Talk:Patrick Stewart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

OBE = knighthood?

The Order of the British Empire page says that OBEs and MBEs entail knighthood, so is Patrick Stewart really Sir Patrick Stewart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by W00t-on-a-shtick (talk • contribs)

Yes.--WhereAmI 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Different species of knighthood.

Well... It really is the same type of knighthood/peerage, but as a OBE(officer) he is not entitled with the "sir" prefix yet, for that he will need to be a KBE.

This is not correct. MBEs, OBEs and CBEs do not "entail knighthood" and are not "different species of knighthood"; they are junior ranks within the Order of the British Empire. It is true that the senior ranks of the order (DBE, KBE and GBE) do confer knighthoods on their recipients, ie they allow the recipients to be known as 'Sir' or 'Dame', as well as putting the appropriate letters after their name. However, most knighthoods that are awarded are knighthoods bachelor, which are not part of an order and do not confer post-nominal initials, so it is wrong to put "KBE" after the name of a knight bachelor. Almost all actors are knights bachelor - there are exceptions such as Sir Roger Moore. (The position is different with dames, who are usually DBEs - there is no "dame bachelor" designation.)

The only reason for Stewart - who I think probably will be knighted in the near future - to receive a KBE as opposed to a knighthood bachelor would be if he had taken American citizenship and lost his status as a subject of HM The Queen. He would then have to receive an honorary knighthood, ie not be entitled to the title "Sir" at all, so he would receive a KBE to allow him to put these letters after his name, as a sign that he was a knight. Dcrossle 11:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New Star Trek Movie

Hey, according to some news from http://www.cinematical.com/2005/12/03/patrick-stewart-talks-up-new-trek-film/, Patrick Stewart is willing to renew his role in a possible future Star Trek film. He also stated he would only do it though, after he fulfilled his commitments to the Shakespeare group he is involved with (that comes from another link...I just searched "Patrick Stewart" on google news) So I did add to a former line stating he did not think there would be a reprisal of his role. I basically summarized the news. BOB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.179.106 (talk • contribs)

The voiceover (the voice of the Tamrielic emperor Uriel Septim VII) on the E3 TESIV: Oblivion trailer appears to have been done by Patrick Stewart, although I have had no luck in authenticating this. --Trithemius 16:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. That's Patrick. His name was mentioned in an interview with one of the ESIV team members - I think it was Gamespy, but can't be sure. TaintedMustard 07:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want rumor buzz, the director of the Transformers Movie that will soon be out is interested in making a new Star Trek movie. Depending on how well Transformers does in the theaters, it is possible to have a new Star Trek on the way. Let this be the official, new Star Trek Movie Thread, assuming it is true.--WhereAmI 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporter of the BNP?

Is Patrick Stewart really a supporter of the BNP? --81.129.106.127 22:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, but as the artilce says, he is a supporter of The Labour Party. Evil Eye 12:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The article says that "Stewart is a lifelong supporter of the British National Party" not the labour party. Is this a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.200.132 (talk • contribs)

I think the article says "Stewart is a lifelong supporter of the British Labour Party" and uses 'British' to distingiush from the other Labour parties aroun the world (Australian, Canadian etc). Evil Eye 07:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. Having known Patrick since we were both teenagers, students and roomates at the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, I can affirm categorically that the BNP and all it stands for are anethema to him. — kintak 14:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Added clean-up tag as there is no structure to the page and it needs a filmography etc. Marskell 09:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Gratuitous comment?

The end of the first para on this page referred to Patrick Stewart's baldness as a "trademark". Since he did not choose to shave his head as part of his public persona (unlike, for example, the late Telly Savalas or Yul Brynner), I have deleted this. It looked rather like a gratuitous comment that was not really appropriate in an encyclopaedia, as opposed to an article by a popular press journalist. At any rate, it did not add anything to the article. Any comments or objections? — kintak 15:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem gratuitous, but you're right in that his baldness is not a trademark. So I've put the comment back, but changed "trademarks" to "most recognised traits". -67.142.130.11 07:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Although in fairness, not everyone with male pattern baldness choses to shave the fringe of hair round the sides and back of their head like Stewart does. He has used this in many films, so it does seem to be as much a trademark as, say, Burt Reynolds's moustache. Dave 21/2/'07

I dont know if I would call it a trademark, but it is certainly his most prominent and distinguishing physical feature, and a fairly unusual one for leading men so perhaps it does deserve a mention (just not perhaps worded as a "trademark"). 79.66.46.186 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would call it trademark. In Vancouver there is a popular hiking trail called the Grouse Grind. In a newspaper interview, Patrick Stewart mentioned that he climbed the trail every chance he could; and he had to wear a hat to avoid recognition. Therefore, I would consider that trademark. - How do I know you're wearing a Nike shirt? The trademark. How do I know its Patrick Stewart? His bald head (and voice)206.116.184.155 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Job

Patrick Stewart is an accomplished actor with roles from Excalibur, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Dune, X-Men, and many other roles. Patrick Steward has done so well he has proven that actor's abilities come from within with the power to communicate and dress for the role. Good Job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.138.54 (talk • contribs)

This could bee because he is the greatest human being alive 65.126.173.217 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He also played Captain Nemo, in the movie Mysterious Island 2005

Reported death

Some joker has edited the Patrick Stewart entry with the claim that Patrick Stewart died yesterday. So far as I can see, this is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.21.67 (talk • contribs)

All of that was reverted last night. I see nothing in the article now. -- cmh^TC 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was there around midday today (GMT), but it's gone now. Had me searching the BBC and CNN websites when I read that one!

This article is/was the most likely source of the claim http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20061201/News/112010033 Gnangarra 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Primeval

I thought I read that Stewart was to be the lead in ITV's sci-fi drama Primeval. This hasn't happened - was it just a rumour or did I mis-understand? Dave 21/2/'07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.214.197 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Patrick Stewart sold llamas??

Hello. I'm new to this side of Wikipedia, though I've used the informational work for a couple of years and am becoming quite addicted to it.

I was reviewing Patrick Stewart's article/biography and found what I think is something odd. The word "llama" is used in at least half a dozen places. Is this someone's attempt to be funny, or perhaps to sabatoge the credibility of the article? I'm hesitant to do anything about it myself since I'm so unfamiliar with the editing proces, but I did want to bring it to the forum's attention.

Thanks.

76.25.8.4 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The llamas were added yesterday by someone from the IP address 194.72.81.81 (see diff) and went unnoticed for a while. The vandalism was fixed a bit before you posted here (see diff). If you're still seeing the llamas, I suggest clearing your browser's cache. Thanks for pointing it out, however. Also, feel free to edit Wikipedia! For help on getting started, see Wikipedia:Introduction. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does someone not understand the term "Actor" ?

The entry:

Despite having a notable role in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Patrick Stewart has expressed discontent about real space travel and space tourism[13].

is just bizarre.

Star Trek is a STORY (read the word slowly and try to understand it, S - T - O - R - Y), where Patrick Stewart is playing a character. He has played many roles, some of which involve murder but I don't believe that he promotes murder or many other traits his characters display. 81.149.25.5 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I half agree. It would be odd to assume that Patrick Stewart has the views of his characters, but it doesn't make it uninteresting to learn how his views contrast those of his most notable character. For example, it is interesting that David Duchovany(misspelled) is sceptical about aliens, but that Gillian Anderson is not. Nonetheless, the comment above should have the "despite" dropped, and would be more relevant on a page for Jean-Luc Picard. However, given that space exploration is a very notable and important subject, and that many associate Picard and Stewart; it see no problem with giving the above a slight rewording and putting it on this page aswell...some people would find it informative; and so it is not undeserving of mention.Phoenix1177 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with this entry is that 'has expressed discontent about space travel' is much too vague. Either include more details or remove.Calydon (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. When I read it, not only did the statement seem completely out of place (as the first person mentioned, just because you play someone, doesn't mean your views are shaped a certain way), but the statement is almost absurdly vague - is he discontent about humans even attempting space travel, or is he discontent that space exploration isn't progressing fast enough, or what? I'd like to see it either be deleted, or turned into a short paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.235.176 (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

Old Moonraker, thank you for making me aware of your reaction to my edit. On my talk page, you wrote, “I noted the US Army's request for the picture credit, but in your edit it appeared twice, once in the cation and once at the end of the article.” I took another look at my edit, but I don't see where I credited the Army in the caption, only the footnote. Would you please advise? Thanks! Taric25 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reading back, I see that my original comment was a bit confused. I was trying to draw attention to this footnote text (spacing as in original):

# ^ Cdt. Patrick Caughey (3 August 2004). http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large/PatrickStewart2004-08-03.jpg. Army Images. Retrieved on 3 August 2004. “http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large/PatrickStewart2004-08-03.jpg by Cdt. Patrick Caughey

August 3, 2004

Actor Patrick Stewart was among more than 20,000 soccer fans watching the All-Star game. Stewart sought an introduction to Staff Sgt. Alvy Powell after Powell, a well-known opera singer, performed the National Anthem.

Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as "Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army" and credit to individual photographer whenever possible.”

And this is the image caption:

''Patrick Stewart was among more than 20,000 soccer fans watching the All-Star game on 8 August 2004 and sought an introduction to Staff Sgt. Alvy Powell (not shown) after Powell, a well-known opera singer, performed the National Anthem.[1]

Now this is a brilliant pic of Stewart, and the source deserves a credit, but I believe that, taken together, there is too much detail that's not relevant to the article: why put a reference to Sgt. Alvy Powell (not shown), for example?

Normally the picture credit would stay on the image page alone but here a simple footnote might be justified, because of the specific request by the source.

May I just add that in future I shall certainly be following up your tip about using US Army pictures as a potential source? Best. --Old Moonraker 22:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I've revised my edit to be more consise, by deleting the part about Powell, per your advice. Please let me know what you think.

In addition, the government is indeed a wonderful source of free images. Take a look at commons:Star Trek: Enterprise, for example, for a pictures of Scott Bakula, Connor Trinneer, and even Stewart's co-star in The Next Generation LeVar Burton (Geordi LaForge). Taric25 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Baldness

Nice interview where he talks about becoming bald at 19. [1] Maybe someone can incorporate some of this history into the article? 69.143.26.71 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube is not a source for refences as direct links to specific videos not allowed ebcause the generally violate copyright. TINYMark (Talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly cite the original video, regardless if a copy was placed on YouTube or not. hateless 08:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can. Generally YouTube videos contain copyright information. In this case, the video seeems to have been uploaded by BBC Worldwide. TINYMARK 09:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stewart Trivia

I'm not sure where (or if) there's a proper place for this, whether it be Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Jean-Luc Picard, or Patrick Stewart. But it is an interesting note that Picard was stabbed by the Nausicaans (a reference to Hayao Miyazaki I believe) and Stewart went on to do voice acting for the US release of Nausicaa. Should this be noted in one of the three articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmalicoat (talk • contribs)

No, as Nausicaa was a character from Homer's Odyssey, the most likely origin of the term. Only much later did he come to do the voice-over for Nausicaa the movie, so it's just complete coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.141.113 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing Shakespeare role

Hello friends,

I'm not a good editor of tables so maybe one of you experts can add to the bottom table Stuart's role as the King in the 1980 BBC Shakespeare production of Hamlet (played by Derek Jacobi).

--Gunnermanz (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

american football vs soccer

On the main picture it says, "Patrick Stewart stands among some of the American football fans watching the All-Star game" but the picture describes it as, "among more than 20,000 soccer fans" I asume it is talking about soccer not american football so i will go ahead and change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Order (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Hey, don't know how reliable of sources these are, so I don't want to add them myself, but I figured I'd at least mention them here. Apparently a couple of different sources are reporting that Stewart is signed to play a role on Doctor who. Sources are here: [2] and [3]. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the news;

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/2009/04/16/xxxx-men-86908-21281769/

Ha! Annihilatron (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wolverine

Hi I added that he appears in X-Men Origins: Wolverine but it was removed. Why was this? He's definitely in it as I'm in the UK and the movie came out today and I watched it in the cinema this morning. 86.26.82.69 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It was removed because recently it has been added on the basis of a pirated copy, which is contrary to our policy of verifiability. Your own experience, sadly, does not count as a reliable source; however, there will be reviews of this film appearing in newspapers from tomorrow, I suspect, mentioning Stewart's appearance. They can be cited. I did check, and the film isn't even on IMDB yet, so we have little to go on- until tomorrow, and there's no urgency to add it. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okeedokee. Did seem a lil odd to me that I couldn't add it based on the fact I've actually seen the movie legally but I guess thems the rules and I understand. No problem. 86.26.82.69 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So the picture of him is CG and the voice is a voice actor? So he wasn't remotely involved in any way. He was obviously uncredited for good reason. I'm not sure he deserves a credit for this movie on wikipedia either. Basically they used his likeness. If a magazine with Brad Pitt on the cover appears in a movie, Brad Pitt doesn't get a credit, I think this is just an extension of that logic. Kansaikiwi (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Flavor of Knighthood

I noticed a lot of uninformed squabbling about what kind of knighthood Stewart will receive, and that an authority figure chimed in to say "wait for the official announcement." Stewart will be made a Knight Bachelor, as announced in The London Gazette of Wednesday 30 December 2009. Supplement No. 1. I actually got that reference from last night's version of the article, but someone blithely replaced in with a less informative one. Many celebrities (e.g. Paul McCartney) are Knights Bachelor and simultaneously hold honors in the OBE system. McCartney's full name, including honorifics, is Sir Paul McCartney, MBE. The "Sir" derives from his being a Knight Bachelor, while the MBE is a lesser honor that he retains despite his knighthood. All this info is available on Wikipedia, for those who care to search first and edit second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.41.123 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's correct to list the 'Sir' and the 'OBE' I figured the rank of Knight was a promotion from OBE, but I guess I'm wrong as the person above seems more informed about such things.WaxonWaxov (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm no expert and all this info is coming from Wikipedia, but the Order of the British Empire (OBE) is a system of honors, the top two of which are knighthoods and entitle the recipient to use the honorific "Sir." Hypothetically, I suppose if someone had a lesser rank in the OBE system and then achieved a higher rank within this system, then the higher rank would supersede the lower one. But there are a number of systems under which one can be knighted, so if you have honors in two different systems, then one doesn't necessarily supersede the other. Search for "Knight Bachelor" and "Order of the British Empire." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.41.123 (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what I forgot to say explicitly is that the rank of Knight Bachelor is not part of the OBE system of honors, and that not all knights are KBEs, and that KBE does not stand for Knight Bachelor, but rather Knight Commander of the British Empire, which is the second highest rank in the OBE system. Read, my friends. Read.

Strange gaps, missing words?

There are strange gaps and many missing words in this article. It looks like maybe vandalism, but the page is closed to editing, so I can't fix it. Maybe someone else can? For example, the first line reads "Patrick Hewes Stewart, (born 13 July 1940) is an English , and actor." Surely there ought to be something in front of that comma? 97.81.134.0 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Rainne 05 May

There are blue wikilinks to "film, stage and television" before that comma. You could try refreshing the page (F5 key in Firefox) and see if that works, otherwise, you might have a problem with your browser, and I don't know what that could be. You might try asking here. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Performances with the RSC

A new section has been opened, "The Royal Shakespeare Company", listing just two appearances. As it stands, before further development, it's misleading, as Stewart took on over seventy roles with the company. Should we consider therefore whether a list is the best way to deal with this important aspect of the career? Perhaps a summary of the highlights would be better. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Now up to three. Still not representative. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and turned it into prose, tacking on {{cn}} tags as needed. I also removed the link from the section heading per the MOS. --Xover (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll reference this from the Birthplace Trust database or from Simon Trowbridge's Dictionary. It just leaves the problem of selecting the notable. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

References supplied—my "over seventy roles" became "over sixty" by the time I had excluded duplications from tours, transfers and revivals, which are listed separately in the source. (I counted twice and it actually comes to 62, but E&OE still applies.) I made the paragraph more general as some specific productions are already included in "Career", above. In fact there are several overlaps that still need to be fixed, probably by grouping all the RSC material together. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this section needs to be expanded somewhat. It looks rather lopsided to have 30 years worth of theatrical performances in a couple of lines, and full details for everything post-95. It rather gives the impression that eveything in the 60s etc. was of the spear-carrying variety. I'd do it myself piecemeal but fear it would just get reverted. Declan Clam (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Aladdin trivia

Just wondering, that bit of him declining the role of Jafar, where should it be placed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Carpool Interview

Robert Llewellyn recently posted an excellent interview with Stewart. Llewellyn has a self-produced podcast called Carpool. It can be found at http://www.llewtube.com

This might be interesting enough to place in the actual article, but probably not. It's not intended to be an exhaustive list of every public appearance, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.185.94 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

British or English

In the opening line, since i see its been reverted a few times. it says "Sir Patrick Hewes Stewart, OBE (born 13 July 1940) is an English film, television and stage actor"

To my understanding this is how these terms work; discuss if I am wrong. British = Nationality English = Ethnicity

The standard intro is to state the nationality, which would make British the correct term. Even though more specifically he may be English also. sort of like an American may be a Virginian but we'd list him as american. This is my thought; Please discuss before making changes. Smitty1337 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just looked around at some people's articles and noticed there seems to be no pattern, some are english others british.... no idea how to procede, should we perhaps see what stewart self-identifies as with a cited source? Smitty1337 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sadly, all attempts to reach a general consensus on this have failed, but this essay fairly sets out the situation. In a technical legal sense, all citizens of England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland have British nationality; however, if a person (such as Sean Connery) strongly identifies with a constituent nation, we describe them as having that nationality. "English" is not an ethnicity; "caucasian" is, but per WP:MOSBIO we wouldn't normally make a point of it. I'd love to see this sorted out on at least one article here, but don't think it's going to be. In the current case, I prefer "British" over "English", since "Stewart" is almost certainly of Scottish origin. Rodhullandemu 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be massive inconsistencies here. It's a dark area, and proper consensus must always be sort (For instance the article on Queen). Welsh /English/Scottish/NIrish are not legal identities…But then we hit the brick wall of “But they identifie as Such and such”. That’s fair enough, but when someone is automatically assumed to be “Welsh and not British” or any other combination, but without using any sources over than there POV, that’s were its wrong. --大輔 泉 (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

this part ""English" is not an ethnicity; "caucasian" is" well actually English is an ethnicity caucasion is a race. But i see your point, if wiki doesnt have a standard of either all must be nationality or all ethnicity or all race, then i guess its a toss up? Smitty1337 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently, it is a total toss-up! Perhaps hard fact should be presented in these articles, such as “Patrick Stewart was Born in England, is of X & X ethnicity, is X nationality relating to citizenship. As we all know, there is no such thing as English citizenship so that cannot be disputed. Perhaps such matters should be left out of an article altogether, if no reliable sources can be found, instead of just assuming that this person is such and such based on the general trend!

And putting that all aside, nationality and ethnicity is such a minor issue in these types of BLP’s. Were not talking about politician, a national activist or even racial supremacists! He’s an actor, and that’s why he is most notable. Often, raging debates about peoples nationalities just distract editors from using there editing time more productively. (Hope you can read this, I am a little tired...)--大輔 泉 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Knighthood

Reference to expected knighthood is now out of date in personal life section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiofourfan (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever added the letters KBE to his name made a mistake. According to the 2010 New Year's Honours List, Sir Patrick is an OBE, and was knighted as a Knight Bachelor, not a KBE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.2.2 (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He's a knight bachelor and an OBE (officer, not a KBE). I have thus changed KBE to OBE. -- fdewaele, 31 December 2009, 12:09 CET

He was appointed OBE 2001. Knight bachelor <> KBE. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not a forum, but I am so chuffed he is a Sir! SGGH ^ping! 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The "personal life" section says he got his OBE in 2010. Yet, in this discussion, Kittybrewster says the OBE was in 2001. Which one is correct? Older versions of this article say 2001, so I am guessing it should be 2001, not 2010 in the "personal life" section. However, I don't know... 68.200.98.166 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit to the reference to the knighting: It says the article was written 31 December, 2009 but was retrieved 31 December, 2008. Can't retrieve an article a year before it was written. Battousai2k (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to ask, is there any way to change the actual title of the page to "Sir Patrick Stewart"? Just curious. Weightchamp (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, proper protocol is to leave off the 'sir' in the main article name (note that Sir Winston Churchill redirects to just Winston Churchill) and instead just have a 'sir' title redirect here. DP76764 (Talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is now mute, I just read at article dated 2 June 2010 stating he was knighted by the Queen on Wednesday to full Knighthood. Someone better than myself should update entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.6.0 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links

Just wanted to report that reference link #23 is broken (the Emmys link). Dd4005 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note I have tagged it for you in the article. You can do this by placing {{dl}} next to the place where the reference is, inside the <ref></ref> tags. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

1. Requires additional inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates in place of tags
2. Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
3. Copy-edit for WP:MOS

Keith D 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivial incident

I propose that this edit be reverted as a valueless report of a trivial and non-notable incident. Policy here.

Just checked Wikipedia:Citing IMDb: It is specifically excluded as a source for biographies: the addition therefore contravenes WP:BLP.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I added 3 more links, 2 have the actual footage. The reason I put this up here is because it happened, and it's ridiculous to me that the Corden would say such things. It could be prescripted, who knows, but it's still a quarrel nonetheless, albeit unnecessary. Why you are threatening to ban my account is strange to me. You are going to have me banned because I have 4 sources saying this happened, 2 videos to prove it, and your gonna disregard the thousands of improvements I have made here. ( Phaeton23 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) )

How is this in any way important? "It happened" isn't sufficient reason for inclusion. Adding it because it's "ridiculous to me" isn't a reason either: it's an opinion and not allowed.

I don't have any authority (or, as yet, any cause) to ban your account (where did I threaten this, BTW?), but you should note that the three revert rule only applies in one direction in the case of biographies of living people: four strikes and you're out—I'm just waiting for views from a few more editors about my interpretation of the policy. Have you read this yet? It will explain what I'm getting at much better than I can—just click on the link. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • This article may violate Wikipedia policy as it may contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person. Such content must be removed immediately.

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people are strictly forbidden on all Wikipedia pages. In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research. Editors who continue to introduce unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people will be 'blocked from editing per Wikipedia policy'. I understand the recentness of it, and calling something before the smoke settles. That being said, there is footage of this taking place. The Eminem/Bruno incident was covered before it was revealed to be preplanned. I read in the wp:recentism article that "news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate)." 'But nonetheless' "Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."

• • • • This is not a matter of sourcing anymore. Yes, the original source of IMDb was a problem, but that was fixed and has not been an issue for some time. The problem is that this event is meaningless in the context of Stewart's entire life. Wikipedia does not report every appearance, every interview, every comment from an actor, only those that exerted an influence on the person's life or career. This incident did no such thing and is irrelevant here. Indrian (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • "Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research." Phaeton23 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          • That statement is meaningless in this context. Encyclopedia articles are summaries of events that have already been deemed important by scholars. If a Patrick Stewart biography were to consider this event important, then wikipedia would have to follow suit, but we do not have that situation here. Celebrity gossip is tabloid material, not research material, and wikipedia does not exist to collect facts indescriminately in the hope that someone might someday want to use them in research. Any good researcher would only use wikipedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, as a jumping-off point to get basic facts and would go to better sources to fill in details. Indrian (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Don't say its meaningless, because if it was it would not have been written. I apologize, but no Patrick Stewart biography has been published in the last 24 hours to report this incident. Also, gossip would be saying "Did you hear Patrick Stewart is dating Lindsay Lohan!?", not writing an article on something that was recorded and viewable. Deemed by scholars? So should I stop contributing to Arts articles because Shakespeare didnt write it or Molier didnt write an article on it or Brecht didnt write an essay on the article? Phaeton23 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was an unexpected dose of hostility towards good research standards. Events happen everyday, and in the 24 hour news cycle perpetuated by cable and the Internet, celebrities are in the news constantly because news outlets need to fill all that time with something. That is background noise. Reports of events are primary sources and only speak to something occuring, not to whether that event should outlive the current news cycle. A well-written article sifts through that background noise to highlight those events that actually mattered. This is accomplished by relying on the research of experts in a field, who have both the training and the knowledge necessary to make the judgment calls about what is relevant and reprint the information in a secondary source such as a book, journal article, or news analysis piece. A good wikipedia author then takes this information from reliable secondary sources and constructs an article highlighting and synthesizing that information, creating a tertiary source. Wikipedia uses more primary material than a traditional encyclopedia, particualrly for contemporary or less well researched topics, but this information is used to flesh out information on events already deemed important as a means of filling in gaps in information. To merely post anything one reads on Internet news sites or sees on the television without this filter is to be an indescriminate collector of information, and I would point you to WP:NOT, which clearly states this is not a goal of wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Background noise, IMHO, is Patrick Stewart likes chocolate milk occasionaly on sunday mornings, not a public spat with some comedian being a total asshat to a well respected actor. And what "good authors" do is exactly what I did--i can delete the quotes if you would rather just have a summary of events. I can go onto just about any page on an actor/comedian and find controversial things. I'm doing my part by donating my time to do help wikipedia, and while I see many things similar to what I wrote, it gets deleted. In the recentism arcticle, it states that it is valuable for future research. What could possibly be reseatched about this? who knows, its the future. Maybe Corden will, in future years, attack Ben Kingsley or Ian McKellen or anyone. Who knows. I am going by the rules that I was told to look at, and it meets those rules. Problem is, is it may meet the rules that you looked at as well. If you gonna delete it fine, seems others agree with you, but I dont agree with it and I bet you would not be happy if started to delete stuff that you added in that you felt was beneficial in some way. Phaeton23 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• The article is protected for one day due to this edit-warring. Sort it out here, please, not in the article itself. Rodhullandemu 17:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call. The text should be excluded per BLP. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While we're taking this enforced breather, may I sum up by saying that the consensus displayed so far is totally opposed to having this item included, in any form? Is that a fair summary? --Old Moonraker (talk)

Definitely seems like a trivial/non-notable incident (especially as written at the top of this thread). I would not include this in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is entirely trivial. I can't imagine this being relevant next month let alone next year/10 years. If we included every humorous interaction that celebrities had with other people Wikipedia would be little more then a gossip page. WP: RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS pretty much rule out this type of frivolous inclusion. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On 8 June 2010, Sir Patrick Stewart told James Corden off in public for his bad behaviour and persistent rudeness at an awards ceremony that Corden was hosting. The backlash against his humiliating and unpleasant personal attacks about Sir Patrick and the other award winners has been considerable.[47][48]

Humiliating and unpleasant personal attacks, eh? It might be a good idea to mention that SIR Patrick Stewart called the guy fat first or some such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.51.179 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, that's neither here nor there. The issue is whether the incident is worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. Thus far, I detect no consensus for its inclusion unless it later receives major coverage to establish its noteworthiness. Even so, wording about any "backlash" being "considerable" is hardly neutral and fails that test, if no other. There is also an issue of relevance to the subject to consider. Meanwhile, as the protecting admin I resile from offering any opinion about the merits of inclusion. Rodhullandemu 22:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The current section on this is poorly worded, and comes across as 'taking Patrick's side' on this issue. It is very trivial and should only have a small mention, as it has received a rather large amount of media coverage. Jack?! 22:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest it be 'criticized' rather than 'told off', and that it was simply a verbal tussle at an awards ceremony. Simple. The fact that we've had to lock the page for this is ridiculous. Jack?! 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that articles are frequently locked in the wrong version, especially when only two editors are reverting each other and only discussing through edit summaries. However, it's perhaps to the benefit of those editors that I applied protection otherwise one or both might have been blocked for edit-warring. As it is, they have remained free to express their opinions here. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I take a small amount of umbrage at this statement. As the edit histories clearly show, I was engaging in discussion on the talk page at the same time this reverting was going on, as was Phaeton23. No one had broken the 3RR rule and I was certainly not about to. Don't want to make too big a deal of this, but I resent the implication that I was both refusing to discuss the matter and in danger of violating policy either willfully or through ignorance. Once three reverts had been reached, I would not have continued this "toing and froing" you refer too. Indeed, protection may have been premature. Not asking for a lift on the protection or anything like that, but you seem to lack an understanding of the nature of the dispute, which is a bit off putting since you put yourself in the middle of it. Indrian (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is really unhelpful. I have nearly 5000 articles on my watchlist, so am sensitive to recent changes on any of them since I spend a lot of time here dealing with vandalism. This article popped up as being the subject of dispute, and since I watch it, I obviously also watch its Talk page. I saw edit-warring via edit-summaries and no really constructive discussion here. Reverting edits before consensus has been achieved isn't helpful, which is why I protected the page and advised the parties to to bring it here. That, I believe, is what Admins are supposed to do, since we do have a responsibility to our readers, and as editors, have a responsibility to provide them with encyclopedic content. Clearly, opinions differ as to the relevance of this information, hence my protection. If you're unhappy with that, you know what you can do. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the protection, I think it was premature, but not unhelpful. It was your statement implying one or both of us were on the verge of being blocked and that you "saved" us that annoys me. I do not doubt your honorable intentions and am merely preturbed by your patronizing tone in that statement. A small issue I see no need to develop into a larger, but I did feel compelled to set the record straight. Indrian (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I judge only upon what I see. I did not see discourse here; I saw edit-warring via edit summaries. If you aver that either would have ceased on receipt of a 3RR warning, I could not have assumed that, and the edit summaries were in themselves, non-conciliatory. That is the principal reason why this discussion had to move to this page, as opposed to presenting our readers with one version one minute, and a different version the next. Sometimes, I feel we concentrate too much on our own positions rather than considering the readers we are perhaps intended to serve; but then perhaps I'm too unselfish in that regard. Mea culpa. Rodhullandemu 01:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I certainly know how wikipedia can get under one's skin in that regard. Sorry to get us on this tangent. Indrian (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The citations used for this incident report different to what is said in the article. If it is to be kept, then it should be in line with the citations provided surely? Johnny-Carmello (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• I looked at this page because I heard about the incident on Five Live, and the audience clearly were on Cordens side - and what an idiot Stewart made himself - so as it stands the wording is absurd written by some Stewart fan, and as said above the citations don't support the wording. Overall though I don't think this incident is worth keping in the article. Sayerslle (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I too was expecting to see some information about the incident at the glamour awards. It seems a little bit odd to censor it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.160.196 (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The latest reinstatement of this dubious and WP:RECENT material acknowledges that it may be against consensus. By my reading the consensus is strongly the other way and it shouldn't have been replaced. I suppose it's acceptable to see if consensus has changed, but not by putting the stuff back into the article and seeing if anybody complains. There's a strong case for an immediate revert, but I'll wait for other views.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus confirmed (below): deleted again. Is this the last we hear of this?--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Final performance of Waiting for Godot

Removing "at the end of the final performance Stewart broke down in tears" as it's not in the reference: The citation given covers only from "rehearsals to opening night". Please bring it back if there's a reliable source that supports this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Trivial incident 2 - Glamour Awards outburst - Fully protected

I thought we settled this a week ago, but there is still edit-warring via edit summaries going on. I've removed the material (a) per WP:BLP, it is not reliably sourced and (b) The source is a copyright violation. You have a week to sort it out. Rodhullandemu 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor added the incident again, and I wikified it, and moved it to an appropriate section. Surely the incident is notable as it received large media coverage, and it seems as though many people are coming to this article looking for info on it. Does that not satisfy notability? Please alert me to any discussions on my talk page. Thanks. Jack?! 06:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, a lot of people looking for it doesn't make it into encyclopedic content. From WP:EVENT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Where's the enduring significance? Who, in a couple of months, is going to care about this in the context of Stewart's life and achievements? Some realistic and discriminating appraisal, please.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't really any enduring significance. I was interesting enough for the press, and for blogs and Twitterers at the time, but as far as Wikipedia goes I think its inclusion would be a negative example of Recentism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Honest to God, I am not trying to be uncivil... but what on earth is "Please alert me to any discussions on my talk page." supposed to mean? Put the talk page on your watchlist, and don't ask others to do your work for you. Just a friendly suggestion. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. And Keraunoscopia, I asked a genuine question on if it satisfied notability (It's been a while since I edited properly; I don't remember) and politely asked someone to notify me if discussions started up again. Some Wikipedians are polite and friendly, and would do so. Since my watchlist has by the looks of it, 600+ pages an hour, I might not spot it. In future, keep your 'friendly suggestions' to yourself, don't be rude. -- Jack?! 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Patrick Stewart didn't do a cameo for X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It was a computer generated Xavier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrleinad (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Chancellor of The University of Huddersfield

Why is there no reference to Stewart being the Chancellor of The University of Huddersfield? In this video where he describes the [European Spallation Source], he is identified with that title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewMacd (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two references; once in the lead and once in the "personal life" section. Since being a University Chancellor is largely a ceremonial role (as opposed to a vice-chancellor), I think that probably covers all the bases. Rodhullandemu 23:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"seven guest appearances on Family Guy"

There is no need to actually number the seven guest appearances. A simple statement that there were seven such appearances followed by the list would be sufficient. But it is not actually necessary to enumerate all seven trivialities; one triviality plus six more trivialities is still a triviality.154.5.32.113 (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently Patrick Stewart is appearing in

The Merchant of Venice as Shylock for the Royal Shakespeare Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.212.148 (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OBE / Knighthood

At the top of the page he is listed as "Sir Patrick Stewart, OBE" - surely this should read "Sir Patrick Stewart, KBE" - any infomation pertaining to the OBE should be listed elswhere as it is not current, it has been superceded by the KBE. --SomeVeryRandomStuff (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Explained at Knight Bachelor#Criteria; Stewart's case is used as an example there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

{{adminhelp}} {{Edit semi-protected}}

there is vandlism from 4chan that he is dead but there are no sources, please protect. 78.144.215.170 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

at the moment it all seems to have come from one ip which i've blocked, if it continues I'll protect it--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks 78.144.215.170 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably trolling because Sir Patrick Moore just died. 83.150.124.31 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart's name

Sir Patrick stewart does NOT have a second given name. (Hewes) He adopted it when he began to work in the US and had to join Actor's Equity and there was already a "Patrick Stewart" registered. He did not then or ever legaly change his name. I know this because I asked him about it and he explained it to me. His birth name was then as it is now. Patrick stewart. (Sir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shire55 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you for pointing this out and making the change. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mahrad Almotahari

It was entered into the article that Mahrad Almotahari pointed out that Patrick Stewart did the voice for the Moneysupermarket adverts, but this has been deleted. It was indeed pointed out by Dr Almotahari, so I'd like to know on what grounds this was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.72.158 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would take a guess and say it was removed because it lacked a reliable source. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Brothers

I'm looking for a reliable source for Stewart's siblings, their names and ages. I've looked in reference sources, newspapers and books and can find nothing comprehensive. Well sourced contributions to the article on this point is welcome. Thanks Span (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace location

I feel it is factually and geographically egregious to state Mirfield is near Dewsbury, when a larger, more important and more well known town, namely Huddersfield (where Sir Patrick is a member of faculty), is at a similar or equal distance to Mirfield and is the main rail link for the town.

Therefore i believe the statement:

Stewart was born on 13 July 1940[2] in Mirfield,[4] near Dewsbury in the West Riding of Yorkshire

should be replaced with:

Stewart was born on 13 July 1940[2] in Mirfield,[4] near Huddersfield in the West Riding of Yorkshire

Sigmisund (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Work with PTSD related to War Time

I was wondering if we could add his involvement in war related Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)? Here's a video on him speaking about it. La Fuzion (K lo K) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can add anything about Stewart if there are reliable sources to validate the addition. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 16:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sir"

I may be confused, but the article on the Order of the British Empire states that only Knights Commander and Knights should be addressed as "Sir." How is it that Stewart is given that honorific when he is an OBE? Mikeymo1741 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As well as being an officer of the Order of the British Empire, he is a Knight Bachelor (2010). You will see this in the section about his honours, and if you click on the link there you will find a clear article explaining what a Knight Bachelor is. Ballenstedter (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Error in the "Stage (1990-present)"-section

"He staged encore performances in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, again for the benefit of survivors and victims' families in the 11 September attacks, and a 23-day run in London's West End in December 2005."

He did not help the survivors of 9/11 2001 in the 90s, so I assume it was the 2005 performance that was a benefit? The sentence needs to be rewritten, but I do not know the facts.

Einyen (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Stepping down as Chancellor of Huddersfield University in July 2015

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/w-yorks/sir-patrick-steward-stepping-down-as-chancellor-of-huddersfield-university-1-7179576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.10.23 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

religion

I read somewhere that Stewart is Jewish. Anyone know more? Is he at all religious? 74.69.121.132 (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any more details about when and what specifically was that "somewhere"? See WP:V, WP:BLP. Dl2000 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable Names Database (NNDB). I've read it somewhere else... sorry for the vagueness... this is what talk pages are for, to work these things through. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only is NNDB not a reliable source for Wikipedia, but Stewart's NNDB page which you refer to makes no mention at all of him being Jewish. Providing unreliable sources is one thing, but fabricating fake references is downright unforgivable. Play fairly now!

As for your question, you may be pleased to know that I have a definitive answer for you. As it happens, Patrick Stewart himself has categorically stated that he is not Jewish (ironically enough, on a Jewish PSA video). In fact, his exact words were "I'm not even close to being Jewish". Imagine that... Oh, and Don Johnson, Susan Sarandon, Lindsay Lohan, Kiefer Sutherland and Denis Leary also proclaim their non-Jewishness in this video, so you can officially cross them off the list too now if you like. Honestly, there's no need to thank me ;)

All jokes aside, I'd like to think that this was an innocent mistake on your part, the victim of a fickle memory perhaps, but frankly I find that idea rather improbable. It seems that lately this sort of thing is becoming almost pervasive on Wikipedia BLP's, so I ask myself if there's not mischief afoot here? I suppose for some folks there must be a certain glory in claiming famous people as being one's national, ethnic or religious kin, whatever it may be. A little vapid and infantile perhaps, but understandable. When it comes to inventing rumours on the internet to make one's case, however, a line must be drawn. Now of course I don't know you personally, so you might well have had completely different motivations, but the sentiment remains the same.

I don't mean to pontificate, but If you're going to make dubious claims on Wikipedia (even on talk pages), you'd better bring some solid references with you, or else maybe you should keep your theories to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.197.174 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a politely phrased question and one that generally comes up with most biographies at some point. Stewart's position on religion has been a constant subject of editing on the article - mostly concerning whether he is an agnostic or an atheist. There's no guideline that says unreliable or POV sources can't be discussed on a talk page and POV can't be stated. RS and NPOV is for article main space. You would be well advised to assume the good faith of other editors. Span (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you would have such a high handed, egotistical approach to another editor. They simply asked a question. Simply offer evidence that he is not Jewish, Christian, a Martian or whatever, and go on your way. Publicly brutalizing another contributor is just sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Patrick Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310130037/http://www.whatsonstage.com:80/index.php?pg=207&story=E8821236545161&title=Speeches%3A+And+the+Laurence+Olivier+Winners+Said to http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8821236545161&title=Speeches%3A+And+the+Laurence+Olivier+Winners+Said
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110326234026/http://www.mediapost.com:80/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=147403 to http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=147403
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130307091309/http://amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10633 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071006190715/http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10633 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060923133856/http://www.hud.ac.uk/uni/patrick_stewart/pstranscript.html to http://www.hud.ac.uk/uni/patrick_stewart/pstranscript.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090428101217/http://www2.hud.ac.uk:80/news/2009news/04_patrick_stewart_agrees_to_second_term_university_chancellor.php to http://www2.hud.ac.uk/news/2009news/04_patrick_stewart_agrees_to_second_term_university_chancellor.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked. Shame on amnesty.org.uk and hud.ac.uk for breaking links and, apparently, entirely nuking the content from their sites. :-( --Xover (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous Header...

Quote: His bald head and classically-trained vocal mannerisms are considered to be his most memorable physical traits as an actor.

His vocal mannerisms are a memorable physical trait? This is so painful. If I knew how to edit a header, it's be gone by now... Won't someone more knowledgeable step up?

My New Face

A moving, if not brilliantly produced, programme entitled, "My New Face", was aired on Channel 4 discussing plastic (reconstructive) surgery on children with facial disfigurements. Although a bit sad (and humbling), the overall tone and outlook was quite optimistic. The narrator was one Patrick Stewart. Perhaps this very respectable and commendable act should be noted in his entry?

Internet Fenomena

Has the man ever made any comment about his status as a internet cult figure? Anybody who knows?

Shoulder surgery

Patrick Stewart has been Tweeting about shoulder surgery he just had done, and how it has been limiting his mobility. I don't know if this should be added to the article, and in what form. Just in the past hour he tweeted, "Had shoulder surgery yesterday, and 5 pins in my right later, I'm giving it a go lefty style." Not sure if we can get a reliable reference, or if it will add to the article. But, I thought it was worth discussing here. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While it is an interesting bit, it's not particularly notable. Thank you for discussing it here but on the whole, shoulder surgery is not particularly significant in an encyclopedia, especially in someone in their 70s. Nevertheless, thank you for keeping it here. 98.10.179.163 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

UCSB

Patrick Stewart came through UCSB in 1977 with Royal Shakespeare and subsequently spent some time teaching English there. I was there at the time and I remember him. I have no particular details, but it's a missing piece of his bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.52.52 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC) I don't think he taught English at the UCSB. He had four years at a secondary modern school (equivalent to about the 10th grade in the US). A posting for a part-time lecturer in English at USCB requires a PhD in English and/or American literature and more than 1 year teaching experience at the university level. Yes he attended the Bristol Old Vic for 2 years but he did not complete a degree. Perhaps he was a visiting artist in residence or whatnot but he does not have the academic qualifications to teach English at the college level. His only academic degrees are honorary doctorates from University of East Anglia, University of Leeds and Vrije Universiteit Brussel 98.10.179.163 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)