Talk:Paterson Joseph

Black

Removed the description of him as 'black', it's completely unnecessary. --Oldy 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Career

The first section is very badly written, in fact the opening line isn't even a full sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.15.50 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Rumours

Until there is an official announcement from the BBC do not add details of Paterson's alleged role as the 11th Doctor. Only a verifiable press release from the BBC is enough to warrant inclusion on this article. magnius (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Says who? This is a news story ref'd in a significant number of news sources: whether he gets the job or not, it is notable. Please refrain from telling fellow editors what may or may not "warrant inclusion" in this unacceptably high-handed manner. 81.151.186.178 (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about some of the recent edits like [1], Comic Book Resources may be considered a reliable source but the Comics Project discussed the issue of Rich Johnston's Lying in the Gutters and the consensus is that this (and other internet comic gossip columns) can't be used as a source (after all he does use a traffic light system to flag how reliable he considers the stories to be). Rich specifically commented on this in a column and pretty much agreed with the decision (or at least conceded the point).

Granted this is outside the Comics Project remit but if you look at the specific case it is a 50% hunch and 50% unsourced/uncorroborated rumours - hardly a rock solid source that he is Dr Who. Johnson is right an awful lot of the time and I suspect he is pretty likely to be correct here (if I was a betting man I'd probably have a flutter on this, if any bookies are still taking bets), however, as was said above, we need a more secure source for this, which will presumably be a statement released by the BBC at some point (as Paterson Joseph is unlikely to let is slip ahead of that). (Emperor (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC))

Except that this piece of the article concerns the media speculation regarding Paterson Joseph as the Eleventh Doctor Who. If the piece said that he WAS the next Doctor and attributed this information to Rich Johnston, you might have a point. But it doesn't. It said that the first public mentions of his casting as the Doctor was by Rich Johnston in Lying In the Gutters. Which it was. (Wollikinz (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Wouldn't it make sense to put that he's rumored to be 11 or "In the running" for 11? I mean, you can certainly verify that there are rumors.

I would consider the article not mentioning that he is heavily tipped for the role to a terrible omission... I would also agree that stating that he has got the role to be presumptuous Malak1000 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason why we can't simply say "There are rumours that he will be the 11th incarnation of "the Doctor" in the BBC's long running serial Doctor Who, however these rumours are as yet unsubstantiated." and provide a citation to one or more internet sites that mention said rumour.

In fact, if no one objects by 14 December 2008 I will make the modification. 59.38.32.9 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is a verifiable fact that there has been widespread media speculation about this, and I have reverted the most recent edit that removed the reference. 78.86.19.233 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...maybe I'm missing something but you're statement doesn't make any sense. It is verifiable that there has been speculation, so you took it out of the article, why?59.38.32.9 (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, it was Magnius who took it upon himself to overrule the consensus of pretty much everyone else who has spoken up on the talk page. (Which is especially annoying because it took me a goodly amount of time to get the referencing right).59.38.32.9 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he really doesn't give up, does he? Magnius, perhaps rather than just reverting other people's edits every time you could discuss your objections on this page? 78.86.19.233 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll soon know, the identity of the next actor to play the Doctor is revealed on Saturday 3rd January during Doctor Who Confidential [2]. If it turns out that PJ is the next Doctor then of course he can be added, as it is no longer tabloid speculation. Wiki is not here for rumour mongering, it is here for facts and we will have the facts in a little over 24 hours. magnius (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - there have been perhaps a dozen people rumoured to be in the running for the part and it isn't usually TV or film policy to include mentions of parts they are rumoured to be up for until this is confirmed (can you imagine the mess articles would descend into if we did that?). Bear in mind: WP:DEADLINE, we can afford to wait, rather than throw in showbiz gossip. (Emperor (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Just to add a further note on this, as there's been another attempt to add the Who rumour: There is an issue of giving undue weight to this rumour by including it in the article now. If it's the case that tomorrow PJ is revealed as the new Doctor, then it would not be unreasonable to add a (sourced) note on previous press speculation, as a lot of the info to be added in the future will relate to this new role – Doctor Who will become a big part of his career. However, if someone else has got the job, then mentioning the rumour will only skew the article's focus towards coverage of a show which only reflects a relatively small part of his career. The Parting Glass (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can now put this behind us now it is clear he isn't Doctor Who. I see someone has added that he was once in the running but we don't usually include such information as it could get pretty silly - dozens of people were mentioned in relation to the part and if we start listing all the part people were up for and all the people who were up for a part it would get silly and outweigh their actual acting roles. It is worth a mention in the start of Eleventh Doctor as part of the casting but being the bookies favourite just means the gossip was running hotter for him and we aren't here to pass on tidbits of show biz gossip. (Emperor (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

Repetition

There's a fair amount of repeated info in this article: appearances listed in both the body of the article and in the table below the main text. Anyone think it needs pruning? Twilight1701 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper...

I know we need 'free' photos for articls, but the "waiting at a railway station" shot is a bit...intrusive? Any chance this could be replaced? doktorb _words^deeds 14:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, plus it's a low resolution image, not good...--Javier00032 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think no photo would be better than that one 87.127.178.197 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for you... If you don't like it, why not try and find a better one, or clean this one up, rather than just complaining? I think the image is perfectly adequate. Gran² 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A fuzzy, grainy image of him with his eyes closed is not good enough, we can agree on that. However it is NOT up to Wikipedia editors to now stalk Mr Jospeh hoping for him to pose in a manner adequate to our needs. We tidy up prose when it is not good enough, so we should tidy up pictures when they do not fit the bill too. doktorb _words^deeds 11:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's your view, then fine, but "we can agree on that", no, I do disagree with you. As I said, I think the image is perfectly adequate. Gran² 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, we will not agree! I cannot see how a grainy shot of a man with his eyes closed is deemed adequate. But on this topic we could go on for weeks, it would seem...doktorb _words^deeds 12:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

For some reason (excluding nonsense reasons like Joseph didn't give permission for it to be taken and that it is poor quality) the i/box image keeps getting removed from the page. If anyone has to the time to jump through all the OTRS permission hoops, they might want to contact his agency (Hamilton Hodell) and ask if they'd like to donate a freely-licensed image. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of reinstating the image. Yes, it's not the best quality, but it is freely licensed. In my opinion, the image shouldn't be removed unless we have a better freely licensed image to replace it with. The image adds value because it shows the subject of the article, so in my opinion, it should stay. Readro (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've always thought a free image was a lot better than no image; "poor quality" doesn't really sit with me as a reason. Gran² 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No hang on. The actor is shown at a railway station, listening to music, with his eyes closed. Do we have proof that this photo was taken with his permission? Because unless we're gonna start allowing Wiki editors to peruse famous people with telephoto lenses, I'd hesitate before reinstating this image. doktorb _words^deeds 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo was taken in St Pancras railway station, which is a public place. Consent is not required if in a public place. Readro (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The prospective policy on whether permission is needed is over here: Image use policy#Privacy rights. It appears to back up what Readro says. The Parting Glass (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Readro; this is a famous person in a public place, permission is not required. It would be different if he had been unknowingly photographed through the window of his living room. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the image is a quality issue, it is blurred, grainy and he has his eyes closed. Wiki has a policy that images should be clear and focused unless there is a good reason. In this case, no picture is the best option until somebody can provide a decent image. magnius (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the stupidest image I've ever seen on a biography article. At the very least the subject's eyes should be visible. As it is it's just some bloke on a bench. --78.149.104.168 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's bollocks. But to some Wikeditors, the lowest common denominator is the easiest is the best. Shame. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, concurring with Magnius 'it is blurred, grainy and he has his eyes closed. Wiki has a policy that images should be clear and focused unless there is a good reason' and emailed his agency. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've put up a new, high quality photo of Joseph - and what's more, he even knows it's going up here, and is very happy about it! Tduk (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Years active

Paterson Joseph became active at least three years earlier than the date given in the article. His CV shows him at the Young Vic, National Theatre and other theatres as early as 1989 [3].

He joined the RSC in 1990 when he appeared in a number of productions, not least Sam Mendes' production of Troilus and Cressida where he played Patroclus opposite Ralph Fiennes, Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. This production transferred from The Swan, Stratford to The Pit in 1991 [4]

Megra (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if someone's taken the year 1992 from his earliest listing on IMDB. His TV work certainly dates back to at least 1990. And it seems his theatre work goes back to 1988,[5][6] working with a company called "Cheek By Jowl". Any advances on 1988, or can we stick that in the infobox? The Parting Glass (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one's objected in the last 22 hours, so I'm assuming it's ok to proceed. The Parting Glass (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)