Talk:Tony Scott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Death of brother?

The article Blade_Runner#Production claims Ridley (and Tony) Scott had a brother who died around 1980. Is this true? If so, it should be mentioned here. --Saforrest 05:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was their older brother (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/life/story/0,,628172,00.html) Jonathan F 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Good Wife

I added a mention of the show to his 2000s projects, but something about the sentence still doesn't feel right. Can anyone think of a better way of wording that detail? --MikeZ (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV non-examples

Okay, "..A sensual, downbeat, self-consciously "arty" endeavour.." is defiantely a subjective statement, along with "..With its remarkably beautiful photography and sumptuous production design..", both in reference to his movie, 'The Hunger'.

In reference to Scott himself, "..albeit one every bit as technically polished and visually accomplished as the rest of his work." Most certainly not neutral, and reeks of fanboy or a magazine interview that dotes on it's subject.

Apparently "..True Romance was a bold, exuberant, turbo-charged variation on well-worn Bonnie and Clyde themes." Did Earl Dittman write this?

Enemy of the State played "..like an amphetamine-charged version of Francis Coppola's The Conversation.."

Those are a few examples of the kind of needless praise and celebration that I despise finding in what's supposed to be a neutral resource. It might be an easy edit to fix, but I'm not seeing it, and see no reason not to put the NPOV template back up. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.253.177.76 (talk • contribs) .

Wow, you must really hate T-Scott. I agree with your estimation, it should be fixed. But it wasn't written by a fanboy, I can tell you that much. If you'll notice, the terms used aren't actually lauding his style... They're just describing it using somewhat subjective terms - Try putting any of those quotes on a movie poster. Frankly, I think that The Conversation could use some amphetamines, and True Romance *is* bold and exuberant, a turbo-charged Bonnie and Clyde. Of course, none of those terms belong here, and someone should mellow them. --DarrenBaker 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really hate him, just a lot of his movies. That initial comment about Man On Fire was by someone else, just to clarify. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.177.76 (talk • contribs)

I dont see the comment on "Man on Fire" but let me add this piece of info: "Man on Fire" with denzel washington was a re-make of "Man on Fire" from the 1980s. In the original version from 1980s, Creasy was played by Scott Glenn. Joe Pesce and Danny Aiello had small roles in it. The original took place in Italy. And if I remember correctly, the original was equally as brutal, but Creasy did not have to sacrifice himself in the end of the original version. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of got that, though I'd forgotten that first useless comment was not yours. I was just in a confrontive mood, I guess. I get pretty defensive when people go off about how populist filmmakers are the devil, and indie is the way of the future, etc.. etc... My apologies. --DarrenBaker 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Death

The time of his suicide listed in this article is incorrect, as of Aug. 19, 2012, 9:49 p.m. According to a story on the TMZ website (http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/19/tony-scott-dead-suicide/), the suicide occurred at 12:30 p.m. And according to a story in the LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/tony-scott-death.html), the suicide occurred "Sunday afternoon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.0.18 (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The current paragraph indicates as though a suicide note was found in his car. In fact, the note found in his car listed only contact information. The suicide note was later found at his office, as reported in this article by the LA Times — Comment added by Werner Moecke at 12:48, 20 August 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.162.45.49 (talk)

Also, please correct the timezone. It says he died at 12:30pm PST. We are currently on Daylight Saving Time. So that should say 12:30pm PDT. -- Jeremy

Persistent vandalism

This page should be locked temporarily, as some idiot is repeatedly damaging it.

If this is in reference to the edit from English to British, please read 'English to British'. I am not an idiot nor a vandal. Erzan (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was with reference to the repeated insertion of "He died of Nervous Exhaust", which presumably meant nervous exhaustion. In any case, it was vandalism.

Perhaps we could delete this section now, as the "idiot" seems to have given up.

There's still vandalism in the "Death" section. Jaknudsen (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it: much of the article is pretty second-rate. Some of it is reasonably well written, but for the most part it has a very unprofessional tone. (Am I expecting too much?) I shall wait until the editing spree is over before coming (if I get round to it) to correct the grammar and punctuation of whatever remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.2.17 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Films in lede

There are currently 12 films listed in the lede, which seems excessive to me. This should be pared down to his most prominent films: Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop II, Days of Thunder, True Romance, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State, Spy Game. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is your list of prominent films, which is an entirely personal choice. You omit, for example, The Hunger, which, apart form being his first film, or at least his first full-length feature film – and therefore significant by virtue of being his debut – is also considered something of a cult classic – but not, of course by everybody. (The lesbian scene alone makes it noteworthy.) A complete list seems wholly appropriate here, particularly given that it is not going to be expanding any time soon. But that's just my opinion .... You get the idea.

Photo

Resolved

We need a photo. As he has died, a fairuse photo can be used, since no new free photo can be created to illustrate how he looked while alive. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Suicide note

Now they're saying the suicide note was found in his office, not the car: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/tony-scott-death.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.2.238 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

This article says he was born on 21 June 1944, but this article in other language versions, and some other sources say he was born on 21 July. When was he actually born? Jim Michael (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The change from July to June was made by 77.213.86.40 at 14:28, 2 July 2009 with no edit summary provided. By now IMDb states June but that could use Wikipedia as source. Possible vandalism. 84.185.194.206 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is an unsourced nightmare. It has THREE references, and they don't fully support the material (one source is not even verifiable). I've removed the birthdate completely from the article. If someone can find a reliable source, fine (IMDb is NOT a reliable source).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's July, as per NNDB.--Misha Atreides (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. In the book Ridley Scott Interviews (Conversations With Filmmakers Series), the writers noted Tony's date of birth as July 21, 1943 - a full year earlier! --Misha Atreides (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times has it as June 21, 1944. They're pretty famous for factchecking, so I'd be willing to rely on them. [1] Khazar2 (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's 1944. The birth of "Anthony D L Scott", mother's maiden name "Williams" (same as Ridley's mother), was registered in Jul-Aug-Sep 1944. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2012

| birth_place = Stockton On Tees, County Durham, England 82.10.252.196 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the BBC obituary, he was born in North Shields, but "grew up in West Hartlepool and Stockton-On-Tees". --Canley (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing per Canley. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Cigars

In almost every clip I've seen of TS on the news today, he's been ostentatiously smoking massive cigars. Merely being a smoker isn't necessarily worth mentioning, but if he made a point of flaunting it, and there's a source, perhaps that is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Smoking a massive cigar is an inherently ostentatious act, I think. It's not that he flaunts it more than any other massive cigar smoker. So no, not encyclopedic. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Image

It took Tony Scott dying for you lazy asses to finally post a photo of the man. You changed Ridley's countless times but Tony remained faceless until today. DISGRACEFUL!!!!!!!!!! I hope the administrators of Wikipedia wake up & post photos on people like Tony Scott who had a storied & distinguished career. Tony Scott made an indelible mark on film & television & it finally took death for you to put a face to the name. Never let this happen again!--67.84.73.254 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The lack of an image in Wikipedia article is usually not a reflection of editor laziness, or opinion on the subject or their work, but an outcome of the Wikipedia:Image use policy, which generally prohibits the use of copyrighted images—particularly of living people, where there is a possibility of obtaining a freely-licensed image of that person. Under fair use provisions, a copyrighted photo is sometimes used for deceased subjects. --Canley (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If a reader ever wanted to know what Tony Scott looked like, Google Images was always a click or two away. Shame on you for overreacting. It'll probably happen again, for the reasons Canley says. If you'd like to photograph storied and distinguished people and upload the pictures, it would help make Wikipedia suck less. Not ranting like this on talk pages couldn't hurt, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, you ALWAYS had a photo of Ridley which was changed so may times over the years while Tony remained faceless. It took him dying for you people to post a photo & DO NOT give me this copyright crap! There are plenty of photographs thru the years that were public domain. Wikipedia's ignorance of this detail is part & parcel of the misguided idiotic notion that Tony Scott could never live up to Ridley.--67.84.73.254 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We are all Wikipedia. If you were aware of public domain pictures and of an apparently dire lack of them here, but did nothing, you can only blame yourself. At least most of us can claim ignorance of this alleged travesty. You watched it happen! If you're just trolling, there are better places for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure any photo of Tony Scott you could get from a BING or Google search constitutes public domain. A great photo that could have been used was of Scott attending the premiere for BLACK HAWK DOWN in a suit or from any publicity for any of his films. I lost count at how many photos I saw of Ridley over the years on this site. Jesus H. Christ, you could have taken care of both brothers by taking a photo of them together, cropping it and using each half for each brother.--67.84.73.254 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, most pictures of celebrities on the Internet are copyrighted. The paparazzi aren't in the business for the fun of it. Even if you or I took a photo solely to use here for free, it wouldn't be allowed until we explicitly released the copyright. But there's a picture now, so just be happy for that. And if there are any other living people you feel are being visually underrepresented, feel free to photograph them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Scott brothers

The info-box lists alternative names as "Anthony Scott" and "The Scott brothers". Is it usual to list a collaborative name as an alternative for one of it's members? For reference, Ridley Scott's article does not list The Scott brothers as an alternative name. MrZoolook (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Common sense says this is wrong. I've removed it. If a source is found explicitly saying this is an alias for Tony Scott (alone), it can be readded. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

English to British

I have been editing him from English to British, to reflect how various media sources are describing him. As well as to acknowledge his unique contribution to the British film industry. This can only be fully recognised if there is a link to 'British people'. In no way are my edits an attempt to diminish the fact that he is born in England!

Here are the media sources which all describe him as just, British or British born:

Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/974627/top-gun-movie-director-jumps-to-his-death

BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19314967

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/20/top-gun-director-tony-scott-dies-at-68/#ixzz243dRMOHh

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190834/Top-Gun-director-Tony-Scott-commits-suicide-jumping-LA-bridge.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

New York Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/top-gun-director-tony-scott-younger-brother-ridley-scott-plunges-death-southern-california-bridge-authorities-article-1.1139980

CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/20/showbiz/obit-tony-scott/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (Go to page 4 & show caption)

Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9486673/Top-Gun-director-Tony-Scott-dies-after-jumping-from-Los-Angeles-bridge.html

UPDATED LIST:

The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/aug/20/tony-scott (His obituary)

The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tony-scott-death-top-gun-director-dies-after-jumping-from-los-angeles-bridge-8062368.html

The Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tony-scott-death-top-gun-bridge-suicide-364509 --Erzan (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How the media report him is largely irrelevant. I could easily find plenty of newspaper article that describe him as English or an Englishman. If you want to start changing descripting to British, may I suggest you start on article for Scottish and Welsh people and see how far you get! I've added a reference where he refers to himself as English. Littleone77 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How the media report is not irrelevant, I say it is very relevant as it can help stem a edit war. Erzan (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed relevant, with the two criteria being how he identified himself (if we have that information) and how the media identify him. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationality, National identity, Britishness and English national identity could all be worth a quick look in reference to this issue. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Paul MacDermott. I thought I was going crazy, but no when a wide range of media outlets are acknowledging him as British. That has to be taken into account. Erzan (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Try a rational argument on national identity on the article United Kingdom, and you'll see how England is a nation in its own right anyway! MrZoolook (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "British" is perfectly unobjectionable, and the article makes clear elsewhere that he was English. Americans almost always refer to anyone or anything from our scepter'd isle as "Brriddish" (approximate phonetic spelling), while we, the English, refer to Scots and the Welsh as "British" only when they are winners, or at least strong competitors, particularly in sport. Otherwise they are Scottish or Welsh. It's not right, but it's the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.2.17 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, being English, I NEVER refer to anyone or anything Scottish or Welsh, as anything other then Scottish or Welsh. The only exception to this is when I am forced to call myself British by... for example... web-forms, job applications, census forms etc. I guess I am saying, just because YOU and others are inconstant when it comes to nationality, it doesn't mean we all are! MrZoolook (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a little bit of back-and-forth editing regarding the spelling of the LAPD division investigating Mr. Scott's death. It is the LAPD Harbor Division. There is no such thing as the LAPD "Harbour" Division. This is a fact, not a personal preference. Here is their official website; please note the spelling: http://www.lapdonline.org/harbor_community_police_station. JamesMadison (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best not to impose what we personally think in order to prevent edit wars. Instead rely on what the individual says, respected commentators and perhaps also the objective and lawful truth. That there is such a thing as British nationals. Erzan (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to change the indefinite article when edit warring. I think we can all agree "an British" and "a English" both suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Media sources are irrelevant, doens't matter how they describe him. I have stated that already, I've made it clear, yet here you are...with your media sources. The man was English. He was born In England (that makes him English) England is located on an island. The island is called...Britain. His constitutional nationality was English. His citizenship was British, which I also mentioned. This also applies to Scottish and Welsh people...they also have British citizenships. I am not into social engineering, which you seem to be since you refuse to both recognize and respect the man’s nationality, insisting on British instead of English. I both recognize and respect his nationality as well as the other nationalities in Britain. You clearly do not. What a shame. British are not synonymous with English. British pertains to anyone living in Britain. That can be Scottish, Welsh or English. Very much like European pertains to anyone living in Europe. It does not suggest one* nationality in Europe. You blatantly REFUSE to acknowledge that he was English.

The term 'British' does describe someone's nationality and is used widely on Government websites, academic documents, in the media and by people. As is Scottish, English and Welsh. We both acknowledge he is both British and English, which are both legitimate and reflect an awareness of the multi-layered identity of someone born in Britain/UK. But as we are at a standstill, which was predicted long before, I resorted to using media sources as a way of resolving the predictable English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish vs British debate, to break the tie so to speak. Point of information, his birth place, England, is mentioned twice and you want his introduction to English. On the subject that media sources are not relevant, then let's just do away with all the media references used in Wikipedia articles. PROPOSED COMPROMISE: The introduction calling him British-Born and his citizenship as British, two mentions. His place of birth, England, mentioned twice too (as it already is) Erzan (talk) 22:00 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I (and others) have established already: media sources are irrelevant, not surprisingly, since they most often are both flawed and inaccurate. It’s funny you would use them and funnier still that you insist on using them. I have let it be known that his constitutional nationality was English, and that he was born in England. You are now disputing and contesting both those facts. He himself has also stated that he was English, so there were no identity issues on his part.PROPOSED COMPRIMISE: The introduction calling him an English film director and producers (as he was English). His place of birth, England, (which was the case) and his citizenship, British, as already listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) PROPOSED COMPRIMISE: The introduction calling him an English film director and producers (as he was English). His place of birth, England, (which was the case) and his citizenship, British, as already listed.

My compromise allowed the mention of him being British and England/English twice, equal acknowledgement and even split. Your proposed 'compromise' would mention Britain once and England/English three times in the article. Secondly I am puzzled, are you actually denying the existence of British nationality? because I'll gladly provide evidence to prove British nationality is a legal, political and academic acknowledged identity. Erzan (talk) 23:30 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have let it be known that I both acknowledge and respect the different nationalities in Britain. All three of them. You’re the only one thus far not doing so; you’re the only one who keeps taking issue with the English nationality, insisting on it being British rather than English. He was English, he viewed himself as English (logical), he was born in England, and as a result of the Union (a.k.a the United Kingdom) he had a British citizenship. The issue seem to lie with you: you clearly deny the existence of an English nationality. Else you would not dispute the edits. I would also like to bring to your attention that nationality and citizenship are not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

British nationality is an acknowledged identity. I've not disputed English nationality, you just cannot acknowledge (or perhaps understand) the concept of multi-layered identity. The island, Britain, has a shared and then united history, politics, culture, language, sport and religion longer than the existence of America and Australia. Hence why the majority (based on consensus) of people in Britain, do also see themselves as a British national. In addition, British (UK) Government websites, media reports, respected academic articles and international organisations all have acknowledged the nationality, that is British. I repeat, I do NOT dispute there is such a thing as 'English'. But it is you who denies someone can be a British national. Erzan (talk) 24:00 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So now you are trying to twist things around. Interesting. English nationality is an acknowledge identity, just as English culture, English humour, English language, and English people...are. And yes, you have disputed English nationality, in fact: you still are, you just cannot acknowledge (or perhaps understand) the concept of single-layered identity, be it English, Scottish, or Welsh....let alone respect it, as it were. However, the man “who’s” wikipage we now are editing, clearly could. He viewed himself as English, because he was, well, English. In fact, media, as you used as a source and base for your argument, are experts at twisting things around too, whilst at the same time not acknowledge let alone respect the different nationalities in Britain. So I’m not all too surprised to see you being unable to do the same, since that is where your perception lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Round in circles, either you're not reading what I have typed or misunderstanding it. So you can be clear.

1. I do not dispute single-layer identity.

2. I do not dispute multi-layer identity.

3. There is such thing as British identity.

4. There is such thing as English identity.

5. My compromise mentioned Britain/British twice and England/English twice. Even split. Not fair?

6. Your compromise mentioned Britain/British once and England/English thrice. Uneven split. That is fairer?

7. Accusation the media is 'twisting' things is just that, speculative subjective accusations. Erzan (talk) 03:15 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The words "British" and "English" have lost all meaning due to intense repetition. Congratulations, both of you. Now we'll have to call him European. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Point 1. You have disputed it and you continue to do so:

Point 4. You refuse to acknowledge the English identity and nationality. (Hence this discussion)

Point 7. It was not a subjective accusation, but an observation. Note the difference.

Point 8. He saw himself as English, that was his identity...which brings us to point 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read this carefully: My compromise to have Britain/British mentioned twice in the article AND England/English twice in the article (as it is) is me not ignoring the English identity. It is a balanced and even split. If I wanted to ignore English identity, I'd be editing the mere mention of England. The fact remains you have not yet even stated 'British nationality exist' let alone agreed to have it acknowledged on the article. So again, I state one more time. I acknowledge British and English identity. If we can't come to agreement on here, please refer to the resolution noticeboard. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not, if you did, you would not keep reverting the edits which points out his English nationality & identity. And please note that his citizenship is listed,it has been all along. Lastly, If you acknowledged his English nationality and identity there would be no dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--Corbynz (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I am from the UK and this British/English controversy is absurd. Either description could be equally valid. The only person who could adjuducate on whether he considered his indentity to be primarily English or British is Tony Scott himself and sadly he is no longer with us so we will never know. THEREFORE PLEASE STOP THE EDIT WAR.

In the absence of a personal preference a default position clearly favours British as it is a more inclusive term internationally. We all have British passports - there is no English passport. We are all citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - we are not English citizens. We all vote in British elections - there are no national English elections or an English legislative assembly. The Queen is Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not England. We have a British government - there is no English government and the Prime Minister is of the UK of GB and NI. English as an identity is mainly used within Britain to distinguish it as one the four distinctive ethnic groups that make up our state alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.--Corbynz (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott has stated, on record, that he was English, that that was his identity. That aside, your message appears to challenge the existence of an English nationality and identity. Lastly, if you feel this issue is so trivial and childish (as stated in the edit section)...then why do you bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claim that "Tony Scott has stated, on record, that he was English, that that was his identity". Where did he state this and when ? Please provide a weblink as evidence of your claim. There is nothing that I have posted anywhere that could be remotely construed as challenging the existence of English as an identity. Within the UK i would describe myself as English as distinct from Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Outside the UK I describe myself as British or 'from the UK' as it is a more collective and inclusive term and that is what it says on my passport. Conceptually and subjectively there is an English nationality but legally there isn't. We are all citizens of the United Kingdom of GB and NI. --Corbynz (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are to partake in a discussion you could at least bother to read the discussion page, from top to bottom. Wikipedia user “Littleone77” added a reference where Tony referred to himself as English. On that note, same information is available for his brother, Ridley Scott. Lastly, since you are challenging Tony identifying himself as English, then you should be the one posting links which would dispute his statement. Best of luck with finding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Littleone77" refers to a reference but doesn't actually provide one. Therefore the onus is on you to provide a refernce to substantiate your claim. It is utterly absurd to suggest that I find links to dispute an unsubstantiated claim that you have made. If someone called you a thief, a court of law would require that the claimant produce evidence to prove their assertion that you were a thief not ask you to provide evidence that you were not a thief ! Furthermore - why don't you sign you messages. --Corbynz (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps it was removed? At any rate, the reference (now missing) does not stand and fall with the issue at hand, namely that of not recongizing his nationality as English. If his nationality was recognized there would be no dispute. And as I have mentioned before, his citizenship is listed, it has been all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are constantly making claims that you cannot substantiate. Only Scott can state whether he considered himself English or British - you are not in a position to make such as assertion on his behalf. Just stop this childish edit war. --Corbynz (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not made unsubstantiated claims, how was I too know that the link to his statement (to which I previously referred you to) now no longer exist. At any rate, that statement of his (now missing) does not stand and fall with the issue at hand, (it's not the core for the argument, drop it) namely that of not recongizing his nationality as English. If his nationality was recognized there would be no dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You have made an unsubstantiated claim that "Scott had stated, on record, that he was English, that that was his identity." You cannot justify this on some reference to a similar claim by some third party which also fails to provides any substantiation either. Consequently it is just pure hearsay. You have to provide your own evidence to support your own claim or otherwise withdraw it. Scotts legal nationality was British. Unless he specifically identified himself as English - which you claim but cannot prove - then the reasonable default position is to use British as a broad and inclusive term. --Corbynz (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned already. The statment (now missing) does not stand and fall with the issue at hand, and that is (repeating this again) the failure to recognize the English nationality by Erzan. Which he continues to do. Else he would not revert from English to British. Lastly, what is reasonable about British being the default position? English precede British. Just as Scottish, Welsh, and Irish do. And I'll repeat this again, his citizenship is listed, it says...British. His nationality was English, his citizenship was British. This is a result (and I’ve been over this already) of the Union. But the Union, does not, in anyway, remove the three nationalities in Britain. I acknowledge this. You and Erza do not...as a result you wish to replace his English nationality with British. And Erza motivates this with how media describes him. To which I (and others) have replied that we could find media sources which describes him as English. So what? It doesn’t change his nationality one iota. It would have been the same had he been Scottish or Welsh.

You are talking utter nonsense. Erzan does not fail to recognise English nationality and neither do I. You cannot assert that Scott had a preference to be identified as English as opposed to British without corroborating evidence which you have failed to provide. Nobody is saying that the Union removes the three nationalities in Britain. You keep dissembling instead of addressing the issue. Scotts legal status was British. Unless you can provide evidence - which you have consistently failed to do - that his preference was to be identified as English - then his default status should be British. --Corbynz (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Erzan does indeed fail to recognize the English nationality, hence the dispute. You do not recognize it by excluding it. As for the missing link to the statement Tony Scott made we’ve been over that, reread the previous posts before you bring it up again. I have addressed the issue all the time, you keep sidestepping it. Somehow I expect you will do the very same the next time you post. And again, English precedes British, same thing had applied had he been Scottish or Welsh. English was his constitutional nationality. Lastly (and I'll repeat this again) his citizenship is listed, it is listed as...British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Corbynz I'd like to state on record, because 82.209.185.111 has demonstrated an unwillingness to read what I have typed, again. I have not denied English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh identity. I fully acknowledge the concept, yet it is 82.209.185.111 who is driven by a total rejection of British nationality. So much so, if you read through this, there has been no attempt on 82.209.185.111 behalf to respond and acknowledge the legal and political reality. British nationality exists. Try and ask 82.209.185.111 this, the question will be dodged. I have, and will again, repeat my full acknowledgement of English identity. But there is also a wider and more inclusive identity and this is British, something the world media have decided to use to describe Tony Scott. This edit war began because I used a legal and political fact, backed up by media sources to describe Tony Scott's nationality. I even went so far as to explain my reason and supply the list of sources on this page. Read what I typed at the very top the 'English to British section'. The second sentence stressed my edit was in no way trying to ignore his English origins. I responded to how the public, digesting the media, will have his nationally described. Lets be frank here, there is nothing objectionable about that, the following responses from users then accused me of some 'English identity cover up'. Are my actions and comments on here, seriously a sign of some one wanting to start an edit war, deny he was born in England or acts of immaturity? I think not. If so I'd have not gone through the trouble of my original edit, stressing it was in response to the global media, on this Talk page in the first place. --Erzan (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read you just fine, it is you that have demonstrated an unwillingness to read what I have typed let alone grasp the argument. And I have not rejected the legal and political reality of British. It is you that REFUSE to acknowledge the English nationality and identity; which is why you keep reverting from English to British. As for media describing him as British (and this has been pointed out to you already) I could find links describing him as English, CNN would be one of them. How media describes him is irrelevant. And yes, you do come across as someone who refuses to acknowledge the English nationality and identity Which was why you started the edit war. I responded to that. And here we are. In spirit of nationalities, I’m surprised to see you’ve yet to pay the wiki page of his brother, Ridley Scott, a visit. I can barely wait. You must be a busy little bee reverting from English to British on most wiki pages pertaining to English* people.

Erzan - see my response to 82.209.185.111 above. --Corbynz (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

82.209.185.111, you have explained the reason why I began editing English to British, because I 'refused to acknowledge the English identity'. Despite my opening sentence to this debate, began by explaining I edited English to British because of he was widely being acknowledged as a British-Born director. If he was being widely described as English, I would do the same but he wasn't and still is not. It's there in black and white for you to go back and read. I cannot continue discussing this, if you're going to continue to ignore what I've already typed. Please engage in the resolution notice board regarding this edit war. Thank you.

--Erzan (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We've been over the media reference already, several times, and it doesn’t hold any water. It has been pointed out to you, not just by me, that there are media sources who describe him as English as well. CNN would be one of them. Now what? Are you going to list all the media outlets that describe him as British whith those who describe him as English? And then pick the highest number? As to determine which nationality he should be listed as? I don't think so, no. Besides, media will eventually stop reporting on the guy, which means that the source for information will be, amongst other sources, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Does CNN mention him as English? the link I have, on the 4th page the caption states British.

2. I accept there is such thing as English nationality. Do you accept there is a British nationality and that there are, in fact, Britons who see themselves as British before or addition English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish. I'm unsure on what basis you have obtained a generalised opinion, that the average Briton describes themselves as just one of the previous mentioned. When in fact, the British consensus demonstrates that is not the case. A majority of British people do identity with being British, as well as English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. A minority considers themselves just English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. I am sure you are aware of Northern Irish history? Then you would know how the community was torn apart, as they fought to retain their British nationality, just their citizenship. Your refusal to accept a European nationality but just citizenship I could understand. But British nationality? it's like disputing American or Germany nationality. It's a legal fact and has been in existence since 1772. If you or I died in a foreign land, we would be described as a British national, like it or not.

3. Please Google search British nationality law. --Erzan (talk) 07:00, 09 September 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not accept the existence of an English nationality and identity because if you did you would not have changed the article which stated Tony was English to that of British in the first place, let alone started an edit war over it. There are many Britons how see themselves as English before British, (Tony was one of them) same thing for Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish people. You seem to have the idea that everyone describes themselves as British instead for their respective constitutional nationalities. They do not. Your refusal to accept English nationality on the basis of how media describes him is ludicrous, and when that didn’t work you changed the argument to British national law. Remember, I have not rejected the legal and political reality of British, which I’ve stated. I have never mentioned anything about a European nationality either, what I have said is that British pertains to anyone living in Britain , just as European pertains to anyone living in Europe, I also stated that English and British are not synonymous. Please Google nationality and citizenship. His citizenship is listed. What this comes down to is your own refusal to accept and acknowledge the existence of an English nationality and identity. Thus I'm expecting you to continue your edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Editing Tony Scott to 'British/born', is a description he is widely reported as. I am taking a judgement based on a combination what his being reported as, then checking with the fact that yes he is a British national, fine. That is not me refusing to accept the existence of English nationality. Your issue is with the dozen or so organisations that have, decided to acknowledge his British nationality above his English identity.

2. Your entire issue with me would make complete sense, if the media reported him as English and I just decided to change it to British or European. That would suggest an intent to 'cover up' his English identity.

3. Think about this. You can be British with dual citizenship. For example you can be a British national, but have British and American citizenship. But you're still a British national by law. You still compare British nationality with being European, when there is no legal law reconsigning a European nationality. There is no European nationality, only citizenship. Hence why the European Union even makes it clear you retain your nationality (German, British, French) but you gain European citizenship. You want to dispute media sources, fine. But now you're disputing British nationality? Okay, let's just cut to the chase. I'll do the job for you, here is the UK Home Office > http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/ Note this from the website **British nationality (in addition to British citizenship**. There is a British nationality, but people can gain British citizenship. --Erzan (talk) 09:40, 09 September 2012 (UTC)

You are refusing to both accept and acknowledge his English identity and nationality, else you would not have changed the article in the first place. What you are doing here is to use media sources that has described him as British as a mean to do so. As far as I know none of those media sources are now conducting an edit war on “his” wiki page, with the intent of listing him as British instead of English. My dispute is not with them. It is with you. I know that that media (mostly American) most often are unable to distinguish between British, English, Britain, and England, this is well known, in fact: most Americans are unable to do so, and thus they use British, English, Britain, and England interchangeable. As for the example of British pertaining to anyone living in Britain and European pertaining to anyone living in Europe it would indeed be accurate. As for your last point, we have immigrants here in England (as well as in Scotland and Wales) who are of different nationalities, but who also have British citizenships. Nationality and citizenship is not always the same thing, of course, it can be. For instance, Northern Irish people get a British citizenship by default but they can choose an Irish one, which then means that their Irish nationality also becomes reflected in their citizenship. I myself am English with British citizenship (again, as a result of the Union, if not for the union my citizenship would be English, not only my nationality...as it stands now) and I also have Swedish citizenship. So I have dual citizenships. Again, I understand and acknowledge the difference. You do not. And you still refuse to do so. Hence the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.185.111 (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

All we can tell at the moment is that he committed suicide: jumping off a bridge doesn't kill you (been there, done that, under controlled safe conditions, lived to tell the tale), and hitting the water at the bottom (which can) can kill you in more than one way. Let's not speculate, as I think it's somewhat disrespectful to do so; when an inquest determines his official cause of death, we can use that. -- The Anome (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Suicide is defined as the "act of taking ones own life voluntarily". It relates to motive or manner and does not define the method used to cause the death, as InedibleHulk as also pointed out below. Jumping off a bridge was the method he chose to end his life, as opposed to say an overdose of pills or shooting himself in the head. Whether his life ended due to pressure or even heart failure on the way down, or whether it was caused by the impact of hitting the water, has not been disclosed at this time. What caused his death was jumping off the bridge. --Corbynz (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As this page explains clearly, suicide is a manner of death. Manner is the circumstance of the action known as the underlying cause of death (in this case, jumping off a bridge). The underlying cause leads to an immediate cause of death (in this case, possibly drowning, blunt trauma, shock, whatever). Since we don't have a reliable source for the immediate cause, it's fair to list the underlying cause. Even if he'd been speared by a swordfish before hitting the water, jumping off a bridge would remain the underlying cause. Of course, if a reliable source mentioned the swordfish, we'd specify that. Just like we'll probably specify "drowning" soon enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to say "landing in water from a height", that would be more accurate (but wordy), since jumping itself never technically kills anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to Suicide by jumping (with the link) and it was reverted. Just to be clear, suicide is not a 'motive', it's an act. What motivates the act is the desire to die. Stating that he died by 'jumping off a bridge' doesn't even imply that he killed himself; it could've been a stunt gone wrong, or a base-jumping/bungee accident, or a misjudgement, or an effort to escape something on the bridge, or however many other scenarios you might think of. The specific structure that he jumped off seems far less important than the fact that it was suicide. It would be like saying of someone who shot themselves "Cause of death: shot with revolver". Wetdogmeat (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On a death certificate, the cause of death would be "shot with revolver" (or close enough). And then, in the "Manner of Death" box, "suicide" would be checked. If someone is genuinely perplexed by the circumstances of his death, they would naturally read the "Death" section of the article and easily find out. We can't just go redefining terms to suit people who only read infoboxes. But we can put "suicide" in parentheses. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it makes more sense the other way around, as "Suicide (jumping from a bridge)", but whatevs. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you can tolerate it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. Miaow. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like that. No sarcasm. Happy we found a compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

IN SUMMATION: It wasn't the fall that killed him. It was the sudden stop at the end that did it. JamesMadison (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, see List_of_suicides. I looked through all the A's & B's, and only a few of them actually list the cause of death at all; mostly only the date of death is listed. The few that do list the cause are Marshall Applewhite, R. H. Barlow, Mary Kay Bergman, Ludwig Boltzmann & Jonathan Brandis. All of them list 'suicide' as the cause, with a couple of them placing the method in parentheses - 'Suicide (firearm)', 'Suicide (barbiturate overdose)' Wetdogmeat (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Wetdogmeat commit suicide by talk? It appears that way in the above paragraph's formatting. JamesMadison (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If every other article jumped off a bridge, would this one? They're wrong and should be corrected. And now they are. Except Applewhite. Not sure what killed him. Boltzmann's doesn't say "cause of death".InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Boltzmann's says 'suicide' under his date of death. Also, I appreciated the pun. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant his "suicide" is fine because it's not in a "cause of death" field. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, suicide is a cause of death by definition (killing oneself causes one to die, no?), it's just that it's a very broad category of cause-of-death. What's really being debated here is how specific the information ought to be. You could get down to the micro-details of what specific traumas caused what specific essential life processes to cease, and so on, but that would be absurd (though not as absurd as pretending suicide isn't a cause of death). Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't read the link I provided in the above paragraph with bolded terms, please do. Causes of death can range from very vague underlying causes to very specific immediate causes, but all causes occur in one of four manners. This is standard throughout the world of English-speaking coroners and medical examiners, and what better authority on the matter is there? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We know three things: 1) Tony Scott jumped off a bridge 2)Committed suicide 3) This is how it is on the wildside. Also, Doo da doo da doo doo da doo doo da doo da doo doo da doo.

That's how it allegedly is. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is not an example of how it is on the wildside, then I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.135.184 (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bridge photo?

An editor has recently removed a photo of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, citing "tastelessness". I say there's nothing tasteless about it, and even if there was, there's no rule against tasteless. I say it helps the reader by illustrating a very relevant point about the section. One may reasonably wonder how big the bridge was, or anything else about its appearance. That bridge is a huge part of Scott's life, sad as that may seem. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that this article contains an internal link to the WP article on the bridge. That article includes several images, including the one that is up for discussion here. I wonder whether that might be enough to satisfy even the reader with intense interest in this location. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's beside the point. This article is for people interested in Scott, not necessarily hardcore bridge fans. In the Death section, it complements the text appropriately. It is preferable to have a picture speak (roughly) a thousand words than to use the actual words to describe it in the text. That would be undue weight. If we were to altogether ignore the physical aspects of the bridge, we'd be depriving readers of significantly relevant information, which is contrary to an encyclopedia's purpose. For my own understanding, I'd appreciate if the objecting editor would elaborate on what he/she finds tasteless about this photo. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts. We definitely agree that describing the bridge in the article isn't the way to go. I guess instead of "picture versus a thousand words", I was thinking of it as "picture in this article versus a mouse click to the bridge article." EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 18:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)