Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pronunciation of surname

Note that he and his family pronounced the family name "uh-liv-yuh". See: http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000267.php 82.46.181.249 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Esmond named Leigh as co-respondent in her divorce on grounds of adultery. Leigh named Plowright as co-respondent in her divorce, also on grounds of adultery. Plowright said "I have always resented the comments that it was I who was the homewrecker of Larry's marriage to Vivien Leigh. Danny Kaye was attached to Larry far earlier than I," referring to biography Donald Spoto's claim that Kaye and Olivier were lovers. He was reportedly also intimate with playwright Noel Coward.

I'm assuming that the "He" of the last line is supposed to be Laurence? Given Laurence is referenced once in the paragraph and not particularly recent to that last sence, we may wish to clarify. That said, I wanted to ask first, as it may be that Sir Laurence is not being referenced. *wry grin* I'm still not all that great with this "be bold with editting" bit. -Fuzzy 19:37, 17 February 2005 (UTC)

Knighthood

Is it correct to cite Olivier at the very beginning as "Sir ... KBE"? Doesn't the inclusion of the KBE negate the need for the "Sir" (which he wouldn't have used once elevated to the peerage)?

Whouk 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and the "Sir" is never used in articles on peers, because it's not a style appropriate after elevation to the peerage. It's a bit like writing "Dr Sir John Smith", and I wish people would stop adding it everywhere. :( Proteus (Talk) 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually 'Dr Sir John Smith' would be the correct way of referring to someone who is both a doctor and a knight (just as Professor Dame Margaret Turner-Warwick was the correct way of referring to the former President of the Royal College of Physicians in London). If you were speaking to Dr Sir John Smith, you would call him 'Sir John'. However, it is quite correct to say that it if Sir John Smith is elevated to the peerage, it is not appropriate to refer to him as 'Sir John Smith' any more. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to 'Sir Laurence Olivier'. ChristopherW, 29 May 2006

This isn't true. Titles from the Sovereign override titles from other sources. "Professor Dame Jane Smith" and "Dr Sir John Smith" are wrong. Read Debrett's Correct Form if you believe otherwise. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, how complicated! No wonder he told everybody to call him Larry! 129.93.17.202 (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Tom

bottom box

Would anyone be kind enough to explain the purpose of the bottom box in this article, the one that says "Laurence Olivier" and then has "Shakespeare Films" and "Other Films" in it? - IstvanWolf 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's his films as director, as well as books he wrote, and links to his production company, filmography, and his productions. It's a sort of a mish-mash of a director and an author template, giving you access to all of his works. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Laurence Olivier Awards

This has been moved into the Honours section. Obviously it was an honour for Olivier to have an award named after him, but the awards are presented to other actors, making it first and foremost an honour for them. I'm not sure this belongs where it is at the moment. JackofOz 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think the problem is that the biographical content of the article is very inadequate. There should be somewhere to put this, but there is not. Many bio articles have a "Legacy" or similar section which discusses the overall impact or lasting influence of the person - this would be the ideal heading under which to not only mention the awards, but to briefly discuss them. (Plus there is much more that could be said about his lasting impact on acting) It's a huge honour, no doubt, and worth more than a sentence, but it's not the correct context to place it under "Honours". Rossrs 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Succession box

Is there any point to a succession box for a life peerage? It was created for him and died with him. SteveCrook 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it looks impressive ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

A lot of notes cite a single website, described as a biography. A quick look at this suggests that it's a curious ragbag of things taken -- properly or improperly, I didn't check -- from elsewhere. Better to check the named sources (e.g. James Agee) directly, and cite them.

A lot of other notes cite a single biography by Terry Coleman. Clearly this is a book of several hundred pages. Page numbers should be specified.

Plowright is conspicuously quoted as commenting (rather ambiguously) on some claim by Spoto. The source for this is labeled "note-trashyspotobook". If Spoto's book is trashy, either ignore it or explain how it's trashy. Even if you take the latter option, it would be better not to use the word "trashy". If Plowright is worth quoting, say where she's quoted from. -- Hoary 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, removed trashy, it was an in-joke. As for the page numbers, that will take some time, and it can also be difficult, as different publications of a book will have different content on different pages. James Agee is now cited. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort, but oddities remain. First, it's not clear from the quotation that Plowright is referring to a claim as it was made by Spoto. Was she, or wasn't she? If she was, there seems no point quoting her: better to cite Spoto directly (and a page number would help). If she wasn't -- if she instead had knowledge that was independent of this book -- then it could be worthwhile. And you should say where the quotation is from. (Clearly it's not from the book, if she's referring to the book.) Secondly, the note reading "Laurence Olivier Biography by James Agee - Agee On Film" is odd. Do all these notes refer to this one web page? (I could check, but I'm fiendishly busy today.) If so, then they should be attributed more conspicuously to Agee: his name should come first, and the web reproduction should follow that. Incidentally, the book title is more normally written as Agee on Film (lowercase "o"). -- Hoary 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agee reference fixed, as for the Spoto one, The citation is placed at the end of "Spoto's claim that Kaye and Olivier were lovers". When I find a citation for Plowright, however, I will place it directly at the end of her quote. Which I just did. Coleman bio is now split up into pages, barring citations that refer generally to the book, not to a specific page or Chapter. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done! -- Hoary 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes and references

Rather oddly, the Wikimedia preprocessing markup for "dump notes here" is "<references />". But it does dump notes, and not bibliographic references in any normal sense of the word. Now consider this note: "Coleman, Terry (2005). Olivier. Henry Hilt and Co.. ISBN 0805075364. Page 133". It's arranged as an item in a list of references: by contrast, a note has no need for a reversal name order, and is customarily presented in continuous form rather than chopped up by periods. Correcting the spelling of the publisher, and guessing that Holt is based in NY (offhand, I forget), a more normal first note citing the book (expanded to include ISBN) would be: "Terry Coleman, Olivier (New York: Henry Holt, 2005; ISBN 0805075364), p. 133." and a later note: "Coleman, Olivier, p. 63." -- Hoary 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Within a <references> construct you can use the Template:Cite book or Template:Cite web -- SteveCrook 08:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You certainly can -- and if you do, you end up with notes in (what is to my mind a bizarrely inappropriate) reference-list form. ¶ Look, lists of references are in order of author: in linguistics, they very often run from "Abney, Steve" to "Zwicky, Arnold". Notes (which is what Wikimedia cite.php "references" are) are not in alphabetical order, so why invert the order of westerners' names? Hoary 11:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, this is a technical error, not a fault of the aricle, no? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the question. If it's "This is an error of the template, not of the article that references it, no?" then I'd respond that if the template seems unsuitable it should not be used. ¶ Consider Ueno Hikoma. Oddly, this has "Notes", "References", and also "Further Reading"; it's not immediately clear how "References" are related to "Further Reading", or, if the reason for the distinction is that "References" are references for statements made in that article, why some of those references aren't expressly referred to in the notes. So Ueno Hikoma is a bit chaotic, and (as well as for other reasons) hasn't yet been put up for GA for a second time. Still, set that article's "References" and "Further Reading" sections aside for a moment and instead concentrate on its "Notes". Each elaborates on something or provides the source for an assertion, with minimal repetition of what was in an earlier note. That's how notes should work, I believe. They may be supplemented or replaced by a list of references of the kind that WP's template serves up. -- Hoary 07:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So, uh, forgive my ignorance, but what am I to do? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "<ref>....</ref>"-enclosed "references" are actually notes, so format them like notes. No template that I know of does this. You can therefore create your own template (if you're very energetic) and use that, or do what User:Pinkville has done at Ueno Hikoma and many editors have done elsewhere: avoid such templates within "<ref>....</ref>" and instead just write the stuff out. What's now your first footnote would read

Terry Coleman, Olivier (New York: Henry Holt; ISBN 0805075364), 21.

(assuming it was published in NY), and what's now the fourth would read:

Coleman, Olivier, 64–5.

Just like the notes in a printed book, no? (Except that printed books rarely if ever bother with ISBN numbers.) -- Hoary 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! OK, I'll get right on it. Then GA perhaps? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's make this a good article, then

Greatest actor

He was regarded by many critics as the greatest actor of the 20th century. This is a big claim. Please name three of these critics, and specify where they say this. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really a difficult one. Critics, when talking about his, say that "many regard him to be", or "widely thought to be", or "touted as", but nobody has the gall to actually say it. What do you propose? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Olivier became torn by guilt over having left his second wife Vivien Leigh, and so he immersed himself in his work (Or again He left Vivien Leigh for Plowright, a decision that apparently gave him a sense of guilt for the rest of his life.) Sez who? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

he simply would not listen to anyone addressing him with honorifics such as "Lord", and "Sir". Source this. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Who did he play?

Olivier played over 120 stage roles, including: Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello, Uncle Vanya, and The Entertainer

I'm surprised to infer that he played Juliet. I guess that means: "Olivier played over 120 stage roles, including: Macbeth, Romeo, Hamlet, Othello, Uncle Vanya, and the title role of Osborne's The Entertainer." But I don't know for sure. -- Hoary 12:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He did once play Katherine in The Taming of the Shrew. I think he was 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouchend524 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Specificity

Young Laurence took solace in his mother's care, and was grief-stricken when she died at a young age. I suppose that means when she was young; it might mean when he was young; either way, why not specify? ("was grief-stricken at eleven when she died at 33" or whatever)

Fixed and cited ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, and in time, he was playing roles such as Hamlet and Macbeth -- why not say when he was playing them?

Fixed ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

his career at the National ended, in his view, in betrayal, and tragedy. ... After being gradually forced out of his role as director of the Royal National Theatre, What does this "forcing out" or "betrayal" consist of?

Difficult. The National Theatre is the subject of Olivier on which I know the least (as you can see, it's the shortest paragraph I wrote). Could take time. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Olivier is interred in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey, London, only the second actor to be accorded that honour. You might name the first. Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added David Garrick as the first actor to be buried in Westminster Abbey. My understanding is that nowadays (and for quite some time) only "ashes" are interred in the Abbey. Should this be recorded? Orbicle 10:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "Lord Olivier's remains are interred in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey, London; he was only the second actor (after David Garrick) to be accorded that honour." This leaves open the rather macabre/trivial question of what those remains were/are, but I think doesn't misstate the facts. OtOH I'm not so conversant with undertakers' lingo and may have made a mistake. -- Hoary 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In modern times, to express tremendous excellence in acting, one deems the person in praise as "The Laurence Olivier of horror movies...romantic comedies...etc." The punctuation is a bit off; I'd make that In modern times, to express tremendous excellence in acting, one deems the person in praise as "the Laurence Olivier of" horror movies, romantic comedies, or whatever". But can we have an example of a critic or interesting writer (rather than just Joe Bloggs) saying this? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that, and whilst it's true, I can't find a tangible source. I'm getting rid of it. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

Olivier congratulated Leigh on her performance, and a friendship grew between them. Olivier took her to lunch one day, and the friendship developed. Sorry, but this really is a bit horrible. I mean, what's the difference between "growing" and "developing"? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What about "began" at first? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement. Hoary 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Olivier disregarded the award as a "fob-off". Do you mean that he regarded it as a fob-off? Or that he ignored the award (e.g. he didn't turn up to get it), and when asked about it referred to it as a fob-off? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He regarded it as a fob-off. He accepted the award, but gave it away. And "fob-off" were his exact words. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Hoary 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He had played this role more often -- than what other roles, or than who other had played it? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a result between 1973 and 1986 when his health gave out he did many films and TV specials on a "pay cheque" basis on the condition that he would not have to promote the film on release. Some of these later films even he despised, such as the notorious flop Inchon.

This is odd, as the first half suggests that he despised all this crap, bnut then the handful of exceptions (described as despised) seem to disprove the rule. By "even he despised" do you perhaps mean "he even despised"? But I think there are more problems here. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"he even despised". It's fixed ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Olivier and Plowright's son, Richard, described his father as being more interested in his work than in his children, and would become depressed when he didn't have a job. Sad if true; but if true, rather normal. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that should go? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it were elaborated -- imaginary example "and would even forget their birthdays" -- then it might be interesting. As it is, it's really a bit silly: it raises the question of how anybody (let alone a son) would be able to judge whether a father was more interested in his work than his children. -- Hoary 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. That was something that survived my major cleansing and re-structuring of the article a few weeks back, so I didn't write it. It can go for now. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When presenting the Oscars, in 1985, he infamously presented the Best Picture winner of the year, by simply stepping up to the microphone and saying "Amadeus". We've read of amnesia -- did he forget his lines? Or was he expressing his disgust with that film, or with his job as MC? I think you have to say some (well sourced) thing about this incident, to give it significance. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recommended for improving an article: click on the option for a version suitable for printing, print it out, and go through it with a red pen. (There's something mind-numbing about staring at a screen.) -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• How about mentioning his other children (he had 4 in total); for example, Richard Olivier, though not an actor, is using techniques from acting as a basis for personal development (see http://www.oliviermythodrama.com) - note, I don't think the site reference should be included (Wikipedia should not be used for promotion) but I've included it here in the discussion as indicates some relevance in listing his other children.

GA passed

Good article, informative and reads well, good pics to inform and well referenced. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Things that could be improved

I notice there is a peer review and a failed FA at the top, but aside from the suggestions there, here is what I'd improve:

• Intro - first paragraph seems like a summary of the whole article, but then with the second you seem to be starting the article itself - "clergyman's son"., etc. Last paragraph of opening probably doesn't nee to be there - move it down somewhere else in the article - under Personal Life somewhere. The opening should essentially summarize the article in chronological order - i.e. see my (if I may) Mandy Moore - start summarizing the first pargarph and summarize the rest in order until the end.

Sort of done... the lead does summarise his career.

• Formatting - Maybe a good idea to use the === headers for most of the sections, and == for two or three head sections - i.e. early life, career, personal life.

Done a bit...but the thing with a === header is that it denotes a subsection of the == header. Vivien Leigh is not really a subsection of Early Career now, is she?

• Maybe more details in early life - nothing in particular - just anything you can find and source. Also breathless statements like "and one thing in particular interested him about it: Vivien Leigh" need to be re-written from this literary tone to something more restrained.

Yeah, I intend on expanding the early life section, (I'm reading his Autobio). And I wasn't to happy with that VL wording, I'll fix it soon.

• A bit too much sectioning i.e. "Three Sisters" and "Othello" - not enough content in each to warrant its own header. You could always expand, though :)

I intend on expanding that very soon.

• Citations - stuff like "It was, in Olivier's opinion, his best work as director" and "The film was another resounding critical and commercial success both in Britain and abroad" obviously need a direct source right there. In fact, just go ahead and source essentially anything in the article that is not clearly and immediately obvious, and in fact, source some of the clearly and immediately obvious too

Those are cited. As I say, this is on the road to FA, I'm not saying that it's anywhere near that point now.

• And on that point, eveyr one of these major performances/plays you mention could use some reviews - preferrably from important critics - regarding Olivier's performance

I'll get on to it

• Cats need to be alpha-betized

Done

• It could just be me but there seem to be way too many charts. Internal links like the one to "Laurence Olivier chronology of stage and film performances" may be preferrable for some of the bigger ones especially "Other Awards"

What should the seperate article be called? It can't be Laurence Olivier Awards, so what?

• Maybe a few more pictures - well one or two

When I do the major expansion, maybe in a few days, I'll do that. There's a great picture of him in Wuthering Heights I intend to use, and a picture of him as Othello, as well as one in his old age. Possibly even a picture of the young Laurence.

• Probably a few more things - expansions here and there - clarification of the bisexuality section - i.e. don't start with the quote because it is confusing.

Done

Mad Jack 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well you could try something along the lines of Johnny Depp:List of awards & nominations. If people don't like it we can always delete and restore it here, I just personally think it takes up a lot of space. Mad Jack 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted

Article needs quite a bit of work. The "to do" list on this talk page is quite lengthy and the items listed are also quite substantial. It fails Wikipedia:What is a good article? because:

1a. The prose is not compelling. Some of the writing is awkward, and is more conversational than encyclopedic throughout the article. The lead paragraph is not good. Both paragraphs list examples of his work in stage and film and yet the two lists are different. It doesn't summarise the article as a lead paragraph should, but the article itself is not complete so an effective summary is not possible.

3a. It's not broad in its coverage. This is one of the most successful and influential actors of all time and the article does nothing to convey the scope of his achievements. One of his most stunning attributes was his versatility - from this article I would assume he devoted his life to Shakespeare, with one or two exceptions. This is very misleading. There is no real attempt to place his work into any context. It's very incomplete. Why is there a section on The Prince and the Showgirl with zero content? Is it going to be expanded? Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

3b. In some areas it veers off onto tangents. That would fine if the article was in more depth - tangents help place discussion into a broader context, but when the article itself is no more than a skeleton, these tangents seem all the more irrelevant.

I'd love to see this article become a good article, then a featured article, and I'd love to see a high quality version of this go onto Wikipedia:Version 0.5, but it is not currently at the required standard. Rossrs 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Later career section editing glitch?

While I was revising the "later career" section, the middle three or four paragraphs of the text inexplicably disappeared on the main page after I saved the changes. They appear in full in the edit box for the section, but not in the article itself. Refreshing the page doesn't seem to help. Any idea on what's going on here? Finduilas 09 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Is he originally of French ancestry, given his last name? 206.135.142.245 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Larry gay? Of course he was | the Daily MailMICHAEL THORNTON"

The article has recently acquired a pile of exciting [to some people] snippets about LO's sexual tastes, etc, attributed to "Larry gay? Of course he was | the Daily MailMICHAEL THORNTON".

I don't understand why an article in something purporting to be an encyclopedia needs to witter away about an actor's porking practices or fantasies. Still, if it's going to do this surely it should have better authority for it than a single article in this dread tabloid. -- Hoary 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between being gay and bisexual. Which was Larry? And people forget that back in the dark ages, it was not only damaging to your career to be out, it was illegal and you could be thrown in prison. So it's no wonder that people kept such things secret. It think it should need a more reputable and definitive source than the tabloid gossip of something like the Daily Mail to have it included in the body of the article. -- SteveCrook 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no wonder that people kept these things secret. To me, it is a wonder that some WP editors seem to think it's so important. (The Elvis Presley article has long shown less interest in Presley's crooning than in his "relationships".) But we agree that the Daily Wail is inferior stuff.

That much-cited article is a laugh. Here's the ostensible reason for the thing:

All this changed dramatically last weekend when Olivier's 76-year-old widow, Dame Joan Plowright, a woman of singular honesty and common sense, ended years of circumspection about the sexually ambiguous private life of her late husband in a remarkable interview with Sue Lawley on the radio programme Desert Island Discs. [...]

And what did she say? She's quoted as saying various things, notably that extramarital sex (or bisexuality or both) doesn't/don't matter. Thornton applauds her for her good sense, and ignores it by deriving a long article out of this.

We don't know when this stuff was published in the Wail, only that the web version was Last updated at 23:04pm on 1st September 2006. But I wonder what Private Eye had to say about it. -- Hoary 09:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All that, and plagiarism too!

Here's Thornton:

The night before Olivier's first marriage, in 1930, to the actress Jill Esmond - a strange coupling, for she was hardly marriage material and ended her life as a lesbian, living with another woman - Denys Blakelock, who was to be his best man, climbed into Olivier's bed, where Blakelock's hands "strayed". Olivier admitted this but insisted the full sex act did not take place.

And here's the WP article:

The night before Olivier's first marriage, in 1930, to the actress Jill Esmond - a strange coupling, for she was hardly marriage material and ended her life as a lesbian, living with another woman - Denys Blakelock, who was to be his best man, climbed into Olivier's bed, where Blakelock's hands "strayed". Olivier admitted this but insisted the full sex act did not take place.

I'm about to delete all of this stuff. -- Hoary 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on sexuality seems much more in balance with the other topics in the piece now that it's been cut back by User:Hoary. Now more like an encylopedia article!--Old Moonraker 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marathon Man2.jpg

Image:Marathon Man2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is on Olivier, Not V. Leigh

Most portions of this article under the sub-heading "Vivien Leigh" belong in an article about her, not Olivier. This article could be cleaned up considerably by removing most of this and inserting a link to the article on her. Only those parts specifically dealing with the relationship between Olivier and Leigh belong here.--Beetfarm Louie 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This has been copied and pasted from Vivien Leigh and is inappropriate here. It should be trimmed considerably, and if you do so, you will be helping this article considerably. I'll have a better look at it when I have more time. Rossrs 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of info but I think the basic structure of the article needs work. I think it would work best as a straight forward chronology rather than breaking Olivier's life and career into sections that do overlap quite a lot. For example now, after the Leigh section ends the next section jumps back to the early 1940s. The whole thing needs to be merged so that there is a smooth flow throughout. The numerous small sections towards the end of the article add to this disjointed effect. I think the Vivien Leigh section still looks to be too long but I think that's because Olivier's work away from Leigh is covered in less detail and is fragmented. I think even having a section called "Vivien Leigh" is a mistake, so there's a lot of work still to be done, IMO. Rossrs 08:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

SOE section

Fair to remove it? It all seems to be uncited. Alastairward 09:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense. SOE was an active military organisation engaged in sabotage and resistance in German-occupied Europe. Olivier was in Hollywood, making Lady Hamilton with Leigh.--Old Moonraker 06:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

SOE was also involved in intelligence gathering. It's not unreasonable that someone in America with a lot of connections would be asked to report on the mood of the country and the activities of the German American Bund and similar pro-Nazi groups as well as the isolationists prior to Pearl Harbor) -- SteveCrook 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Steve: should have also mentioned that he was in Canada shooting 49th Parallel at the time. More to the point, "it's not unreasonable" doesn't justify an encyclopaedia entry, in the absence of some stronger sourcing. Can anybody find anything?--Old Moonraker 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree "it's not unreasonable" doesn't justify an encyclopaedia entry. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't complete nonsense. And Olivier's scenes in 49th Parallel are all filmed in the studio (I'm not sure which studio) - he's only seen inside the Hudson's Bay station -- SteveCrook 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Checked back: Denham only; Olivier didn't go on location. You are right. --Old Moonraker 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You doubt me at your peril about anything to do with Powell & Pressburger films :) Check my profile -- SteveCrook 22:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks, Monkeyzpop. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lord Olivier or THE Lord Olivier?

User:Counter-revolutionary insists that the info box on Olivier is properly labeled "The Lord Olivier." Personally, I feel that it should show his name the way it is most commonly known, and I suggest that that would be how he was billed in each of his films and onstage, which was "Laurence Olivier." That's how most people know him, and it's how he chose to be known, insofar as manner of billing is always at the discretion of the actor. However, I'm perfectly willing to let that one slide and go with a reference to his lordship as the label for the info box. However, I disagree completely that it is proper in such a case to refer to him as "The" Lord Olivier. My understanding is that he was Lord Olivier, and that all British peers are described as Lord So-and-so rather than as The Lord So-and-so. User:Counter-revolutionary insists that the "The Lord" formation is the standard. Any comments from third parties who actually know and can back it up? Monkeyzpop 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct and formal style is The Right Hon. the Lord Olivier. The Lord Olivier is definitely wrong: this is used only for spoken introductions or announcements on formal occasions. (This is all from Whitaker's Almanack, which is very particular on these topics—nothing of my personal knowledge.) "Lord Whoever" is accepted as journalese and used in formal writing after the first use of "The Right Hon. the Lord Whoever". As a peer, Sir Laurence, which occasionally turns up here, would be incorrect usage.

I did originally put The Rt. Hon. the Lord Olivier, someone saw fit to remove The Rt. Hon., however. I think his formal style needs reflected somewhere, people often forget he became a peer. --Counter-revolutionary 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely the way to go for the infobox is to use his name: Laurence Olivier, as was invariably done within his lifetime? Any other form seems wrong in view of the subject's own, preferred usage, and indeed the usage whenever the man is discussed. The Laurence Kerr Olivier, Baron etc in the opening sentence (as shown at present) is completely acceptable, and is the form used in many print reference works, e.g. the authoritative ODNB. --Old Moonraker 06:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice the article on Tennyson labels the info box "The Lord Tennyson," but the picture in it is captioned "Alfred, Lord Tennyson," which is in my experience the most common variation on his name. I appreciate the information provide by Old Moonraker. I wonder, just out of curiosity, if there's a reason for the "Given Name, Lord Surname" construction with Tennyson that wouldn't apply to Olivier or other peers. Is "Laurence, Lord Olivier" acceptable? Monkeyzpop 06:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" usage may stem from the posthumous biography written by his son Hallam, also Lord Tennyson: Alfred Lord Tennyson: A Memoir by His Son. (1898) I can't find any examples before then. --Old Moonraker 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• How about a "Titles from birth to death" section, as seen in other articles, eg. Margaret Thatcher. This would clarify that, at the end of his life, he was styled The Rt. Hon. the Lord Olivier. --Counter-revolutionary 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GAC fail

Although the nominator was correct in that the article has improved somewhat since it was delisted from GA-status in 2006, a lot of work remains to be done. Much of the article still remains unsourced, including the entire "Centenary" section and most of "War" and "Shakespeare trilogy". Additionally, the prose is poor in places, two sections ("Awards and nominations" and "Theatre credits and filmography") are only links instead of containing a summary of the branched off articles, and the lead does not adhere to WP:LEAD in that it isn't a summary of the entire article. In short, this needs work and does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. María (habla conmigo) 14:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hologram?

Do we really need to refer to Olivier's appearance in Time as a hologram? It was billed as a hologram by the show's producers, but I saw the show and it clearly wasn't a hologram. First of all, holograms don't get that big, and second, they can't be projected. The show made a film of Olivier's face, which he was careful to keep still, and they projected it onto a large blank 3-d face sculpture. This creates the illusion that an actual (huge) face is hovering over the stage, but it's not a hologram, it's conventional film on an unconventional screen. (Visitors to Disneyland can see the same effect, on a much smaller scale, in the Haunted Mansion, where a moving face is projected onto a bust that sits inside a crystal ball.) --MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Piece of sculpture

The sculpture image is back. As far as I can see it is a self-published work, recently made from old photographs, doesn't take the article any further and isn't notable in the WP sense. Source is at Bronze busts from Portrait Sculptures.com The contributor has already been warned ( level 4 here) about adding his own work to Wikipedia and conflict of interest. Remove it again? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Moonraker, This is the first time that the sculpture portrait of Sir Laurence Olivier has been removed. I don't really understand the reasons for it. The inclusion of portraits of notables on Wiki pages - especially sculpture ones I'm sure help to register the esteem that notables are held in by the public. I am long retired - and continue to sculpt portraits for the sheer joy ot it. My motivation is not commercial one! Over the years I have sculpted many portraits of notables because I especially esteem them - and it seemed to me to be a good idea to let Wiki and its viewers benefit from them. In fact, I don't really care whether or not they are attributed to me. So, I do I hope you will reconsider reinstalling the Olivier. Kind regards Rodin777 Rodin (talk} 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't want this to be a dialogue between the two of us: I would rather the issue was sorted out with consensus and I'm asking the view of the wider group of contributors here. What is the value of the image to the article? Is my interpretation of WP:COI (and presumably that of the editor who issued a level 4 vandalism warning on your talkpage over this) correct? It may not be. In similar circumstances your adornments to the Ian McKellen page (here) were short-lived and your contribution to George Bernard Shaw was removed by an editor with the slightly WP:NPA comment of "No amateurs please". I'm by no means going so far, given your professional-looking web page, but I saw his point. These and other, similar edits allow the impression that your motive isn't to improve Wikipedia, but self-promotion.

The previous deletion on this page, which you seem to have overlooked, is here.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moonraker. The portrait of Laurence Olivier must have been reinstated by one of your fellow editors - not by me. I think the criterion must be whether or not the portraits are a positive asset to wikipedia. Of course, I do gain a degree of seeing my sculpture contributing to the wiki pages. As you probably know, portrait sculptors do have problems with gaining a likeness of Sir Laurence. I have spent considerable time and effort studying him - and completed several versions, ie. different characters (Heathcliffe, Archie Rice, Henry V, (Unfortunately, I dropped the 'Hamlet'!). In short, my satisfaction is doing a good job, and hoping that others will also be able to appreciate the result. I know you don't want a dialogue, but I do wish my contributions to be understood and acknowledged for what they are - ie. celebrating the status of the notables thus depicted. And that is as far as 'self promotion' that is involved. PS. You will note that my site is no longer operative. Kind regards,---- Rodin777. Rodin (talk} 11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.236.120 (talk)

Please note, Moonraker, the Modernist Revision as of 23:18, 11 February 2009 (edit) where the image of Laurence Olivier was reinstated - after discussion with other wiki editors that resolved the issue of relevance. Kind regards,---- Rodin777. Rodin (talk} 11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to see the discussion. Can you link to it, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker, With reference to the following statement on your first message to me: ‘The previous deletion on this page, which you seem to have overlooked, is here’. If you go to that link and move on to next but one edit, namely, ‘Revision as of 23:18, 11 February 2009, (edit) (undo)’ you will observe that ‘modernist’ restored the portrait sculpture of L Olivier. Modernist writes: ‘In light of your comments here:[1] I am removing several of the warnings...In future as you edit, if conflicts arise please discuss the controversy on the article talk page...or here, Good luck...Modernist (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)’ This decision was also a result of a discussion with modernist’s editor colleagues. Initially, due to my ignorance of editing procedures and ‘over enthusiasm’ I made a number of crass errors – which I regret! But I’m learning – even thought I’m in my dotage! However, I do think that quality portrait sculpture is especially effective in acknowledging the status of notables. (Trafalgar Square and all that!) And in this respect I do have something to offer Wikipedia. See also tim-riley talk (one of your editors). I sincerely hope that this meets your concerns. ---- Rodin777. Rodin (talk} 17.15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodin777 (talk • contribs)

Progress: thanks, Rodin777, for the pointer. The subject has indeed been extensively discussed, and a tentative consensus reached, here. To sum up: If the mainspace image captions have been purged of the "reek of self promotion" (and this has been done comprehensively) each addition should be treated on a case-by-case basis. A whole range of issues, including the range and relevance of the existing illustrations, would then come into play; these are given a full airing in the discussion.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I'm really puzzled and wondering why the lead of this article was chopped down and a new section heading stuck in called "Career Overview"? The lead contained the content now in that section, and met the recommended lead size based on the size of the article. I can find no rationale for having cut off the lead. Any clarification on this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Met and Married?

The article currently reads: "Olivier met and married Jill Esmond, a rising young actress, on 25 July 1930 ... "

As it stands, the sentence indicates that Olivier met Esmond and married her that same day. While not impossible, this seems wildly implausible; in any case, the sentence is ambiguous, and someone who knows the facts should rewrite it accordingly.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Buried in Westminster Abbey

In support of this unsummarized and unreferenced IP post: the others are David Garrick, Henry Irving and Ben Jonson. If I find a decent source (the Abbey's own web page misses Garrick) I'll put it in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're up to five now, all listed. Is there a case for returning to the previous format: "...one of only five to have been accorded this honour"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Olivier

Who is the jack-booted half-wit who keeps removing the very interesting section on Olivier's acting, which my daughter is trying to make notes on for an essay??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.59.110 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of editing rules and guidelines. Your edit violates several of them. First your edit has absolutely no sourcing. By your own admission here [1] your edit comes from your own observation which violates WP:OR. You are also constantly breaking the link the the Royal Court Theatre which is vandalism. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can post your opinion. Please feel free to take advantage of them. MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is simply : would your daughter prefer her essay be based on something she found that looked very interesting but was not reliably attributed, or something she found that looked very accurate and was reliably attributed? In a nutshell, that is what our policies and guidelines aim to achieve. Rossrs (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Criticism

If you knew anything about Olivier's acting, which you obviously don't, then you would have no reason to doubt the authenticity of my comments. I suppose one cannot expect to find Britain's finest brains editing an online encyclopedia.

And yet here you are. Speaking of things that should be easy to understand, you seem to be missing the points made about Wikipedia guidelines and policies being applied to all articles to ensure accuracy. Assuming that other editors don't know what they're talking about, and accusing them of such, is not the kind of attitude to win you support. There is also an article about the moon, although it is unlikely to have been written by someone who has been there. (Just an irrelevant question - are you under the impression that only people from Britain edit here or that only people from Britain have the "finest brains"? What an odd comment to make.) Rossrs (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Change infobox picture to a more recent portrait photograph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr uebermann (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Change infobox picture to a more recent portrait photograph

I've got a more recent photograph of Laurence Olivier taken in 1972 on the set of Sleuth by society photographer Allan Warren. I think it's more appropriate as the photograph is more up to date and in colour. The photograph can be seen here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr uebermann (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.171.233 (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The general rule of thumb is to use an image from the heighth of an actor's career. I'd suggest the 1939 formal Van Vecten is more in keeping with this as it was during the time of Wuthering Heights. A photo from 1972 looks much different and the main infobox photo is meant to provide an identification of the article subject. I'd suggest that more readers would look for a contemporary photo than one that is graying and older. The photo can correctly be used in the article further down in content concurrent with the time of the photo, where I have moved it, but not as the main identifying photo. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not the main problem. The image is not in the public domain and the photographer/owner has only given permission for Wikipedia to use it. It does not give permission for anyone else to use the image for any purpose. ie the image must be donated and free of all copyright restrictions, and evidence must be provided to that effect. Herr uebermann, this is explained on the note on your talk page. Please follow the links in that message to review the correct process, and if unsure, please ask the person who left the message to explain. This is a lovely image, but it doesn't not comply with our copyright requirements. The Van Vechten portrait, while older and in black-and-white does comply. I'm sorry to say that until this is rectified, we are not able to use the image. Rossrs (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Image now has appropriate CC license, suggest reinstatement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, User:Wildhartlivie. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NP. My main objection, besides not being properly licensed, was to substitute the later photo in the infobox in place of the historically significant Van Vecten image. No problems with a properly licensed photo elsewhere on the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Alec Guinness

A cited quote from the eminent source Mel Gussow confirms Guinness as one of the four greats: "John Gielgud, Alec Guinness, [a]long with Laurence Olivier and Ralph Richardson they were the great knights of the English theater". This information is repeatedly deleted, without edit summary, a practice perhaps shading towards vandalism: "Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." Requesting other editors' views regarding the place of the sentence in the lead at all—this piece is about Olivier—but, if it is to be kept, the unexplained deletion of cited material.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Along with vandalism there are WP:OWN problems with October1990's handling of this. Since the Guinness info is in the reference then it certainly belongs in the opening. Please feel free to add back in and we can use with "removal of content" warnings it the editor does not join the discussion here. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be in the lead. Is this the sentence being discussed? "He was one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century, along with his contemporaries Sir John Gielgud, Dame Peggy Ashcroft, Sir Ralph Richardson"? I think this information is notable enough for inclusion in the article, but the lead should be a summary of the article. It's currently not in the article, therefore by WP:LEAD, it does not fit in the lead. If it's included in the article, I'm still not sure it's one of the most important points to summarize, as the lead (IMO) should focus firmly on the subject. I think the same applies to "He is generally regarded to be the greatest actor of the 20th century, in the same category as David Garrick, Richard Burbage, Edmund Kean and Henry Irving in their own centuries." I think it's contradictory to have a sentence that places him on equal footing with some of his contemporaries as "one of the most...along with" and then have a sentence that singles him out as "the greatest" of the same period. Perhaps the article would benefit from a couple of paragraphs that comment on Olivier along with his contemporaries and past greats of the theatre. It could then be given a little more depth and context than currently exists by mentioning it only in the lead. Rossrs (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion Rossrs. Anyone who wants to work on carving out a spot for all of this please accept our appreciation in advance. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

Found a couple issues in the section:

1. "but does not deny that Olivier may have been bisexual" is not stated in the source. In fact, she never provided a yes or no on Desert Island disks. We should not put words in her mouth.
2. "responded to the question of Olivier's alleged bisexuality" is misleading. Dame Joan doesn't specify to which discretions she's responding. Note this which precedes Dame Joan's quote: "Sarah Miles, who starred opposite Olivier in Term of Trial and Lady Caroline Lamb, revealed their lengthy affair..." We don't know if Dame Joan is referring to heterosexual, homosexual, or both types of discretions. Lionel (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual Category

Should Olivier really be in the Bisexual category? I mean, there is no real proof....... 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove him until someone provides a source. Otherwise, it is POV pushing.Michael Dorosh 23:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• It seems quite widely accepted that Olivier was bisexual, from what I've read. Malick78 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of proof, at least as much as we have regarding any person who is dead. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403258/Larry-gay-Of-course-was.html; http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,310086,00.html Randy 02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rand503 (talk • contribs)

"Plenty of proof"? You've cited the Daily Mail, a tabloid! How ridiculous!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What a hoot that Daily Mail article is! I like the part about David Niven saying he found Olivier and Marlon Brando swimming nude in a pool and kissing. LOL! I like how this guy has met everyone from the Queen's Aunt to Brando's pool boy and they all have the skinny on Larry being gay!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Katharine Cornell

I wanted to add a note that actress Katharine Cornell offered Olivier his first Broadway role in one of her productions, and during that time, she helped him keep discrete his affair with Vivien Leigh. My source for that is a biography entitled: "Leading Lady: The World and Theatre of Katharine Cornell" by Tad Mosel, Little Brown and Co., 1978. Any objections? Randy 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You would need to specify the page number, but otherwise that reference seems ok. Check out WP:REFSTART for the format; the easiest way is probably to fill in the spaces in a citation template. As the anecdote is disputed, you may even want to put something brief in the "quote" box of the template. Lastly, to avoid any more complaints of "unexplained", don't forget the edit summary. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Afterthought: I see that Mosel's reliability is lightly called into question on the contributor's talk page, but he did get a Pulitzer for some of his other works.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dame Joan on Desert Island Discs

Luckily this brodacast is quite well covered in the references, and as it is being used here to illuminate what seems to be a controversial topic we need to have particular care to reflect the references accurately. For example, Danny Kaye and Henry Ainley are not Olivier's "mistresses". The citation offered for "If Plowright felt the need to defend her husband's memory", otherwise WP:NOR, is merely a list of the records Plowright selected. I'm reverting these changes.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: only just noticed the previous on this, at "Sexuality", above. Sarah Miles could go in, for balance, but the space given to the broadcast may already be giving it more weight than it deserves. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone also has to re-write the passage deciding whether she felt tje need, as the intro says, or didn't, as she says in the quote, to defend his memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.29.209 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a re-write, but the contradiction removed, with acknowledgement to you—thanks. Still looks WP:UNDUE to me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This section of unsubstantiated "controversial" claims is an embarrassment and should be removed. Wikipedia is slowly turning into Rumorpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeator (talk • contribs) 04:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

World at war?

I'd rather like to see a short section mentioning Olivier's narration of the excellent World at War documentary series. Would referencing the series itself be enough to escape 'original research'? It would also be perhaps sensible to put a comment in about Olivier's own feelings about the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.125.95 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the "Later career" section, with a link, although in the other article his contribution is covered very briefly. What "sensible" addition is needed, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Vivian Leigh Laurence Olivier Hamlet.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vivian Leigh Laurence Olivier Hamlet.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

While I have no objection as such, should he not be called an English actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.89.220 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Olivier would have possessed a British passport, not an English one. Philip Cross (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Applause. There is no official nationality as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. We are all (for now) British. -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to readers to say that, e.g., Dylan Thomas was Welsh, Alex Salmond is Scottish, Oscar Wilde was Irish, and Olivier was English. They were/are all British, but there are four countries (as opposed to nation states) in the UK. "The British poet Dylan Thomas" or "the British politician Alex Salmond" would be unhelpful and would make Wikipedia look silly. – Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would that be silly? It's accurate. I thought that Wikipedia strove to be accurate. They all carry (or carried) passports giving their nationality as British. You can say that they were born in and live(d) in Wales or Scotland but there has been no nationality of Welsh or Scottish, or even of English since the various acts of union -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, their passports were/are British, but they were respectively Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. Alex Salmond is not the leader of the British National Party. Nationalities and nation states are not the same thing, and WP has a policy of describing people as they would wish to be described: "Nationality should refer to national identity, in other words the national group with which the person identified, not the state of which the person was a citizen or subject." Tim riley (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde was born a British citizen/subject. Dublin was a part of the UK when he was born. Dylan Thomas wasn't very Welsh, he didn't speak the language. Alex Salmond is a politician looking for individual power and thinks he can get it by playing the nationalist card. None of them are very good examples to use in this argument. If that's how WP wishes to define nationality it wouldn't be the first case where it's just wrong. Although I see that that extract you refer to is just a guideline, not a rule. Nationality is a legal construct, people can't pick and choose their nationality and we shouldn't pick and choose a nationality for them. Maybe you're really wanting to describe these people's ethnicity -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are, natch, entitled to your view, but just try to think what our readers require of WP. Robbie Burns the well-known British poet. W B Yeats, the well-known British playwright. It would make us look silly. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are also entitled to your view. You think it looks silly, but it's accurate  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

But calling an Englishman English and a Scotsman Scottish is as correct as calling them British, and has the benefit of avoiding the inanity of "the British poet Robert Burns". The best of both worlds: it's accurate and it won't have our readers thinking we've gone mad. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do what you want. I gave up expecting Wikipedia or Wikipedians to do anything accurate years ago -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's terribly sad, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is sad, but nobody does anything about it - now that's sad -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve, if you've been around for years, you will know these debates have raged since the beginning, on pretty much every biog of a famous N. Irish, Welsh and Scottish subject. There are two views - yes and no. There it is. Span (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Wikipedia way. Never the two shall meet  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve, out of conscience I looked to see what other encyclopaedias do about this. Burns, having been mentioned above, seemed a good reference point, as he was born after the Act of Union.

• Britannica is straightforward ("Robert Burns – Scottish poet Jan. 25, 1759 Alloway, Ayrshire, Scot. July 21, 1796")
• The ODNB – by policy, I suspect from a quick look at one or two other prominent Scots – avoids the matter altogether, so: "Burns, Robert (1759–1796), poet, was born on 25 January 1759 in a two-room clay cottage … at Alloway, Ayrshire", carefully (I guess) avoiding the controversy above by not mentioning "Scottish" or "British" at all.
• The Chambers Biographical Dictionary, a much-used standby, has him as "Burns, Robert, Scottish poet".
• Of Oxford University Press publications I can lay hands on:
  • A Dictionary of Writers and their Works ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–1796) Scottish poet"
  • Oxford World Encyclopedia ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–96 ) Scottish poet")
  • The Oxford Companion to English Literature ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–96 ) Scottish poet")
  • Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Burns, Robert [ 1759–96], Scottish national poet.")
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations ("Robert Burns 1759 – 96 Scottish poet")

I must in fairness add that at least as many Oxford reference books follow the ODNB line and don't call Burns Scottish in the opening line. But, crucially, no reference book I can find calls him "British". So it isn't "the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Wikipedia way", I'm afraid, but the SteveCrook way and everyone else's.

Hope this clarifies matters. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Olivier pronounced his name /ˈɵˈlɪviɵ/, as did other members of his family. At some point in his career, journalists etc began to pronounce it /ˈɵˈlɪvi.ei/ as though he were French. I think the pronunciation guide in the introduction should reflect this somehow.Ordinary Person (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources are clear that LO's father, Gerard, was insistent on the French pronunciation of the surname. Tim riley talk 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

The link to the full list of his stage and screen roles is in a rather odd place; I'd suggest it'd be better as a "See also", as that makes it far easier to find. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree AC. The way it is labeled and its position in the article give the reader no clue that it is a list of performances and roles. It look much more like a link to another article about his acting. OTOH putting it in a "See also" section is problematic. In an article of this length readers who aren't Wikipedia editors would look for a link to a filmography in the TOC and, not seeing one, think that one might not exist. They could also be forgiven for not thinking to look in a "see also' section. I have been WP:BOLD and moved it so that it looks the way it does in many other actor articles. Now I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF can be used if other editors disagree with my actions so feel free to revert or alter. But I do think that the way it was is not helpful to readers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcription

I've removed the transcription, which claimed his surname to be pronounced UH-LIV-ee-uh or OH-LIV-ee-oh. There are several pronunciations of "Olivier", none of which ends in oh. In Britain, the most common way to pronounce it probably is /ɒlˈɪvieɪ/. Alakzi (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've fully protected the article due to the edit warring over the hidden text, please read Help:Hidden text for guidance on this. Dreadstar ☥ 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

An admin edit warring and using their admin tools in a content dispute? brilliant, especially as there is absolutely nothing at WP:HIDDEN that stops this type of message from appearing. In fact, it does exactly the reverse: "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus." Dreadstar, you appear to have overstepped the mark here and are acting inappropriately, based on nothing more than your personal preference. You have accused others of "disruptive editing", completely missing the point that you are the guilty party here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You, Dreadstar, are the sort (Personal attack removed) that gives admins a bad name. Cassianto^Talk 13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the text as you two added is very strongly worded and clearly prohibits editing of the article in that specific manner; the wording you prescribe is inappropriate, there's nothing 'soft' about it at all. Find consensus for the wording, if any wording is necessary at all. Dreadstar ☥ 13:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then tweak the fucking wording: don't lock the article! Waaaaaay too big a stick to use on such a small issue, and it prohibits nothing: it asks people to respect a consensus. Bad, bad bad admin action. I strongly suggest you unlock the article and put the message back, partly tweaked, rather than lock it to your personal preference. - 13:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that's inapproprite here is you. Cassianto^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed what is clearly inappropriate hidden text; your tag team edit warring to keep it in place is the actual problem here. When it was removed by another editor the first time, you and the other editor reverting it back should have followed WP:BRD, found Consensus and then acted according to that consensus; yet you both just continued to edit war with multiple editors over the issue. You are in the wrong here. I expect the regular editors of this article to determine by consensus if hidden text is necessary and if so what the wording should be that fits Help:Hidden text. Dreadstar ☥ 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you are the problem here. If you had engaged brain and opened a thread to say "the comment is inappropriate: change it or remove it", then there would have been a discussion and an appropriate note put in place. Sadly your knee-jerk edit warring and locking of the article does no-one any good, except to show you up. YOU are in the wrong here, despite your attempts to cast the blame on others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) UTC)

Also, they are Bold, we Reverted, they should Discuss. It's not fucking rocket science. That didn't happen; they were Bold we Reverted, they Reverted and then they warred. Clearly you don't even understand the most simplest of guidelines. Cassianto^Talk 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify what I'm seeing, you were bold in adding the hidden text, it was reverted; now discuss. And beyond the sheer inappropriateness of the hidden direction, with the number of editors objecting, there's clearly no consensus for the hidden text as it exists. Once you calm down, I'd suggest working with those editors to find consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm entirely calm, and happy to work with anyone who is open minded enough not to use admin tools just because they the churlishly disagree with something and don't have the ability to do anything but edit war and lock articles down. That's the last constructive of all pathways and helps absolutely no-one. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then your eyesight is as bad as you admin abilities. Cassianto^Talk 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: You know what happened with User:Coffee. Would you like me to report you for misconduct at ANI? When you're the one involved in an edit dispute you should never use your tools to lock it in your desired version. You should discuss it with editors, try to get some wider input and then ask another admin to lock it if necessary. Agreed with Tarc that hidden text is fine, and in this case over a very well known dispute, so it needs to firmly tell editors. Not constructive Dreadstar, there is no consensus for you to do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued protection

I do not believe that the full protection on this page is warranted. Please unprotect. In addition, I think the hidden text is appropriate. It actually prevents edit-warring and brings to the Talk page anyone who wants to seriously discuss the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Big coincidence that a close friend of Andy's turns up to endorse locking without the message. The admin system on wikipedia is about as trustworthy and corruption free as Admiral General Aladeen's regime. Sorry HJ but after what you said at arb I don't think you're exactly a neutral admin to intervene here, even if you scolded Dreadstar for acting after a edit war. You're known to be sympathetic to Andy's infobox cause as a friend of his. Is this the first stage of trying to force an infobox here, remove the barricade and then let the army in?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text

Hidden text is used all the time in music-related articles to call attention to a consensus version/decision, as anons and IPs love to fiddle endlessly with genres, instruments, etc... See Kurt Cobain (death_date and instrument fields), Alice in Chains (genre and members), and so on. Perhaps the issue with the hidden text here is that it was a bit too shouty and confrontational? Tarc (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and hidden text in this article would be fine if worded correctly. The current proposed wording is too harsh, yelling in caps and looks to be a message prohibiting editing along those lines. I suggest we find better wording per WP:HIDDEN if we indeed find consensus that a hidden note about existing consensus regarding adding an infobox. I would suggest adding something like "Before adding an infobox to this article, please check previous discussions" and provide a handy link. And remember, consensus can change, so maybe we need a new RFC to further explore adding an infobox to this article. Dreadstar ☥ 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How's this?
<!-- At present, there is no consensus to include an infobox in this article. Please discuss the issue on the talk page, under the "Infobox" heading. --> Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tarc, I agree. Perhaps you may consider the following appropriate. (The caps before were not at all "shouty", but to make the message stand out):

"There is a consensus not to include an infobox on this page. Should you wish to change the consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the talk page." - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat's version, with a slight tweak:

"There is a consensus not to include an infobox on this page. Should you wish to try to form a new consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the Talk page." -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is obvious disagreement over the inclusion of an infobox. Why would we claim that there's a consensus? Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A consensus is not an absence of disagreement. At present there is a consensus not to have an IB, which is why we say so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is a consensus? Alakzi (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers's version. Although I fear this will just be ignored as much as the "shouty" one would be. Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So where have the "legitimate concerns" of editors who'd like to see an infobox on this page been addressed "through a process of compromise"? In the section above I see: several editors telling the IP to bugger off; appeal to authority; several editors who've come to express their glee; and a thoughtful comment made by Corinne that nobody's really addressed. Alakzi (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has been through two community processes without anyone asking for an IB or commenting adversely; that is a consensus in itself. In the thread above, no-one has provided any arguments based on policies that mean we need to include an IB. There is a consensus not to include an IB, which is why the proposed text of the hidden note reflets that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, why are you now trying to turn this into an infobox discussion? Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree to "Should you wish to change the consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the talk page". I think it should simply read "There is consensus to not include an infobox on this page. Please refrain from adding one". Any editor who disputes it is going to bring it to the talk page anyway if reverted. I can't support anything which encourages people to try to change consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone provide a link to the discussion showing consensus that this particular article not have an infobox? I think that's integral to the hidden statement. Dreadstar ☥ 01:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• And I think this proves that you had an ulterior motive all the time. Cassianto^Talk 05:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• As I've pointed out above, the article has passed through two community review processes without the box which gives a consensus; there is also the thread above. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[[Talk:Laurence_Olivier#Infobo

• ShroCat, can you provide a link to the community discussions where consensus was found about an infobox in this article please. The section above is certainly no consensus discussion and would be totally inappropriate to direct editors to. 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The links to the two community reviews of this page - the PR and FAC - can be found at the top of the page. As these two community processes did not demand or request an IB, the consensus is that one is needed. This is entirely within normal practice and is taken as an important factor in future decisions: if it was thought by any participant that the article could be improved by the inclusion, alteration or removal of any aspect of the page, they are appropriate venues in which to discuss the topic. No-one did, and the community consensus is that this article is of a professionally high standard without the inclusion of an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can anyone (Redacted) provide any links to the discussion showing consensus that this particular article should have an infobox? Why do you all assume that an infobox is a default addition to an article? Cassianto^Talk 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Whoever claimed that there is such a consensus? No propping up straw men, please. I hope that you do appreciate that the cause of this whole "situation" is that somebody tried to claim a consensus in the absence of one. To my knowledge, the two editors who attempted to insert an infobox haven't got a clue about the controversy. The article's been infobox-less since January, and nobody tried to add one till yesterday. To all appearances, it was an isolated incident; a good-faith editor saw value in having an infobox, and the second probably could not comprehend the revert. Notice how they're both absent from this discussion? You and SchroCat have made a mountain out of a molehill. It's time to let go; we don't need a note in the article—and we don't need any of this bickering, either. Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the note was to alert those unaware that they should discuss the mattger; it serves a purpose and was meant to avoid conflict, not be the focus of a ridiculously elongated set of threads. Yes, a mountain has been made out of a molehill, but to try and blame one "side" seems disingenuous: it takes two to tango, after all. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, there's the side that instigated the edit war by not observing WP:BRD and insists on an unsubstantiated claim; and there's the side seeking proof for said claim, only to be met with more hostility. Alakzi (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • [removed personal attack]

• Well, I'm not sure it really works that way, since having an infobox is the norm for articles whereas this and a handful of others are the exception. Upon perusing the article history, I find that the infoxbox was present until SchroCat moved a draftspace version in over the existing one on Jan 14 2015. There has been one discussion about it above, Talk:Laurence_Olivier#Infobox, which seems to be enough of a consensus of actual editors (IPs do not count) to support keeping a box out. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone fundamentally opposed to any hidden text at all - even one that states nothing about an ongoing consensus but just says "There have been disputes over including or not including infoboxes on this page. The previous decision was that an infobox should not be included. Please discuss on the talk page as opposed to edit warring?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds completely sensible. Arkon (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Laurence Olivier/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.

Good Article (literally), but all sections need expanding

Last edited at 01:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)