Talk:Alfred Hitchcock: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 10:03, 30 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alfred Hitchcock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Alfred Hitchcock is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Alfred Hitchcock has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 19, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
December 1, 2004	Featured article review	Demoted
October 17, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 30, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
March 22, 2018	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 13, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

"Shamley Productions" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shamley Productions. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 7#Shamley Productions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

We have this photo by Jack Mitchell, an important photographer. Can we fit it in somewhere?

—valereee (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hitchcock

In the article it says having had 5 nominations which is incorrect grammar 162.234.206.89 (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hitchcock is often described as an auteur; François Truffaut wrote that “Because he exercises such complete control over all the elements of his films and imprints his personal concepts at each step of the way, Hitchcock has a distinctive style of his own. He is undoubtedly one of the few film-makers on the horizon today whose screen signature can be identified as soon as the picture begins.” Anthony Lane writes "I once asked a friend who had never seen Marnie to guess the director. Skipping the opening credits, I started a stopwatch on the first shot—Tippi Hedren's clutch bag under her arm as she walks along a station platform. 'Hitchcock,' he said, and I checked the watch. Twelve seconds." 2601:281:8300:9AF0:552B:C4B0:A82F:49A4 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

age at death

basic math will conclude that he was not age 80 when he died in 1980, having been born in 1899 2600:1702:3220:23B0:2CA3:2349:976F:95E9 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of basic math would that be? He was born in August and died in April, making him 80 years and about 8 months old. When giving someone's age, we typically say the number of completed years. In Hitchcock's case, that was 80. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

why in the title it is mentioned as English filmmaker but in citizenship section it's mentioned as United Kingdom and United States Ashokkumar047 (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-American

We had the article describing him as "English" and I changed it to "Anglo-American" because that is how to more accurately introduce him to the reader. There was an editors note suggesting not to change it, to wit:

as per MOS:BIO; In addition to notability, self identification; "I'm English": Hitchcock in a 1963 interview with Fallaci; see http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2016/06/14/fallaci-hitchcock-interview/

But, I can't see much merit in that. He was an immigrant to America, spent half his life and most of his adult life in Los Angeles, made more than half of his films, including of his most famous and great ones, while living and working in America, and had dual citizenship from 1955.

And all Fallaci has (in the ref) is Hitchcock saying "And then it must be because I’m English", explaining why he naturally finds imaginative and amusing ways for his characters to be killed. It's not like he's saying "I don't consider myself American, at all" or something. (And even if it was, subjects are not good sources for unbiased facts in biographies. Lots of people self-identify as having various qualities that they actually don't. It's a data point but no more.)

I'm confident that Hitchcock would have preferred to stay in Britain and only came to America because he had to in order to have an A+ level career, and that's too bad for Britain, and not really fair either. But it is what it is. It'd smack of special pleading to introduce him as either just "American" or "English".

I don't know what part of MS:BIO is being referred to, but if it is advising us to mislead the reader it'd best be ignored, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally in such instances we place precedence in how the the subject chooses to self-identify in reference to nationality, so I would agree with the reverseal back to "English". I do not understand how exactly this is misleading at all. (We do not describe Einstein as German-American despite a lot of portion of is spent in the US). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and in additition to self-identity, notability is also key here and he became globally famous as an Englishman. As is noted he had also become critically acclaimed/celebrated prior to any Hollywood film ("Three unique and valuable institutions the British have that we in America have not: Magna Carta, the Tower Bridge and Alfred Hitchcock, the greatest director of screen melodramas in the world.") Para Clark (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mnmh, I hear you. But, I can't agree still, cos:

We're not deciding if he should be characterized as "English" or "American". If we had to chose one, it's reasonable to hold that it be "English". But that's not what we're doing here. In dispute, if a compromise is available, that can be a good solution, and "Anglo-American" is sort of a compromise. Sort of.
There's no slam-dunk argument either way. There are data points on each side and we weigh them. Data points that we might consider are:

Self-identification, but that is quite low on the list, as I said. It's personal opinion that's probably biased. People are just poor sources for their own bios (for many facts). They are very good sources for if they hava an opinion, but not for if the opinion is true. Grey Owl said he was an Indian, maybe even kinda-sorta thought he was an Indian, in a way. But his birth name was Archibald Stansfeld Belaney and we don't describe him as an Indian. Etc.
Identification by others (as seen in "Three unique..." quote). In other words, what sources say. How notable and neutral the sources are matters a lot (also how much standing they have to weigh in). This goes high on the list. But not quite as high as if we were debating objective facts, e.g. how tall he was etc. We're talking about opinions here. (One reason why reliability doesn't matter here; all source are very reliable for their own opinions.)
Current usual practice, if there is one. Pretty high I guess. (If there is rule (E.g. WHO_IS_WHAT_NATIONALITY also, that's another data point, but only if it codifies usual practice anyway rather than having been written by seven people 16 years ago or whatever.)
Our own actual consideration and logic. If -- if -- there is a good majority of the most notable and unbiased sources saying one thing, and other things also weighing on that side, that's different. But if there isn't, just using our own wits matters.

Probably other things I'm not thinking of. I'm going to look at some of these presently, but not right now. There's no hurry here (as my edit was rolled back, IMO, and it's not super important. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchcock referred to himself as English, and self-identification takes precedence, it's who you are. He was also renowned as a particular type of English as articulated by a biographer in the Chicago Sun Times from 1978 who called him 'a straightforward middle-class Englishman who just happened to be an artistic genius'. He made his name in England as a peerless filmmaker which is why he got the Selznick contract, with The Telegraph summing up the overwhelming view of his status in Britain by calling him 'unquestionably the greatest filmmaker to emerge from these islands'. We go with identity, who the person is. It's as straightforward as that. Gabriella MNT (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looked at MOS:NATIONALITY. It seems like the recommendation there, in a disputed case like this, would be to omit characterizing his nationality at all, in the lede or probably anywhere. Let the reader decide what nationality she wants to peg him to, if she cares, based on the material in the article. We don't want to lead the reader. If we did go with the double countries, it should be "British and American", not "Anglo-American." Did not know this. For Einstein, they have "German-born" which would at least be an improvement here. I suppose that is because "German and Swiss and American" would be unwieldy and possibly debatable. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALFRED HITCHCOCK FAMILY HOME MOVIES 1929

2601:646:201:57F0:C452:D28F:99A4:46C1 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]