Talk:Brian Cox (actor)

Latest comment: 7 months ago by FortunateSons in topic Use of Mondoweiss for BLP

Why is it that we hold yet-another-actor in higher regard

edit

Why is it that we hold yet-another-actor in higher regard than the Brian Cox that's a particle physicist working on the biggest science experiment ever? Actors may give us cultural insight every once in a while (and that's being very generous) but the LHC will very likely redefine our understanding of the Universe. Surely a default ref to the disambiguation page is more balanced and in line with the "WikiPedia way"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.188.45 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

if you have actually checked the page for both Brian Cox's neither include reference to the disambiguation.so if anything there are treated equally. please remember this before you start ranting next time Penut510 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is that really a photo of Brian Cox? It doesn't look at all like him... Andrew Levine (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This topic could be expunged, IMHO. The first two posts cancel each other out. (The basic idea is ludicrous that a public figure in one discipline merits a WP article more than another.) The third post is irrelevant, as that's definitely Brian's photo. Just trying to be efficient here. 😉 – AndyFielding (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Image problems

edit

The picture of Brian Cox and Paula Sage is not right for Wikipedia. The image should only be of Brian Cox. Someone who is invested in this article should Photoshop out Paula Sage or post a different image that is depicts him alone. Cheers,ask123 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I opt for a new image. I doubt photoshopped images delivered as "real" would be improper on Wikipedia. --WPaulB (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Personal Life

edit

Why is there no mention of his marriage to Nicole Ansari-Cox or their two children Orson and Torrin? Shouldn't that be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.201.100 (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Soap? Makes no sense.

edit

"instead ate the soap on camera" makes no sense. The context suggests it contained sugar, so how could it have been soap? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Scots dialect roles

edit

In the Shetland episode Raven Black he plays an old crofter and speaks Shetland dialect of Scots English. How authentic is such accent/speech for him? What other roles has he played speaking a Scots dialect?-71.174.183.177 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cox's TV interviews of actors?

edit

I seem to recall that Cox hosted a series of TV interviews with prominent (mostly Hollywood) actors, before a studio audience. That's not mentioned here, is it? – AndyFielding (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Brin Cox's birthplace

edit

I suggest you contact the actor about his birthplace. I listened to an interview with him Feb 7 with Tom Powers on q, cbc and he said he was born in Canada and later moved to Scotland. Gregarious47 (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Irish/Scottish heritage

edit

Cox's DNA test results, as revealed in Season 9 of the Finding Your Roots program, revealed that he has 88% Irish ancestry and 12% Scottish ancestry. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cox is an English and Welsh surname. (Aardi18 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC))Reply

Father

edit

On 15 October 2023, BBC Radio 3 broadcst an edition of Private Passions featuring Brian Cox. Cox said that his father was a postman [=mailman USA]. The web page says that he was a police officer.

{Incidentally to this, Cox's account of his teenage years commencing as an odd job assistant backstagae at Dundee Repertory Theatre, were hilarious. If only they couldl be archived} Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Use of Mondoweiss for BLP

edit

Per the close at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss, the use of Mondoweiss should be avoided in BLP areas. As I believe that the content is of limited significance (Fn. 167/168), I would be in favour of removal based on due anyway. Does someone object? FortunateSons (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply