Talk:Anthony Hopkins/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

languages

Does he speak Welsh? I know many other persons who are bilingual have that in their articles, so if he does, should it be included in the personal life section? Tamer (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Why is this on here? 188.220.16.145 (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
Agreed, JackofOz. You do not get "cured" of alcoholism. You are considered, even if you have not had a drink in many years, to be constantly in recovery from addiction. I support your alteration to the article, even if it was 3 years ago, LOL.Kp.murphy (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
A glaring problem with this (widely held) belief is that it co-opts the term "relapse" for its own, dubious purposes. If alcoholism is defined as the compulsive abuse of alcohol, then one who has ceased to abuse alcohol compulsively is (by definition) not an alcoholic. Unless, of course, the possibility for "relapse" exists, in which case the former alcoholic becomes an "alcoholic in remission". But this is analogous to saying that, if I'm employed at Widgets, Inc., and I get fired from my job, then since there's always a chance that I could be re-hired, I never was really fired, but was only demoted to an "employee in remission". The concept of remission is validly used in medical fields such as oncology, because, for example, cancer cells really can "hide away" and create only an illusion of full recovery. But there are no "alcoholism cells" to go into hiding in the first place. People abuse alcohol for different reasons, some of which (e.g., dealing with relationship difficulty) may not be permanent. Some folks probably have a genetic predisposition to abuse it, but A) not everyone who has the predisposition actually manifests it, and B) not everyone who abuses alcohol has the predisposition. In contrast, everyone with cancer experiences uncontrolled cell growth. Cancer has an essential property, but alcoholism does not, and it therefore cannot be reduced to an "incurable disease" without greatly oversimplifying. On the other hand, "alcoholic" can serve as a personal identity, which one can keep for as long as one so chooses. So, while it is objectively nonsensical to call alcoholism an incurable, unidirectional, invariable medical disease, it is subjectively valid to self-identify in terms of one's alcoholic (i.e., alcohol-related) experiences. In a nutshell, the only undeniably reliable source on whether Anthony Hopkins is an alcoholic is Anthony Hopkins. If he says he is, then he is. If he says he's not, then he's (quite likely, anyway) not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Here's a good source in support of my preceding blabberfest: [2]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. And another: [3]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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.)

...

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)

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)

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)

It would also appear that his rank of CBE does not earn him the right to be called "Sir" as stated in this article [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.172.5 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the CBE that makes him a 'Sir' it's because he is also a Knight Bachelor. Knights Bachelor don't get any letters after their names. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would say that most Welsh people would not give a hoot about Hopkins giving up his British passport. It is not as if he gave up a Welsh passport. I'm sure that this upset the London media but in Wales I never heard any criticism what so ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.255.122 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)


Rollback Request

Could an admin with the rollback ability please revert to before reports of his death. Idg555 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dyslexia

When Anthony Hopkins was a boy, I don't think dyslexia had been diagnosed, and no allowances were made for it. So it seems odd that someone suffering from it could have got into the selective Cowbridge Grammar School. Millbanks (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia may not have been defined, but people still had issues with it. It doesn't say he was diagnosed with dyslexia nor does it say allowances were made. Many dyslexic people found ways to cope with educational demands. What part are you doubting? That he is dyslexic or that he attended that school? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal

The section read:

"The character first appeared in the film Manhunter, which was loosely based on Red Dragon. Lecter (spelled "Lecktor" in the film) was played by Scottish actor Brian Cox. Since Red Dragon was considered a remake of Manhunter, it allowed Hopkins to play the iconic villain in adaptations of all three of the best-selling Lecter novels by Thomas Harris. The author was reportedly very pleased with Hopkins' portrayal of his antagonist. However, Hopkins stated that Red Dragon would feature his final performance as the character, and that he would not reprise even a narrative role in the latest addition to the series, Hannibal Rising."

For such a brief section on his career, I cannot see any point in discussing "Manhunter" - a film he has no connection to. Also, as he does not appear in Hannibal Rising, it doesn't seem very noteworthy to emphasise that he was in adaptions of the first three novels. -- Beardo (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Welsh or Welsh-American??

It seems to me that if a person knowingly decides to abandon their origins and become a citizen of another country (for whatever reason), they should at least be credited as being a person of that country? He is Welsh, but he is an AMERICAN. BY CHOICE. No one forced him to become an American citizen, so he must feel proud about it. So why can't this article celebrate this? Why is he still only a "Welsh actor and producer," which is clearly and factually incorrect? 118.7.232.7 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopkins could be legitimately described as "Welsh-American" if one of his parents was Welsh and the other American. In addition, Hopkins has not "abandoned his origins": look at the Personal life section — both Snowdonia and Caerphilly are in Wales. He may choose to live wherever he wants, but he has shown that he still has strong ties to the country of his birth. Chris 42 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Also here is just one of several links I Googled that refers to Hopkins being "proud of his Welsh roots". Chris 42 (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He is Welsh - end of story. You only have to look at the Cary Grant article to see how far some on Wiki are going in trying to 'steal' from other countries. Spudbynight (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We really don't need bad faith comments like that. That is not the reason there are disagreements about what goes in as far as the description of the person. It has to do with citizenship vs. nationality. MOS:BIO says "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." There is confusion about what that means amongst editors. In the case of Anthony Hopkins, he did not become a US citizen until 2000, and his notability as an actor was established long before then. In most cases, this shouldn't be a matter of dispute and it's not because anyone is trying to "'steal' from other countries". Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP: NAMES is very clear on this. Hi's American citizenship is clearly part of his nationality so should be included in the lead. In legal terms, his nationality is British-American.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added it, based solely in guidelines.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't seem to read what I posted above from MOS:BIO says "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." In the case of Anthony Hopkins, he did not become a US citizen until 2000, and his notability as an actor was established long before then. Guidelines are specific as what to use dependent on when notability was established and unless you can support that Hopkins did not become notable until after 2000, then Welsh-American is not supported by guidelines. And for the record, there is no legal term regarding the use of British-American. I'd also point out that regarding "British" vs. "Welsh", MOS:BIO goes on to say "There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries." Guidelines do not support one or the other. Until there has been some consensus formed regarding this article in particular, please don't go about changing it. That's why this discussion is here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I really don't like your tone, sounds far too aggressive. You're not an admin, so stop acting like you are. All my Edits were good faith, for your information.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware you can hear my tone, so please assume good faith. I don't have to be an administrator to reference and discuss policy or guidelines, and if you think I'm "acting like" I am, well, basically, tough. I'm quoting guidelines about this and referencing that when something is actively being discussed, it's not in the spirit of discussion to go ahead and change something "based solely in guidelines", when it's obvious guidelines are specifically what are being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens in an English-American and Craig Ferguson is a Scottish-American. Anthony Hopkins is a Welsh-American. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the above: Hopkins was not an American citizen when he became notable and the same applies to your other examples. Citizenship can of course be mentioned within the article, but it's misleading to imply that the subject has mixed parentage. Chris 42 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Early Life.

Can we please have some cites for this, the language used is rather strong ("Loner" ect) so a cite is really needed or it could be seen as non-NPOV.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Greatest" seems a bit too POV for Wikpedia. Even Brando's lead doesn't mention that he is considered a "great" actor. Perhaps it would be better to say he has been called "the greatest living actor" and attribute the quote to whatever authority made it, because it is essentially an opinion. 74.176.152.64 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Except that it is followed by what? 4 or 5 sources to support the statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Omission

According to the page on Rene Russo:

She attained a certain degree of cult status from her performance in Freejack, alongside of Emilio Estavez, Mick Jagger, and Sir Anthony Hopkins (who stated in interview that he consideres (sic) Freejack his worst film).

I don't know if this should be included (or I would) or where the best place to include it would be. I also don't know if Wikipedia has a preferred method of internal citations, especially when the source of the original information is not cited. TeigeRyan (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that is true, and it certainly has no place in any article with that spelling and without a source. It doesn't belong in this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopkins is Welsh-American

Re. [5]: WP:MOSBIO states that, "In most modern-day cases [nationality] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." It can mean A or B. For some mysterious reason, some editors seem to think that B, when applicable, takes exclusive precedence. I haven't a clue where this assumption is coming from. In the case of Hopkins, who became notable in Wales but is a citizen of the United States, nationality means both A and B. Welsh + American = Welsh-American. I don't see how this could be ambiguous in the slightest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see him as Welsh who later took American nationality. To state Welsh-American, I believe leads people to believe his is of Welsh descent born in America, or of American parentage but was born or grew up in Wales. He took US nationality later in life, so I think it should reflect this fact more than just Welsh-American. Also we need a warning flag near his nationality as this article often gets switched to 'Anthony Hopkins is an American actor...'. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Most hollywood stars take US citizenship at some point. It make things much simpler for them on a professional level. It doesn't mean they actually become American - they just fly a flag of convenience. 188.220.16.145 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Its been clarified on the article.. "MOS:BIO — Nationality: the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable". The key is when the person became famous; renowned as, hence Welsh. Hopkins has retained his British citizenship hence hes a "Sir". In a belated response to the user above, due to residency many actors do take dual citizenship (as Hopkins states in the referenced quote) thus avoiding the problems of work visa etc.RyanTaylor1987 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

On Alcoholism

Out of respect for the anonymity of both Anthony Hopkins and Alcoholics Anonymous, I edited the reference to A.A. and changed it to "12-Step meetings for alcohol addiction." Sirvice626 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I reversed your change, since it constituted Original Research and the citation provided, the Dischordian number 23, specifically said "Alcoholics Anonymous".
: Oh Snap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.93.109 (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins page - add a link to Ruskin School where Hopkins teaches and is mentioned in article

We would like to ask if you could add a link to our school mentioned on Anthony Hopkins page where he teaches. We also wanted to find out how to get a Wikipedia page for our school and theatre?

Although he resides in Malibu, California he is also a volunteer teacher at the Ruskin School of Acting in Santa Monica, California.Ruskin School of Acting Johnaruskin (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Other work: composing a waltz

As shown on German television Hopkins composed a waltz 50 years ago that had its world premiere on Oct. 1, 2011 in Vienna with conductor André Rieu. Hopkins was present at the premiere in Vienna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.46.100 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

plagarism on page

The passage below written on the wikipedia page about hopkins is directly lifted from the news article that the passage cites. The passage, however, is not attributed in quotes as something of that length should be if it is taken verbatim from another source. I recommend either inserting quotation marks or editing the passage so that it is original material.

Renowned for his ability to remember lines, Hopkins keeps his memory supple by learning things by heart such as poetry, and Shakespeare. In Steven Spielberg's Amistad, Hopkins astounded the crew with his memorisation of a seven-page courtroom speech, delivering it in one go. An overawed Spielberg couldn't bring himself to call him Tony, and insisted on addressing him as Sir Anthony throughout the shoot.[10]Rmendenhall (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Welsh

Just confirming this as an IP seems intent on edit warring over it. I have seen the archives but this is an attempt to discuss with the IP.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects.

Mr. Hopkins only appears to be in two of these, one for BLP's the other for Wales...uhhh... --Τασουλα (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Expatriate actors in the United States

Why does this category contain Canadian and Australian actors, but no Brits such as Hopkins? Is it because, having acquired US citizenship, he is no longer considered an expatriate, even though he retains UK citizenship? But there must be hundreds of other British actors who never took out US citizenship but still spent the greater part of their lives in Hollywood. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is a Knight of the Realm any more. When he took US citizenship in 2000, part of the oath he took was "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I heretofor been a subject or citizen". No matter what he or the Authorities say, he has renounced his title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.80.231 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's just patently false, the US has long allowed dual-citizenship, and Sir Anthony himself still considers himself British.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of dual-citizenship. What is patently obvious is that he has sworn (before a number of witnesses) - "I absolutely and entirely renounce .. all allegiance .. to any .. state .. which I heretofor been a subject or citizen" - in otherwords, he renounced all allegiance to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. How does that square with "still considers himself British"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.245.129 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

He wanted US citizenship, simple as really. People swear to tell the truth in court, that doesn't prevent perjury. The oath is symbolic, nothing more. He is a British citizen, has not renounced that fact and still considers himself as such, regardless of whatever the United States forces people to say in citizenship ceremonies.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you voluntarily become an American citizen, you are an American, full-stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.210.214 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed

A strange sentence

The article contains the following text: Has a wax replica of himself sitting in Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in Amsterdam. Is that taken to mean that Hopkins owns such a replica? Or that there is such a wax replica in Madam Tussauds' Wax Museum? The question is "who"? This also needs a citation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agnosticism, atheism

So, apparently, he made some agnostic pronouncements about God and Tinkerbell ("I don't know what I believe") in January 2011, and then declared himself to believe in God and to have done so since the mid 1970s - in February 2011. Both in connection with his role as an exorcist in The Rite, which premiered then. I don't think this indicates that he changed his mind or "renounced atheism" between January and February; rather, either he casually contradicts himself, or some of the sources are misrepresenting his statements. Also, all the sources on the issue seem to be of rather poor quality - blogs, religious websites etc., so the best thing would probably be to delete all of the stuff about it. --91.148.130.233 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Small screen debut

The roles section states that he made his 'small screen debut' in 1967. However he had a minor role as a doctor in an episode of the television series The Man in Room 17 in 1965. This is noted on the Imdb page The Man in Room 17 - A Minor Operation The episode is available on DVD in the UK. Exbeardy (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

About Anthony Hopkins' birth date

Anthony Hopkins himself said he was born in 1939 on the Craig Ferguson Show 17 July 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-3UWQ_FY_0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainthinker (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Public records show that his birth was "registered" in the 1st quarter (January, February and March) of 1938, so I guess it is most likely that the researcher's 31 December 1937 is accurate. Mr Hopkins seems very confused about many aspects of his life! 79.76.121.161 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My edit about "And the Waltz Goes On"

I have added to the article:

"Hopkins had never heard his composition, "And the Waltz Goes On", before it was premiered by Rieu's orchestra in Vienna;..."

I've not found that in writing, but it's on the video of that first performance where Rieu tells the story of how he acquired the music from Hopkins, before playing it for an enthusiastic audience. Here: https://www.facebook.com/kinoexpert/videos/656937684343747/ (I don't think I've seen an audio source listed as a reference on Wikipedia...)

--Hordaland (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anthony Hopkins/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citing ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Age of Hopkins at time of composition of "And the Waltz Goes On"

I've seen 19 listed here and on the page for the album, but never in any primary source. The one primary source (a transcribed interview from Hopkins himself)[1] I have seen lists its composition in 1964, when Hopkins would have been 26-27.

Yes, that looks quite definitive, although all newspapers can make mistakes. I don't think that's a true "primary source". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Adam Jacques (11 November 2012). "How We Met: André Rieu & Sir Anthony Hopkins". The Independent. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Citizenship

Is there any reason why when an Irish actor gets British or American citizenship his categories reflect this: e.g. "American film actors", "American musicians"... yet when a British actor gets American citizenship it is given cursory mention and none of the categories reflect it; no mention of their American citizenship?

Very peculiar...

At least be consistent.

Indeed, the British contributors do not like to share. Bit of a joke really and still ignored when blatant inconsistencies are pointed out.83.217.166.101 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think something is missing you can add it or request that someone else adds it. Why do you assume this article is edited only by British contributors? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not British (not that that matters). After he was knighted, received his acting awards and became notable as Welsh, leaving notability aside, the claim was 'Welsh is not a nationality'. From Hopkins own mouth in 2012; "I suppose it's because we are both Welsh". Back on notability, to steal a line from an editor, via duality, Garry Kasparov is not Croatian, Bobby Fischer is not Icelandic. They became globally famous before duality. Hopkins is as Welsh as Welsh cakes. He's as intrinsically Welsh as the other Welsh actor he spoke off (Richard Burton), or the Welsh poet he directed a film on (Dylan Thomas). That Wiki Project Wales on this page is there for a reason.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anthony Hopkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

different contributor

Regarding "After graduating from the Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama in 1957," - this is incorrect. Anthony Hopkins attended the Royal Welsh College (training to become a harpist, I believe), but was evicted for some misconduct or other. He never graduated. At least, that's what I've heard from someone working at RWCMD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1A2E:6500:B5C3:58F0:CB2D:A433 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question here. Whether or not the information in this article is correct, your alternative is a 'bloke down the pub told me that...', which is not a reliable source. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Hopkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit the main section (the first one) (I can't seem to do it)

Red Dragon was a PREQUEL to The Silence of the Lambs, not a sequel

Red Dragon also needs to be credited towards Brian Cox! He honestly was the first Hannibal Lector! TommyD3 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anthony Hopkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Providing context for my recent edit: There happens to be a phenomenon where the wives of "creative" public figures (e.g. Gary Numan, Bram Cohen) read an article about Asperger syndrome in a magazine of some sort and promptly diagnose their husbands with the condition. The husbands then mention this to the press as if it were a medical conclusion. The source cited indicates that Hopkins came by his Asperger syndrome "diagnosis" in this manner. A source that refers more specifically to a professional diagnosis is needed. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The succinct but conclusive statement attributed in the lone citation (though https://www.scottpsychologicalservices.com/articles/56/Anthony-Hopkins-and-Aspergers-Syndrome/ offers more references and citations) to Hopkins, himself, is "I've been diagnosed with Asperger's." Absent something more suspicious in such a claim (such as "I believe I have Asperger syndrome" or "Others have told me that I might have Asperger syndrome), it is exactly the kind of direct ("I've been diagnosed"), first-person, self reference that WP expects and often requires to include it within the subject's article. The citation meets all WP conditions for inclusion. I suggest that the edit be reverted.73.131.228.245 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The complete quote is this:
"Well, I’ve been diagnosed with Asperger’s, but I’m high end. A lot of people with Asperger’s are highly functional, but inconsistent. They have nervous ticks, nervous habits, inconsistently obsessive thinking. Some neurological people don’t agree, but my wife was trying to figure out who she was married to and she read a newsletter from a psychotherapist. He said, 'You should see some of my patients.' He put it back on the map that Asperger’s people tend to be creative or severely handicapped. I don’t know if that’s true of me, but I know I can never be restful. I tend to multi-task. I decide I’m not going to paint and then I’ll spend 24 hours painting."
It doesn't actually say that only his wife made the diagnosis? Maybe it could be framed with "In a 2017 interview with The Desert Sun, Hopkins reported that..."? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I believe that the subject's wife provoked their consideration of a diagnostic assessment (how many other autistic WP subjects were similarly encouraged by family members or friends to pursue a diagnosis?), but there is no description of her involvement beyond that. Unlike some celebrities, the subject doesn't need his diagnosis to further his career. The specificity of his statement that he was "diagnosed" included several examples should be enough evidence to confirm the reference, and its citation(s) and source link(s).73.131.228.245 (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I have restored it. There is a more detailed discussion here, at the website of a Singaporean psychological services practice, although I'm not sure that source is wholly reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Hopkins/Archive_1&oldid=1142384313"