Talk:Anthony Hopkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anthony Hopkins article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[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)

He may not currently be expereincing the trauma associated with alcoholism, but my understanding is that this condition has no "cure" and any so-called ex-alcoholic or abstinent alcoholic could fall off the wagon at any time. Also, see the "Alcoholism" section above for an earlier discussion of this issue. -- JackofOz 03:17, 15 September 2007 (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.)

...

[edit] The Girl From Petrovka coincidence

Some references to said occurence that has been editted out:

http://yoke.cc/coinci.htm

http://fusionanomaly.net/girlfrompetrovka.html

http://www.spikemagazine.com/splinters/2005/07/strange-but-true.php

To name but a few. And there's your references.

  • I have removed this, not because it didn't happen, but because it just isn't important enough to be included. It certainly wasn't "Other Work"; it is at best trivia, a cute anecdote that doesn't actually illustrate Hopkins' character or life in any way. It might be worthy of inclusion in an article on the film, I suppose. Brianyoumans 10:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood

Technically speaking a knighthood is not a title of nobility.

Roadrunner 20:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad someone out there has a clue. Marnanel 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir ???Philip Anthony Hopkins

As all British ciztens who accept foreign nationailty, which Anthony Hopkins did in 2000, defacto is he is no longer a SIR.

Therefore this should be removed !

Hopkins is a dual national and so is allowed to be addressed as 'Sir' in the UK, but not in the US. See myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/Anthony_Hopkins_Biography.htm. (Sorry but Wiki wouldn't let me link it directly for some reason; you'll have to add the usual URL prefix.) Chris 42 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Americans can address him however they choose. I suspect many do choose to refer to him as Sir Anthony. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard in "The Lion In Winter"

It's a nitpick I realize, but the character of Richard was, at that time, only Duke of Aquitaine. He did not become King Richard I until long after the events portrayed in the film.--Beetfarm Louie 02:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's far from a nitpick, in my books. The fact is that the role he played was not King Richard I but the Duke of Aquitaine. That the Duke later became the King is a matter of historical record, but in the context of the play/film, he certainly did not play the King. -- JackofOz 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh Outrage?

Some disappointment and outrage ensued in his native land of Wales over his American citizenship.

I'm curious to know what were the criticisms leveled against Hopkins by people in Wales. Did they see it as him turning his back on his native land?--Beetfarm Louie 02:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As a Welshman and Welsh resident I think I can say that any criticism of Anthony Hopkins was largely press generated, (bad news sells...) To the average Welsh person Hopkins is a National Hero. He's a fantastic actor, has many other talents, he is known to be a really nice guy and uses his position to assist others, (contrast this with another International Welsh talent Dame Shirley Bassey for example who is known to often be very difficult to work with and around and sends a Christmas card to her sisters in Cardiff when she remembers to). We know he loves Wales and still spends quite a lot of time here. He is due to celebrate his 70th birthday shortly and has chosen to do so at Margam where he was born, many of those invited to attend are early schoolfriends who he has maintained contact with over the years.

He was heavily involved in a campaign to raise funds to buy a section of land comprising part of Snowdon Mountain in North Wales, thousands of acres of hill-farm had been put up for auction by its private owner and there were concerns that if it fell into the hands of an unsympathetic land-owner access to parts of the mountain could be effected. This land was bought for the Welsh Nation due to this campaign, as well as throwing his weight behind it, Sir Anthony Hopkins made a personal donation of £1,000,000.00 to the fund.

I'm sure that most people would guess the prime motivation for becoming a US citizen were Tax considerations, the wealthy are highly taxed by the UK Treasury. It was also probably a practical consideration as he was spending a lot more time in the US due to work & personal committments, he may also genuinely believe that the US is a great Country.

C Williams - Llantrisant, Wales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.74 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theatre

I remember reading some article where Anthony Hopkins said he was thrilled when he could stop doing so much theatre work.

Can anyone corroborate? Dancemotron 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Grinch

In the list of films it said he was the narrator in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," but the name of the movie was "The Grinch." I changed it to reflect this. 65.96.38.93 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anthony Philip Hopkins or Philip Anthony Hopkins?

According to The London Gazette he is named Sir Anthony Philip Hopkins. However at this site he's stated as "Philip Anthony Hopkins". What's correct? The London Gazette is the official journal of record of the United Kingdom government, quite formal I would say... Demophon (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, very formal. But even very formal publications are written by fallible humans. It's Philip Anthony Hopkins in all the references I've seen. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes (sigh...), references. Also references are written by fallible humans. But is it correct, or are maybe both correct, or are all correct? Which one is a right one? Demophon (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You're asking the (virtually) impossible. You're asking us to "know" things that we cannot reasonably know. The only thing that would settle this absolutely would be his original birth certificate; or something that we have every reason to believe is an accurate copy. Failing that, we must have resort to references that we consider reliable. Where references disagree, the majority tends to be believed - but not by those who've only seen the ones in the minority. Fortunately, anybody in the world can edit Wikipedia, so we effectively have access to all the references, and we can form pretty accurate opinions on such matters. But it's still not the absolute truth; but then, we're less interested in "truth" here, and more on verifiability. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Quentin Falk's biography: "...On New Year's Eve, 1937, Philip Anthony Hopkins, 7¾ pounds in weight and not much hair, was delivered by Dr Donald Isaac at Wern Road. [...] The name 'Philip', which came from Muriel's mother, whose maiden name was Phillips, was very quickly ignored, and the 'Anthony' was eventually shortened by request to 'Tony'." For all editions of his book except the latest, Falk interviewed Hopkins himself, so I guess it's as good as we're going to get. Chris 42 (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)