Talk:Hugh Grant/Archive 1

Archive 1

About the "receptive oral copulation"/fellatio revert war

Many of you may have noticed a little revert war going on about the phrase "receptive oral copulation" in Mister Grant's personal like section. As soon as one reader put the wording of the police report into the article it is soon removed by another Wiki who appears to be a fan of this charming Englishman with his hand caught in the "nookie jar." As of this writing Blow Job appears in Divine Brown bio and Oral Sex appears in Monica Lewinski. Clearly the medical/legal term of Fellatio can appear in Grant's bio. Cr8tiv

70.81.94.99 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) "Not long after gaining the starring role in Sense and Sensibility in 1995, ..." Is it going a bit far to call it "the" starring role? The role is a major one in the book and film, but is it the starring one in the film?

I know being explicit is an option, I just don't think it a tasteful one. Do we know if Denise Brown was a "real women" or a "transexual"? Nunh-huh 10:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Seminumerical 23:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC) She is a real woman. She is presently working, legally, as a prostitute at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

70.81.94.99 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Do we need to continue to mention this? It is a minor blip that most people have long forgotten.

Mr. Grant's publicists have done an excellent job writing this article. 72.45.66.141 16:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

Hugh Grant is the only actor I've yet seen who's entry isn't laid out like the others in his profession. Any chance someone with good knowledge of him could add a filmography?

--erm... not registered yet! 18:56, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Written up the filmography and them some. But does anyone know how to do those neat [1] things that link to external links? It needs to be placed in with a bit about the charity auction.

I think some of the people contributing on film and actors don't bother with a filmography and just slap in a link to the equivalent IMDb entry. However when people do add them, they are welcome, particularly if it is a selected filmography containing only major roles - i.e. the kind of editorial judgement that sets us apart from the complete DB listing of IMDb.

To get the [1] style write the full http link inside a single set of brackets [ ]. To get the full visible URL, exclude the brackets. Take a look at the wikicode for the following

[1]

http://www.google.com

This is a link to Google.com

hth, Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

"He has never appeared in London Stage" What exactly is "London Stage" ? He was part of a comedy troupe called The Jockeys of Norfolk which appeared in several London pub theatres. Besides in those days in order to get an Equity card you had to tour the country playing small roles.

How come there's no mention in his Filmography - or anywhere else as far as I can see - of his role in Sirens in 1993? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.25.169 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

Can't we get a better quality image? --Tothebarricades.tk 03:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- There is a new picture, but I don't think that's even him! It doesn't look like him, anyway. Lunapuella 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- I added a CC licensed image from Flickr yesterday. It's not him personally, but the wax figure in Madam Tussauds. I think it does represent him the best possible way and the only decent CC licensed image I could find that was suitable Poeloq 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

- But that picture sucks, quite frankly Artvandelay 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

- It's one of the worst pictures I've seen. Also Madame Tussauds have clearly done a rather poor job of recreating his image if that's the best they could come up with. There must be a better picture of him somewhere that can be used legally. Misco 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

- Still, it is currently the only image I can find that is properly licensed for Wikipedia. Poeloq 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

- Hey there, the image is really not representing. If anyone found a better image, can you plz upload it. Thank you. A J Damen

Jemima

Saw pictures of Hugh Grant and Jemima Goldsmith on holiday in a German magazine... Have they really split up? Didn't seem to be true.

No, it's not true. The rumours that they split up surfaced last summer, apparently due to Liz Hurley sucking Hugh's finger at the White Tie and Tiara Ball in June. Apparently, they spent most of the summer apart following this incident.

But this isn't true, as Jemima spent a month with Hugh in LA while he was filming American Dreamz in July and they spent the rest of the summer in Cornwall-as chronicled by the paparazzi in both cases, so it's a mystery why the British press continued to say that the relationship was in trouble. They spent almost two weeks over the New Year in Barbados with Jemima's two sons from her first marriage, and are said to be househunting in London at present.

Mugshot: should real-life facts such as arrests be in a biography?

Is it just me or does this page show a mugshot of Hugh Grant without actually describing any legal trouble? I'd add it in, but I hadn't known about it myself.

It's a disconnnect that can go either way: someone add something about his legal issues, or I think the mugshot should go. This isn't The Smoking Gun ;)

I agree it's silly having one and not the other. I've removed the mugshot since it had already been decided earlier that the Divine Brown incident was irrelevant. --Misco 21:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the mugshot should be removed. It is ok to mention the incident as it did happen, but ever article about Hugh Grant contains that photo. It was a long time ago and I think that is should be removed.203.39.13.66 04:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Sheena§

What would be really great is to have a freely-licensed image of Mr. Grant. Any amateur paparazzi out there willing to lend a hand? Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Divine Brown incident is VERY relevant. Wikipedia is not sugar coated star worship. This is a biography and not a press release! User:Cr8tiv 12:50 24 March 2007

True enough, but anything that is added must be properly sourced. Don't add information on this subject without a direct reference that says exactly the words you add. Risker 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's not even close to wikipedia policy. 72.144.198.53 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a post by User:Cr8tiv referring to this incident that includes many elements violating the Wikipedia policy on biographical information about living people - specifically, Cr8tiv's opinions on Grant's sexual proclivities. To quote from the policy:

• "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• No original research

• "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Grant's arrest is discussed in the current article, and includes the violation for which he was charged. It is referenced with a reliable source (the UK Daily Telegraph), and all of the information in the WP article is also in the reference source. Should anyone wish to expand this section, it must be done using references to a reliable source that actually support the information being added. As well, it must not be given undue weight. Given the relatively minor impact on Grant's life (and its apparent non-existent impact on his career), one sentence pretty well does it. Risker 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Divine Brown incident and the huge amount of media coverage it received was a major episode in Grant's life. It is still one of the things which he is most known for. Therefore, it is a very significant part of his public life, not merely his personal life, and as such must be in the article. Qzm (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Scottish ancestry

"... James and the late Finvola Grant, who was of Scottish ancestry." That makes it sound like Finvola was of Scottish ancestry. Maybe she was, I don't know. But unquestionably his father is of Scottish ancestry. Clan Grant, etc. He is descended from Mungo Grant (check his middle name) or if you go back farther he is the direct descendant of John Grant, Knight, Sheriff of Inverness, c 1430

Enagagement

This newspaper article says the "secret engagement" is yet to be confiremed and the reference in the article does not even mention an engagement. Agathoclea 13:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it baked beans or mashed potatoes that Grant threw in a temper tantrum?

We need to get these facts straight as we document his history in Wikipedia. I have not seen any Mashed Potato news sources but plenty that have "Baked Beans". Also I have found thousands and thousands articles that mention Fellatio and Mister Grant. We need to get this right as Wikipedia must report the good the bad and the bean throwing rampages. Also if he did throw Baked Beans and we say Potatoes it would be scandalous to our reputation as a Wiki community Cr8tiv May 30 2007

I simply cannot find the source for the Mashed Potatoes being thrown. I put it back to the well known and well documented Baked Beans that Grant threw at a helpless photographer that he so politely wished cancer on. Oh WAIT, it was the CHILDREN of the assault victim that Grant wished cancer on; My Bad! Cr8tiv June 1 2007 4:00

The explosion of "Bean Gate" arrest is a lingering gas

Please do not sanitize and remove Mister Grant's personal life by deleting SOURCED information. I can provide you with many, many, many Hugh Grant fan websites that are geared to giggling school girls that refuse to believe the stories of Prostitutes for hire and childish Baked Bean episodes. Lets keep wiki about SOLID sources; not sources that are so much stinky hot air. Cr8tiv 4:00 June 19 2007

Estimated net worth

Does the person who added that Grant's worth $255 million have a source? Please provide some credible reference in a day or two, or I think it'll have to be taken down. I searched but I could hardly find any article estimating his worth, let alone a credible one. Dareit 10:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

With the article having failed to reach FA Status at this moment, it might be logical to perhaps nominate this article for GA Status. I haven't actually read the article yet, but it's just a thought. Eagle Owl 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With a quick glance, with the amount of sourcing and well-developed article, it should at least be taken to GA. Be sure to check it against the GA criteria first, and give it a copyedit before nominating. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold comments

After some copy editing, here we go:

• "With relatively sparse on-screen work as rogues and gentlemen…" not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.
• Are the Herald Sun and tiscali reliable sources?
• Per the MoS, non-breaking spaces should be used, instead of a normal typed space, when using numbers followed by words, e.g., "…while his movies have earned more than $2.4 billion from 25 theatrical releases worldwide." (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces).
• I would suggest you use the international date style (e.g., 30 March 1994 as opposed to March 30, 1994), as this article has strong national ties to a particular English-speaking nation, in this case one that uses the former format (again, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)).
• "Grant dabbled in a variety of jobs: he wrote book reviews; worked as assistant groundsman at Fulham Football Club;… " I don't believe that there's a need for semicolons over commas here, correct me if I'm wrong. This occurs several other times throughout.
• "Grant's first respectable leading role" Unnecessary POV, remove "respectable".
• Overlinking throughout, especially for newspaper titles.
• Spaced hyphens (and variations on that theme, like "--" and "---") used as em dashes should be replaced with the actual symbol.
• Don't see how fair use applies for Image:Hugh Grant on BBC Breakfast.jpg.
• "dated February 18, 21 and 24." No need to link the first, as it is not a full date.
• What is the need for Image:Grantonoprah.jpg?

Tell me when done or if you have any questions. Cheers, 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't previously edited this article in any length (have to give credit to whoever it was who massively expanded it), but I did submit it for G.A. status. Anyway, I removed the Tiscali reference, but I left the Herald Sun one in, as it was an interview with Grant. Aside from that, I agree with everything you said above and have thus amended the article along those lines. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the article and I'm glad you nominated it! I just actually noticed that it was even nominated and is now a good article. Great :) Busillis (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

````i am not an editor but i am pretty sure this page was hijacked so i deleted all of it in hopes of someone who has a clue fixez it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.159.172 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 24, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Definitely.

2. Factually accurate?: Good refs.

3. Broad in coverage?: Quite.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: If more free images could be found, great.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Galsworthy scholarship

Does anyone have any evidence that Hugh Grant won "the Galsworthy scholarship" to go to New College, or even that such a thing exists (I know Galsworthy is an alumnus) ? There are NO google hits for "the Galsworthy scholarship" that don't refer to Grant. Who else has won this honour ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.2.85 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article gives you the source for his Galsworthy scholaship - it is included in Grant's biography as published by the Costa Book awards when he served as a judge for the awards(see here: http://www.costabookawards.com/awards/previous_judges.aspx). I think that is a very credible source. As for why there are no links to it with regards to other recipients, all I can say is that many scholarships are temporary and often get renamed. It seems logical to expect that the scholarship was an institutional one handed out by Oxford and during the time Grant went to college, it was named after Galsworthy for a few years and was then changed to the name of some other alumni who helped fund it later. It also seems that not many other Galsworthy scholarship recipients made it big for the scholarship to have gained much notice.Busillis (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An anticipated, needed cosmetic update

I'm not very familiar with the life of Hugh Grant, so am not qualified to modify the text I've read, but find an error in the copy. It reads: "The arrest occurred about two weeks before the release of Grant's first major studio film, Nine Months, which he was scheduled to promote on several American television shows". I suspect "promote", at the end of the sentence, should read "premier", but not knowing will leave any needed edit to those who do know.Rbenson6660 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The word promote is correct. It is somewhat obligatory for major film actors in the US and UK to appear for interviews on talk shows and television newscasts, discussing upcoming movies, in part, to give viewers more information about the movie in public interst piecesust for public interest, but mainly, to raise public awareness of the movie: free advertising. Hugh Grant as a leading actor would be a prime candidate --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Zoo

'Oxford Zoo' ??? There is no Oxford zoo - and the link to The Times gives a 404 error Hpengwyn (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's true - there's no Oxford Zoo! Although this OUCS teaching site could easily confuse... Also seems there was briefly one in the 1930s. Any way, the quote was clearly changed for someone's amusement - I've changed it back. Amazed to see it's stayed wrong for well over a year... – drw25 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive info

There is a lot of excessive info about Grant's personality, thoughts, etc. in this article, which is well written. This is some great research for a book, but it seems a little too much for an encyclopedia. I am going to trim the fat, so to say. Any thoughts on what you think can go?Hutch y2k (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Phone hacking exposé (moved from personal talk page)

If it was "wholly unjustified", do you really think I'd revert it, what, just to annoy you? I wouldn't. Please consider this: the article on Hugh Grant is supposed to place him and his life and career in context, while maintaining a neutral point of view. So 1000 of material that's only tangentially related to him and his career is not justifiable. The material itself gives the phone hacking scandal far too much weight to the incident and is clearly recentism—in a year's time, what will be remembered is that the News of the World was closed because it hacked people's phones, rather than whose phones they hacked. I would ask you to reconsider your revert, on the basis of WP:BRD—you were bold, I reverted, so the proper thing now is to discuss, not to revert the revert—and take it to the talk page if you really think we should be giving that much coverage to this incident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The key material I was restoring to the article was added several months ago, by me, and deleted this week, covertly, by an anonymous editor. So if you want to throw allegations of 'recentism', then I'm not the most appropriate target. Grant's involvement in the phone hacking exposé is not remotely tangential to him, his life and his career; it makes total sense within the context of his past experiences with the tabloids for him to have wreaked revenge on Murdoch. He described his own feelings after learning that his phone had been hacked as 'primeval fury'. So this is by no means a flash in the pan. The much broader phone-hacking scandal has been slowly building for years, and with these revelations about the hacking of murder victims' voicemail, a critical point has been reached. This scenario wasn't something that Grant stumbled into by accident. His New Statesman interview contained pointed questions about the phone-hacking of the murdered schoolgirls, and the collusion of David Cameron with the Murdoch press. This week, Grant has been highly articulate and persistent about joining up the dots for people who don't see the picture. Whatever you believe about the allegations Grant extracted from McMullen, there is no doubt that they are politically significant. This latest scandal has forced the closure of a best-selling Murdoch newspaper and cross-party calls for the rejection of Murdoch's BSkyB bid. There will undoubtedly be a judicial inquiry, again because of cross-party agreement. There is a strong likelihood that Andy Coulson and James Murdoch will face criminal charges. Questions have been raised about the integrity of David Cameron, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and an unknown number of police officers. The fact that 200 NOTW staff have been sacked at short notice, while Rebekah Brooks remains in office and Murdoch plans to launch the Sunday Sun imminently, is another powder keg. To say that all these events will be forgotten in 12 months' time is ridiculous. And you haven't said anything substantial at all to support the reversion of my edit. If you wanted to edit Grant's biography on pure grounds of relevance, then to show neutrality, you should have moved the material to the linked article yourself, instead of reverting my edit and throwing it away. As things stand, you certainly don't look neutral to me. Rubywine (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This article relies heavily on citations to thepeerage.com, which has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN and determined that it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as references in articles.[2][3] Self-published sources cannot be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPSThe citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags inserted for the former footnotes. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by in-line citation to a reliable source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you insist on citing a self-published source that has been determined not to be a reliable source even in a BLP, the text is coming out as well. It is incumbent on anyone restoring the text to source it to a reliable source. Thepeerage.com isn't. Fladrif (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Grant British American

Hugh Grant lived in America and has had a brillant career there and has a american citzenship ,he also has Irish Ancestry on his grandmother's side. Hugh Grant should be called British American if Craig Ferguson is called Scottish American it would make sense to call Hugh Grant a British American.--11113 o7 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and do you have any proof of this? --Τασουλα (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

'Work ethic'?

Is this section really necessary? Most of it could go under general career - and isn't debating someone's work ethic shameless PoV? Smurfmeister (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

He got his "accent" from his mother?

Hugh Grant is British. He didn't "inherit" his accent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Relationships

In the Thomas Brodie-Sangster article it is noted that Hugh Grant is a distant cousin, why isn't the relationship mentioned in this article? LA (T) @ 15:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)