Talk:Anthony Hopkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anthony Hopkins article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

1 musical stardom
2 Alcoholism
3 Full name
4 Pronunciation
5 Overlinking in filmography section
6 "Sir Ben Kingsley" credit
7 Links
8 Infobox
9 Definition of "alcoholic"
10 Name
11 The Girl From Petrovka coincidence

[edit] musical stardom

i think he might have tried to break into pop music at one point, you can download his hit (top 75) on the march 10 position here: [1]

comment on cider because in the UK and Europe cider is fermented apple juice, and hence alcoholic. jimfbleak

Not just the UK and Europe... I've replaced the whole phrase with "carbonated apple juice". Ben Arnold 09:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About "British-born American actor". If he has dual nationality, isn't he better described as a British-born American-British actor? --Saforrest 08:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to describe him as a "British-born actor" and then go on to say he now has dual citizenship. JW 13:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

The text says he "conquered" alcoholism. I'm not being insensitive, but is this really so? Does one ever "conquer" an addiction? He may not have drunk for 31 years now, but what if he had a drink tomorrow, and another ... and fell off the wagon once more. Maybe we should be saying he is an acknowledged alcoholic who has been sober since 1975. JackofOz 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no objections so I made the change. I removed the bit about drinking apple juice at his wedding - it's the fact that he has abstained from alcohol for so long that's the important information, not what he does drink on social occasions. JackofOz 06:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. It would be incorrect to say that someone is a "former" alcoholic as well, as is currently stated in the wiki. A great number of my family are alcoholics, and one of the first things taught at AA is that one can't un-become an alcoholic, which is why they take it "one day at a time."

[edit] Full name

Rather than get into a revert war, I ask this question: What's the point of saying that Philip Anthony Hopkins' birth name was Philip Anthony Hopkins? We have failed to tell our readers that he is known as Sir Anthony Hopkins. JackofOz 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the IPA guide only talks about Anthony Hopkins, not Philip Anthony Hopkins, so we're being misleading on that score in any event. JackofOz 08:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sry, I was just reverting a seeming omittance of information. Go ahead with your change. — Scm83x ^talk

08:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for responding so quickly. JackofOz 08:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Do people really need an explanation of how his name is pronounced? Surely it's not that hard to work out. JW 12:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Americans tend to think it is pronounced completely differently: ['æ̃:nθəni 'hɑpkɪnz]. See Anthony. — Gulliver ✉ 06:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I was just scouring this talk for a similar question, and voilà, there it is. Pronunciation of the name is really needed as much as World War III. -andy 80.129.113.231 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking in filmography section

I've done a number of reverts on this, so I thought I'd better explain why. Before jumping in and linking every title in the filmography, please take some time out to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). This states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once. Many titles in the filmography are already linked previously in the article, and don't need to be duplicated. Chris 42 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are taking the manual of style too literally Chris. Anything that helps the reader is a bonus. For instance, I just scanned the filmography - without reading the article - saw that some films were linked and others were not. Assumed that there was no "Elephant Man" article and had to spend a minute or two looking it up. That is pointless.--Zleitzen 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.--Zleitzen 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sir Ben Kingsley" credit

Ben Kingsley's credit on Lucky Number Slevin that included his title was a mistake by a studio employee who was unfamiliar with the British honours system. See this BBC News story. Chris 42 11:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to a recent reversion, Kingsley has never been credited as "Sir Ben Kingsley" within the on-screen credits of a film. The "Sir" was included on a poster solely due to the ignorance of a studio executive. The sentence only refers to theatrical credits and not how he wishes to be addressed in his private life. Chris 42 18:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Can we just have every film in the filmography linked where possible please - when I looked at it I assumed that many of these films didn't have articles. Whatsmore, this issue seems to have been noted by several previous users who have attempted, like myself, to link the films but have been reverted. I see no value in repeatedly unlinking these film titles. This page and encyclopedia should be designed for the reader, as a reader I want the films linked to aid my navigation round the page and the site. Thank you. --Zleitzen 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but I see no sense in linking those titles that are already linked only a line or two above in the "historical characters" section. The MoS states that there may be a case where a link is distant from a previous occurrence, but otherwise duplication of links should be avoided if possible. Perhaps a compromise would be to unlink the "historical character" films and link the whole filmography instead? Chris 42 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now done this, and I actually think that having the character links in one section and all the film links in another works quite well. Hope it's okay. Chris 42 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Good work. --Zleitzen 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I'm sorry, but — as long as Hopkins is alive — the biography infobox doesn't add anything to the article that isn't apparent from the title and opening paragraphs. I would be inclined to live with it, but the formatting is horrible. If someone could amend the template to at least align the information correctly, then perhaps it would be okay. Until then I'm going to revert. Apologies. Chris 42 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new version: it provides more info than before and is aligned correctly. Chris 42 11:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "alcoholic"

A alcoholic is defined as "a person suffering from alcoholism" (see this dictionary entry). Hopkins does not currently suffer from it, and is therefore a former alcoholic. Chris 42 10:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Please folks, this is pretty basic: Sir Anthony Hopkins is not Sir Philip Hopkins. "Anthony" is his chosen name, and he is informally known as "Tony" to his close friends. If he decided to drop the "Philip", then so should Wikipedia, but it should still be shown as a birth name, per MoS:

In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In such cases the birth name should be given as well: (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on 19 August 1946)

Chris 42 11:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about one thing: it is pretty basic. However...

His full name is, and always has been, Philip Anthony Hopkins. But you can't tell from that whether his usual (not necessarily "chosen") name is Anthony Hopkins or Philip Hopkins, so I'm not sure what your first point is intended to prove. (His usual name is given in the article title, though, so that's all right.)

We have no reason to suppose he "decided to drop" his precursory name – any more than Paul McCartney or Harold Wilson decided to drop theirs. It just happens that his main forename is Anthony.

The MoS section that your Bill Clinton example comes from also contains three examples of people who, unlike Bill Clinton (but just like Anthony Hopkins), have not changed their names. Did you not see those? The same section states quite clearly:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version.

(My emphasis.)

A subsection within the section you quote also says:

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born 10 June 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards.

Yet this is precisely the trap you have fallen into. There is no point stating that a person was born with a particular name if they still have the same name now. Anthony Hopkins has not changed his name, so the concept of a 'birth name' is simply irrelevant.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that there is something fundamentally special about a person's first forename, and that being known by a second, third or fourth forename, if not positively freakish, must at the very least have involved some kind of positive choice. This is emphatically not the case. Check out the list of people 'known by middle name' to see how perfectly normal it really is.

Grant 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My main point is simply one of clarity. I (and, I suspect, many others) have never heard of "an Academy Award and Emmy Award-winning Welsh-born film, stage and television actor" called Sir Philip Hopkins. The articles on (for example) Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, F. Murray Abraham and Debra Winger open in a similar style, and I was merely following their lead. However, your other points from the MoS are well argued (except that I have no problem whatsoever with someone wishing to use any of their given names as their usual one). I'll revert. Chris 42 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a scholar and a gentleman*, sir*! Grant 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

*Unless Chris is short for Christine or something – but if you're a fan of original Doctor Who that seems unlikely.

(And I'm minded to overlook the repetition of the 'Philip Hopkins' fallacy.)

...