them. No mention was made that the reverter disagrees with my grammar or punctuation.

Please remember that no one person owns a page. However, that is the feeling I get when edits are jumped on quickly and reverted without there being any graffiti. Such actions smack me as ego, rather than community.

So now, the Angela Lansbury article is a big mess. After spending my time making it more comprehensive and comprehensible, I am not in a rush to to it again unless there can be some consensus on the format.

I say we go back to Early Life separate from Career, Personal Life, Filmography, and Awards.

How would you vote? MissMaryMack14 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the "Through Corymore Productions[...]" sentence is non-essential. It reflects the important backstage role that Lansbury had in Murder, She Wrote, which is arguably the most important component of her career (it is what made her both a household name and a multi-millionaire). By including this sentence, we highlight that she was not just an actor, but a businesswoman and executive producer too.

In addition to cutting out important information, your proposed changes also throw out any chronological ordering, which I think is a real loss, for we end up mentioning things that Lansbury did in the 2000s before those that she did in the 1980s and 1990s. That just makes things confusing for the reader. I'm also not sure why you would put so much focus on awards as the main arbiter of what is significant, as you do in your proposed lead. I'm not saying that awards are without importance (hence why we mention her first Tony Award in the second paragraph and provide an overview of her awards in the fourth paragraph), but the article lead should not unduly fixate on them. We don't structure the lead of the (FA rated) Nelson Mandela article around the 250+ awards he received, for instance, so why would we do it for Lansbury - or any actor, for that matter? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay I'm glad we're getting a discussion going. My proposals are:

• In the lead where we mention her theatre work, we need to specify the fact that she won 5 Tony Awards, and the titles of the shows she won them for. Why do this? Because these show's are prominent works for which she is known for and that there isn't just a list of credits of shows she was in. She was not nominated for The King and I and it's not a well known work of hers so I don't understand why it's mentioned in the lead but the shows for which she won a Tony Award are missing.
• In the lead where it talks about her film career, we should mention the fact she received three Academy Award nominations and the list of titles she was nominated for.
• In the body of the article, we need to separate Early life from Career. I don't think we need the "Mid Career", "Global fame" sections but rather subheadings under "Career" with dates and brief descriptions that encompass those years.
• I completely agree with User:MissMaryMack14 that the article needs to be separated by "Early Life Career, Personal Life, Filmography, and Awards"
• I don't disagree that we should include the fact that she produced MSW however, the way "Through Corymore Productions[...]" is worded is too lengthy.
• User:Midnightblueowl, Actor Angela Lansbury's career and life is completely different from that of South African President Nelson Mandela. Her career spanned many decades yes, but the awards she won are timeframe's in which you can judge her career by. Her Academy Awards nominations, her Tony Awards wins, and her Emmy Awards losses. It makes it easier to say she was nominated for these awards for these projects than simply listing random projects she was in during that time.
• It makes sense to me, to divide the lead from, her film work, her theatre work, and then her television work because that's how she lived her life. When you add her moving to Ireland it confuses the reader and isn't necessarily important for a person to know. It reads like personal life trivia, rather than, what projects was she known for.
• This phrase "Although based for much of her life in the United States, her work attracted international attention" is so silly because it could be said for any Hollywood actor. It's totally unnecessary. The One I Left (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot to get through here, so I suggest we tackle one issue at a time, taking it to WP:Request for Comment should we be unable to agree amongst ourselves. In terms of the page structure, the earliest sentence that you seem to have concerns about is "Although based for much of her life in the United States, her work attracted international attention." It is important that we specify that Lansbury's career was based largely in the U.S., given her complicated national identity, so I think that there is value in retaining this sentence, but I'd be happy to consider any proposed alternative wording that you might have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure her national identity is that complicated. The lead will discuss how she was born in the UK and she moved to the US. It's pretty obvious that her work was admired internationally through the wording throughout the rest of the lead. I don't think we need to add that sentence starting with "Although based for...". Again, seems totally unnecessary. There are many international actors who live in the United States. The statement as is, could easily apply to any Hollywood actor. The One I Left (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the sentence's removal is beneficial here, and given that it is part of an FA-rated article I think the best course of action would be to launch an RfC and see what the general consensus of this issue will be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this one particular sentence is poppycock. Just word fluff piled together but stating nothing of significance or reverence. Like the air at the top of a potato chip bag, it's quite a hollow statement. But tossing that one sentence isn't going to accomplish much alone. Just wanted to voice my consensus regarding that sentence, lol.

How about the Cork, Ireland sentence in the lead, you two? More fluff, contextually not verbally. Do you think that is relevant to stay in place? Or sufficient in body paragraph. It is chronological, yet it seems relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of her lifetime, because it has little to no bearing on anything before or after. Her citizenship isn't mentioned in the lead with it. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)