Talk:Alec Guinness/Archive 1

Monsignor Quixote

What role did Alec Guinness play in Monsignor Quixote? Was it the title role? I would appreciate it if this was included in the article.

Yes, Guiness played Quixote with Leo McKern as Sancho. McKern was in A Foreign Field as Guiness' friend. Both are extremely well done and deserve to be better known. JimCubb 00:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, Sir Alec Guiness died of liver cancer on August 5, 2000.

What has his death from cancer to do with his being knighted by the Queen?

Sebastjan

Knighthood

what order of knighthood did he get?

• None. He is a Knight Bachelor.

From Knight Bachelor:

"Knights Bachelor are not entitled to use post-nominal letters after their name." Ben davison 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, he was a Knight of the Order of the British Empire, ie. KBE. JackofOz 08:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Guinness was a knight bachelor NOT a KBE. As Ben davison days, knights bachelor do not belong to an order and are not entitled to post-nominal initials. Guinness was, however, a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, entitling him to CBE after his name. The fact that he was then made a knight bachelor does not make him into a KBE (which is a higher award) ! In fact, a knighthood bachelor and a CBE is not an uncommon combination for distinguished actors. The only British actor I know of who has received a KBE in recent years is Sir Roger Moore. Dcrossle 11:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Antony Sher is also a KBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Photo

Does anyone else feel like it's wrong to have a Star Wars photo of him on the page? This came to me while I was watching Ep. III and thinking, "Man he would hate this if he was still alive." Stratton 09:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)--

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an autobiography. Millions of younger moviegoers were introduced to him through Star Wars, so I'd say it's not only appropriate to have a Star Wars pic, but necessary, whether he would like it or not. The article mentions his dislike of the series, after all. --Chrysaor 22:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first user. Alec Guinness hated Star Wars, so putting a photo of him from that movie is like sticking a dagger in his stomach. Since the article is not just about the Alec Guinness the actor but Alec Guinness the person off the movie set, I think a candid photo of him would be most appropriate.

A bit on the fence with this. Guinness would have hated it, but this isn't an autobio, and the Obi-Wan role did introduce him to a new generation. How about adding additional photos: a candid shot, as suggested, or maybe one from the Ealing years, one from Lawrence of Arabia, and one from Bridge on the River Kwai. That should cover all the bases, and diminishes the impact of seeing a photo the man himself would have disapproved of. Canonblack 16:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We should certainly have a Star Wars photo on the page, but not as the heading photo (Wookeepedia has an out-of-character photo in their article[1]. As to Alec Guinness "hating" Star Wars, the impression I got was that he liked the role, but disliked the tendency of people to always recognise him as Obi-Wan Kenobi, after all the previous work he'd done (Kind Hearts and Coronets, Bridge on the River Kwai, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, etc, etc...) MartinMcCann 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that using the Star Wars image is a pretty shortsighted gesture. It is certainly no representation of the man's career or of his acting ability, and I'm guessing it was chosen by someone with a skewed view of the man's life and work. We might as well represent Richard E Grant with an image from SPICEWORLD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.27.213 (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In Star Wars he looks much younger than on the photo (dated 1973). I think the date of photo is incorrect (maybe 1993?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.14.198.2 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

The article currently read "it is not known if their minor aged son Matthew converted at the same time". According to a BBC interview Guinness gave in 1977 Matthew went to a private school in which was run by the catholics and althought his parents innitially disapproved of this he was allowed to attend. After a while Matthew decided to convert and his parents followed him.

I have this interview on tape but haven't watched it in a few years (I recorded it in Enland on a PAL cassette and I am now in Canada with an NTSC VRC). In his last autobiography Guinness stated it was his big regret that he did not make the decision to become a Catholic sooner in his life.

Just thought I would point this out. Dowew 17:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I'll try to get a picture of the graves of the Guinnesses.

Sexual controversy?

There is a small bit of controversy concerning his sexual orientation. Nothing has been substantiated, but should the presence of controversy and debate be mentioned here? The "visible evidence" (happily married with one child for 60+ years) supports the mainstream interpretation that he was a normal heterosexual. But he was known for making statements to the effect that he had had homosexual relations prior to his marriage. Several authors have published posthumous biographies that attempt to "prove" that he was homosexual. Simon Callow, who knew him, has stated that Guinness may have been homosexual or bisexual but that he chose to live his life as a heterosexual; Callow also implied that Guinness liked to be a bit mysterious and had a tendency to describe himself so as to deliberately mislead, and that he believed Guinness really didn't have much of a sex life at all, not even with his wife. The "facts" in the case are hearsay, but should the existence of controversy be noted? Would an adequate explanation take more proportional space in an article of this size than is warranted by its value? Canonblack 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on this, if only to dismiss it, but if you guys have a problem with it, feel free to remove. (ExtraordinaryMan having forgotten to log in.) --152.163.100.199 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you are suggesting? There was a rumor going around for years that he was arrested in a men's room when the rumor was investigated by researchers there was found to be no truth in the matter. Another actor John Gielgud on the otherhand was actually arrested in a men's room.

The only controversy seems to be one created by others theories and suggestions. If there is no solid evidence that Alec Guinness was bi-sexual or homosexual and if no writings or recorded statements were made by Guinness say that he was then why is this even being discussed?

Does the fact that he was an English stage actor who had many stage actor friends some who happened to be homosexual mean that he was one himself? Speculation of this sort seems to be just that and is irrelevant for an article of this scope and type. Plank 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Some information about his arrest on this page: [2] (Quoting from page): In 1946 he had been arrested and fined ten guineas for a homosexual act in a public lavatory in Liverpool, but he avoided publicity by giving his name as Herbert Pocket to the police and the court. The name was taken from the character in Charles Dickens's Great Expectations that he had played on stage in 1939 and was also about to play in the film directed by David Lean. The incident did not become public knowledge, unlike that of John Gielgud seven years later in 1953 which received a great deal of press attention. Also: "Last night Mr Morley - son of the actor Robert Morley, a Gielgud contemporary - said Guinness's gay side had 'always been known' to his father and family friends in the theatre such as Dame Gladys Cooper." 69.95.115.154 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In an [3]entry on his psedo-blog, Ian McKellen describes a lunch he had with Guinness where he sought Guinness' support for his gay rights campaign. McKellen say that Guinness replied that "It was not appropriate for gay people to talk publicly about their sexuality nor to campaign openly for law reform." Between the lines, McKellen seems to be saying that Guinness was closeted and discreet about his sexuality, but this could also be taken as evidence of a conservative Catholic opposition to homosexuality. McKellen then mentions that Guinness partially bankrolled the professional training of the openly gay Ian Charleson, the co-lead of Chariots of Fire, who died of AIDS in 1990. This too seems like a between-the-lines allegation of gayness, but others have cited this as merely an example of a well-documented tendency to lend his support to up-and-coming actors whose work he admired.--Andrewjnyc 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered actually reading Guinness's authorized biography by Piers Paul Read? At this point, Guinness's orientation is not a matter of controversy, except possibly among squeamish homophobes. --Chips Critic 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows Sir Alec was a latent homosexual, it really should be included in the article.

And your evidence for this assertion is...? -- Necrothesp 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, the fact that his marriage was one of convenience and he had sex with many other actors including Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Charles Laughton, Richard Burton, Noel Coward, Dirk Bogarde etc. Sorry homophobic fans of "Star Wars", but you can't change the fact Sir Alec was gay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.101 (talk • contribs) .

"Everbody knows" is an euphanism for "I can't prove it" Agathoclea 17:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since we are talking about events which took place 60 and 70 years ago, it is very difficult to provide hard evidence. Most of Sir Alec's friends and boyfriends are dead. Next I expect you will say Laughton and Bogarde were straight.

And if you have no evidence then it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Making wild claims that you can't prove and then accusing people who disagree of being homophobic is more than faintly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

With appropriate citations, I would have no trouble believing Guinness had his way with Olivier, Gielgud, Laughton, Coward and Bogarde. But Richard Burton?? I've never heard he had a gay bone in his body, and there's nothing in our article about this. JackofOz 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps most actors are latent homosexuals and we cover it with drink. I was once a homosexual, but it didn't work." - Richard Burton

That is hardly evidence of anything except a kind of bitter, sardonic wit. :--) JackofOz 12:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The latest authorized biography proves that there was absolutely no evidence to support the rumor that Guinness was arrested in the 1950's and gave his name as Herbert Pocket. In fact, the author speculated that John Gielgud was really arrested for having sex in a men's room in the '50's and believes that it was this real event that was repackaged and spread about as if it was Guinness. Dwain 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You deliberately withhold the fact that this same authorized biography makes it quite clear that Guinness was essentially gay. This article is worthless until it acknowledges the truth. --Chips Critic 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I object to the phrase at the top stating that "he was a normal heterosexual", but that's just a San Franciscan talking. Secondly, I've seen sections similar to this on the talk pages of many famous people, so you'll pardon me if I have a tendency to disregard this upon reading the first paragraph... -- Maethon (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've dug out an old newspaper clipping of an article written by John Ezard in the Guardian, reprinted in The Canberra Times, 18 April 2001. It's about Guinness's 1946 prosecution under the alias "Herbert Pocket" being about to be disclosed in no less than 3 (then) upcoming biographies - Sheridan Morley's authorised biog to published on 3 May 2001; Piers Paul Read's authorised biography; and another biography by Garry O'Connor. Quote from the article: Mr Morley - son of the actor Robert Morley - said Sir Alec's gay side had "always been known" to his father and friends in the theatre. "As a character actor he was a sort of spy, which made him good at deception in life as well as art", Mr Morley said. "He was keeping secret this other side of his life. He was very, very high church". In 1946 Sir Alec was happily married with a young son. "If the case had come out, it would have traumatised him", Mr Morley said. So, if 3 of his biographers (2 of whom are authorised) have no trouble in reporting these facts, why should we? This has nothing to do with labelling Guinness as gay, straight, bisexual or anything - it has everything to do with reporting factual material about his life. -- JackofOz 06:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a personal experience which can shed some light into this matter. Back in 1976, my girlfriend at the time - her name was Anne Marie - and I went to see Harold Pinter's play "No Man's Land" at the Wyndham Theatre in London. A great play and a brilliant cast, led by Sir Ralph Richardson and Sir John Gielgud. Curtain down, we rushed backstage to meet the actors, as unabashed groupies. At one point, we were talking to Gielgud when Anne Marie, rather insouciantly, asked him if he was really gay (!!). I was appalled, and ready to dig a hole in the ground and disappear in it. But before I could do or say anything, Gielgud looked Anne Marie straight in the eyeball and said: "Yes. But it could be worse: I might not know exactly where I am, like Larry Olivier and Alec Guinness." Gielgud made this sardonic remark point blank and without the slightest hint of irritation. Quite remarkable. Unfortunately, all I have to show for this story now is my word, but there it is. MUSIKVEREIN 01:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no difficulty in believing that, Musikverein. And now it's out there, for all the world to read. How long did it take you to wash the hand that shook Gielgud's? -- JackofOz 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack, it was really something. Even today, more than thirty years on, I show a proud smile every time I have the opportunity to tell anybody that I once met Gielgud and Richardson (in spite of the embarassment caused by Anne Marie's nonchalance...). Incidentally, Alec Guinness is one of my very favourite actors, and I also had the honour of meeting him right after a presentation of Alan Bennett's "Habeascorpus" in 1974 (Lyric Theatre, London). I even got his autograph on the programme notes. Only this time I was alone, so no clumsy situation ensued ! MUSIKVEREIN 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. -- JackofOz 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, everyone today thinks everyone back in the day was gay. There are people who believe the Biblical person of King David was gay/bi, there are people who believe Herman Melville was gay/bi, etc. There will always be people who say someone else is gay. Now, as for it being said that... "Since we are talking about events which took place 60 and 70 years ago, it is very difficult to provide hard evidence. Most of Sir Alec's friends and boyfriends are dead." That's nothing. We know Oscar Wilde was gay/bi, and that was well voer 100 years ago. Also, Ian McKellen never said Guinness was gay. Rather whoever said that is implying that he was from what he read about what someone else had said. Confusing? Yeah. Just because [This Actor] says that [This Actor] is gay means nothing, less he acknowledges it. Now... also... I've met Dale Thompson of Bride, does that mean I know everything about the guygnored? No. Does that make me his very best friend? I doubt it. IronCrow 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with Herman Melville's work knows that he had homosexual encounters in his life. There is no serious doubt about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.145.251 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You have rather wilfully ignored the discussion chain above which presents some rather well considered and compelling evidence. I do tire slightly of contributors who complain in broad terms that 'everyone nowdays must be gay' to undermine the validity of the argument. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was an open secret that Sir Alec Guinness was a homosexual. His close friends Jack Hawkins and Dirk Bogarde were certainly aware of it, and had no problem with that. (92.11.186.53 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Amusing Tidbit

Dunno if it can be worked into the article, but a neat anagram of Alec Guinness is "Genuine Class" :)

Many people's names are anagrams of names or words; it doesn't have any meaning. Jim Michael (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

James Dean

Is it worth including something about A.G. telling James Dean (outside the Villa Capri) he'd be dead in no time if he got into the car that, in fact, he died in just days later?

Just a thought. It isn't mentioned in Dean's article, either. --G 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been added to the article since, with a source, although the source in question only says that Guinness "had a premonition that [Dean] would die behind its wheel" when he saw the car. There have been a few edits to say that this happened a week before Dean's death, and that Guinness actually told Dean he would die in "exactly one week" - does a source exist for these details, or are they just a ramped-up urban legend of the original coincidence? --McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And ah, okay, the James Dean article now cites Guinness's biography, and a YouTube Parkinson interview, as sourcing the "week before". I've copied the sources across and edited the claim. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But surely the Villa Capri was on Yucca Street in Hollywood, not in San Diego.

According to the video interview cited in the article, the encounter with Dean happened in Hollywood. I've edited the page to reflect this. Howeveritgoes (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Trivia section

I did a cleanup of the Trivia section. The first two were simple: They were merely references by a charachter (Lisa from the Simpsons, and Lorenzo from Double Star, respectively) in an otherwise unrelated work of fiction mentioning the name of an internationally recognized actor, and clearly non-notable.

I left the remaining two points, as it might be possible to work them into the text somewhere. It should be easy to work the point on his love-hate relationship with star wars into the Star Wars section. The only reason I didn't do it now myself, is that the point is not sourced. If we can get a reference for this point and work it into the text, fine. Otherwise I say delete it.

The point on Stanley Laurel could possibly be worked into the beginning of the "life and career" section. I don't know how good and encyclopedic it would be though. For now, I left the point here. If someone feels this piece of information is vital to an article on Alec Guiness, please work it into the text at an appropriate place. If no one is interested in doing this, or able to do it in a good way, I say we delete this point too.

To those who disagree, please read wikipedia:trivia before re-adding or adding to the trivia-section.Dr bab 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Songs

Lemon Demon wrote a neat song titled Gonna Dig Up Alec Guinness with around a billion Star Wars references. Cookies to all if this can be worked into the article. -- Maethon (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars section

A small quibble with this part:

"Guinness reportedly grew so tired of modern audiences seeming to remember him only for his role of Obi-Wan Kenobi that he would throw away unopened the fan mail he received from Star Wars fans."

If is was unopened, how did he know it was from Star Wars fans? 87.127.166.59 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question and the whole line should be removed or marked with a cite tag. The answer is, of course, that he felt a tremor in "THE FORCE" whenever he held an envelope that was from a Star Wars fan (Sorry I just couldn't resist!) :)) MarnetteD | Talk 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation McGeddon though it still doesn't answer the IP users question. Do you think Lucas let him keep a light saber as a letter opener (ok these jokes are getting pretty bad now). MarnetteD | Talk 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice the talk page discussion - the edit summary just asked "reported by whom", and the context of the source didn't seem to merit a "reportedly". Perhaps the fan mail was marked as being forwarded from the Star Wars production company, perhaps his agent skimmed the envelopes and resealed them, perhaps he just threw away anything that was obviously Star Wars fan mail from the envelope. --McGeddon 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail addressed to Obi Wan, for example?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.141.101 (talk • contribs)

I believe the actual claim is that he threw away letters from Star Wars fans unread, not unopened. Although, there could very well be indications on the envelope as to the contents. I would like to ask someone to clarify this: "In the DVD commentary of Star Wars: A New Hope, director George Lucas says that Guinness was not happy with the script re-write in which Obi-Wan is killed". What exactly is said in the commentary? That implies he was unhappy with the death of Obi Wan, but it could mean something else. In any case, it was widely publicised that Guinness said in an interview that the death of Obi Wan was his own invention. Eradicator (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary accounts of the shooting of the first Star Wars film are quite clear that George Lucas decided he needed a stronger moment to get his characters off the Death Star--he didn't want the episode to be too easy for them--and so decided to kill off Obi-Wan, who didn't have that much to do in the rest of the film except stand around and be a cheerleader for Luke. These accounts also note (and state the day of the event) that Lucas took Guinness out to lunch to explain his decision and that Guinness wasn't happy. Now it's possible that over 20 years later Guinness's recollection is superior to what George Lucas (and others) claim, but I think it far more likely that Guinness at this point was tired of his association with the character and believed (or wanted to believe) it was his idea to kill Obi-Wan. I should add it's hard to believe that George Lucas, who was in charge, could easily be talked into a massive change in his script that he didn't already believe in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.224.109 (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! This is my very first contribution to the Wikipedia, I hope I'm writing in the right place :) I just wanted to point out that the source [20] for the part about who "decided to put an end to the Obi-wan Kenobi role" is invalid, it just leads to a "404 error" page. --Ianquiksilver (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Guinness married the artist, playwright, and actress, Merula Salaman, a British Jew, in 1938

... and the relevance of this religious reference is? Like... this is 2007... yeah???

The relevance can be seen in the next paragraph concerning their conversion to Roman catholicism.

Without mentioning she was a British Jew, one might ask "From what?" when they read about her conversion. 84.251.206.243 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

An Inspector Calls

There's no reference to Alec starring as Eric Birling in J.B.Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls'. He was in the first ever London production on 1 October 1946 at the New Theatre. Sophiaaa.x 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:YoungSirAlecGuinness.jpg

Image:YoungSirAlecGuinness.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 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 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ewan McGregor

Someone told me that Guiness is related to Ewan McGregor (the actor from the Prequal Trilogy), is this true? Emperor001 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Ewan McGregor is the nephew of Denis Lawson, had played Wedge Antilles in the original trilogy. --Doradus (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Love of animals/Funeral

Frankly, I thought the description of Alec Guinness' coffin as "decorated with the giant face of a yellow cat" a little too bizarre and find no reference on the internet to this. Then there is this page - more likely the case I would think http://wais.stanford.edu/WAIS/News/waisnews_guinness.html I don't believe the referenced book "RSPCA: 250 Years. A history of Britain's favourite charity" (2004) Penguin exists (also no page number is given). The RSPCA website states that "The RSPCA began in 1824 as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." That makes it 185 years old. I think I'm justified in removing the erroneous comment.--User:Brenont (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Refuted reference - see above. Reverted Jan 27 2009 edits by Regularviewer001 by removing whole of "Love of animals" section. --User:Brenont (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. --GedUK  13:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Alec Guinness" or "John Gielgud"? according to Piers Paul Read's hole-gaping conclusion

About his "cottaging" in "Personal life" section: there are logically gaping holes in Piers Paul Read's accordance. It said

"The authenticity of this incident has been doubted, however, including by Piers Paul Read, Guinness's official biographer, who believes that Guinness was mixed up with John Gielgud, who was infamously arrested for such an act at the same period..."

However, John Gielgud's arrest happened in 1953; if Alec Guinness's "arrest" happened in either 1946 or 1948, that would have been earlier than Gielgud's. What if it was true? Any conclusions? --Gh87 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Gielgud and Guinness were arrested for soliciting. (RossMacCormick (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

---

Guilgud's arrest came 7 years after Guinness'. Are we trying to sugar coat something here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Guinness never met his alleged father?

Can it ever really be known as a fact that two people never met? Obviously there are constraints of time and space. However, Alec Guinness and Andrew Geddes lived relatively close together in the time space continuum and as the article points out apparently shared some sort finacial relationship. Can it truly be certain that the two individuals really never bumped into each other on a lift or at a cocktail party. Please, illuminate the wiki-world of the deductive methods which make this assertion a certanty. -Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.77.185 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You see, the sentence intends to say his mother and his benefactor never met. 67.189.12.255 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alec Guinness's Telegraph obituary (citing a 1958 interview with Time magazine) and Read's biography both state that Andrew Geddes did occasionally visit Alec and his mother. I've updated the article accordingly with references. Surely their descendants could have done a DNA test by now to prove paternity :) Muzilon (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Baldness?

Can someone explain why the 1973 photo of him in the article shows him bald, while in Star Wars (1977) he had a full head of hair? Is that a hair piece in the movie? --JHP (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, as an anonymous editor asked here, is the photo dated incorrectly? --JHP (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. One should never think that the hair that you see on an actor in a film, tv or stage performance is their hair. Hairpieces are worn far more often then you may think. In '73 Guinness was 59 or 60, easily an age at which he could have lost his hair. Further I remember seeing an interview with him on some show circa '75 or '76 (before Star Wars at any rate) and he looked much like the pic in the infobox. I can also tell you that when Allan Warren was releasing his pics to wikipedia a few years ago there was a deal of activity to make sure that they were labeled correctly so there is little reason to doubt the date. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal

An editor raised concerns about this 10 mos ago: "However, Guinness' friends and family knew of his bisexuality.Piers Paul Read, Alec Guinness: The Authorised Biography, London, 2005 " Lionel (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's probably been ignored out of exasperation, because it's evidentally being asked for by someone who hasn't read the book and is assuming bad faith of people who would dare to out Obi-Wan. It's been going on for years on this article. I will add all the page references anyone could desire when I get a spare moment, as all the more assiduous editors appear to have given up. --Chips Critic (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found the Google Books page which appears to have the full text of Alec Guinness: The Authorised Biography available for searching intext here, so we can perhaps verify the disputed quote that User:Lionelt referenced. I did do some preliminary searching intext, however, trying various terms. I typed in that 'quote' and retrieved no results, as did simplifying my parameters. Bisexual revealed nothing as well, but 'sex' and 'queer' brought up some things. However, again, this is just preliminary, I will try to get back to things soon. kiranerys(u,c) 08:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The original insertion of the sentence is highly suspicious. According to the history the source was already in the article when the sentence was added. And the page no. tag was there also. Why would an editor who presumably had the source ignore the page no. request, add supplemental info from the source, and then also fail to add the page no. from the new addition. Putting aside AGF for the moment the only plausibe explanation is that the editor merely added the sentence just before the footnote making it appear to be referenced, and never had the original source. I attempted to ask the editor about this but they ignored and deleted by inquiry. [4]. Very suspicious. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section, leaving it open to be added back in for if/when people locate a page number, or another source of course. At this moment, it cannot be called verifiable. kiranerys(u,c) 08:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Alec Guinness.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Alec Guinness.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Alec Guinness bench.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Alec Guinness bench.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sun of York

Before anyone jumps on me I know that my edit summary is flawed. Please read the following:

"sun of York" is a punning reference to the badge of the "blazing sun," which Edward IV adopted, and "son of York", i.e., the son of the Duke of York

So it was incorrect of me to state that it is "only' referring to the house of York. On the other hand it is spelled Sun. Thus, we can direct any other well meaning spelling editors either to this section of the talk page or to the page for the play itself here Richard III (play). Thanks ahead of time to those that will help in keeping this item correct. MarnetteD | Talk 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

This following a bit of edit warring. Put quite simply, Oscars are the most famous awards in film and receiving nominations is itself a notable achievement and thus warrants a mention in the lead paragraph. This is in keeping with GA/FA articles like Al Pacino, Brad Pitt, Jake Gyllenhaal, Penélope Cruz, Angelina Jolie, Winona Ryder. That is absolutely not in breach of WP:NPOV (read the policy).
However, a lead paragraph should be a summary and not contain every detail - hence my compromise here which I have restored. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First you will want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which points out that just because other articles may have a mistake in their lede. Next award wins can be notable but nominations not so much. After that look at WP:BRD The IP was bold. The revert occurred that is when the discussion is supposed to occur. Two more reverts by you don't fit that. Lastly the Oscars are just another award It violates NPOV to think that they are more important than any other awards. In AG's case his stage work was every bit as important to him as his film and TV performances and their is no mention of it in the lede at all so per WP:UNDUE the items have no business being there unless a consensus decides that they should and we dont have that at the moment. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW Your opinion of the Oscars needs a reliable source to back it up- MarnetteD | Talk 17:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to points raised:

• I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF should be confused with WP:CONSENSUS.
• As far as WP:BRD goes, it is "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes" and I'm not aware that you attempted to initiate a discussion after either of your reversions. I have made a single revert and simultaneously opened this discussion/
• If there is insufficient mention of Guinness' stage career in the lede then be WP:BOLD and add his achievements - If there is undue weight given to one aspect of his career then redress the balance by providing information that is lacking. But an assertion of WP:UNDUE is not an excuse to blindly remove reliable information.
• My opinion of the Oscars can be backed up by the article Academy Award (the oldest award ceremony in the media, televised in over 100 countries, etc.).
  ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First professional role?

In an article about the writer Noel Langley, The Witness (a South African newspaper) states that Guiness's first professional role was in Langley's play Queer Cargo at Wyndham's Theatre c. 1934. Not wanting to contradict what is in this article currently, which appears to be referenced, I thought I'd mention this contradiction here for someone with specific knowledge or a biography on hand to clear up. Here's the link: http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=73897. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning lead

@MarnetteD: My apologies for that last revert; it was made in error and I've reversed it now. For the record though, Wikilinking nationalities in biographies has been a pretty standard approach for a long time and generally is not seen as being in conflict with WP:OVERLINK. That being said, it's not a point worth edit warring over, and I appreciate that you're willing to compromise on the other (and to my mind, more significant) point, and I'm sorry to have mistakenly killed one of your live edits; I know that can be irksome. If you wish to me to revert back to the point where your edit is the live one (seeing as it will not affect the content), I'm happy to do so; I just didn't want to further clutter the history unless that was important to you. Best regards. Snow talk 06:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for your kind apology @Snow Rise:. I'll start by mentioning that I only saw it because of having the talk page on my watchlist. For some reason using {{ping|}} hasn't worked for several months now (maybe it has when you get pinged but I am not the only one who has not had the little red dot show up when the command is used) {{yo|}} and {{u|}} seem to work fine. I also want to let you know that the consensus I was referring to happened several years ago - it was not reached on this talk page - I think it was edit summaries but I could be wrong. I don't particularly mind it being there but it might get removed if any of those editors are still around (as I say it was several years ago - memory banks are getting dusty). As to the other item you may see the terms linked in various ledes but remember WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to that. They do violate WP:OVERLINK but WP:IAR is always in the background. My experience is different to yours as I have seen the links removed regularly but it is an example of how vast WikiP has become that editors can see completely different editing patterns. The link you were using has a slight (and I mean very slight) WP:EGG problem in that, when a reader clicks on the link to a country article it doesn't give them much info about what it means for a person to be English. English people is a better link IMO but that one has also delinked by other editors when "overlink" became policy - 8 or 9 years ago - again allowing for faulty memory. Thanks again for your post and happy editing - whenever possible. MarnetteD|Talk 06:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up with regard to {{ping}}; now that you mention it, I think I saw some discussion of the matter at VPT or elsewhere, but it completely flew my mind. I typically utilize {{u|}} but lately I've been using ping more in certain contexts, so your info is timely and appreciated.

Regarding the first element in question, I completely understand your caution regarding anything that might come off as POV or excessively glowing; as an editor I often find myself taking a dim view of claims which appear too generally evaluative, especially in the lead. I made an exception to that priority in this case because it seemed to me that the lead sentence fell flat and that it didn't appropriately capture the scale and influence of this particular actor's career, as our sources represent it -- but as someone who has reverted similar changes in other articles, I could have stood to have been less strident in my edit summary responding to what was obviously a good-faith edit; I'm glad that you seem to be the collegial type and that the momentarily adversarial positions didn't get us off on the wrong foot to any lasting degree.

On the other matter, yes I share your observation that two editors can have very different impressionistic experiences or perceptions regarding trends in certain arenas that are not governed by highly specific guidelines (as with WP:OVERLINK). And, in general lately, I've actually been citing that particular policy more than I have in the past; perhaps it's just a consequence of increased average article age or maybe I'm imagining the trend altogether, but it seems like everyone wants to blue-(or even red-)link every mundane term. I actually have no particularly strong opinion on whether nationalities should be so-linked in biographies (presumably the vast majority of such articles treat that topic in a less ambiguous manner in their main body, after-all), but I'm sure this is not the first time I've added such a link out of a (arguably impulsive) sense of consistency. It's probably a ubiquitous enough issue though that it wouldn't hurt for a discussion to eventually be held at MoS with regard to the very specific matter of nationalities in biographies, if only to get everyone on the same page and save time on these tiny disagreements. Not just to establish whether it is appropriate but indeed, as per your WP:EGG observation, where the linking should point in such cases.

Anyway, thanks for taking the error in stride, and happy editing to you as well. :) Snow talk 08:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Port is with you

Here's a weird fact. Just now watched Kind Hearts and Coronets, and between 53 and 54 minutes in, Alec Guinness, playing this time the somewhat demented rector of the church, after both had been drinking, says to Dennis Price, "My Lord, the Port is with you." I had to listen to this three times to get the wording right.

This is eerily close to Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, "Luke, the Force is with you." One wonders if it is not deliberate. Does it deserve mention in Kind Hearts and Coronets or the Star Wars or the Alec Guinness article? I don't know. Bill Jefferys 02:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Obi-Wan (as played by Guinness) only ever says "the Force will be with you, always".

Sign your comments. Guinness only ever says, "The force will be with you, always," near the end of the film after the destruction of the Death Star. He says a great many other things about the force in many different ways throughout the film. It's entirely possible that he did say, "Luke, the force is with you," although I don't specifically remember it. That said, I think trying to create a bridge between Kind Hearts... and Star Wars is a bit of a stretch. Unless someone can come up with a quote in support, or the line from Kind Hearts... is extremely well-known in Britain to the present day, I think it's safe to say it's a coincidence. But it's amusing for its own sake. Canonblack 16:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is what gentlemen say to each other if the progress of the port round the dinner table is held up. "Pass the port" is a common phrase in such circles.Sebmelmoth (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alec Guinness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211032902/http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/html/news/hn24.html to http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/html/news/hn24.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/guinness.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Filmography

Why does this article need a massive filmography section when we have an entire article on the subject? ——SN54129 10:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't, and the person who reverted it knows it. Maybe they could team up with Wallywhatstheirname and actually improve this article rather than pontificate over it? Cassianto^Talk 11:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto, considering that you have made a total of 2 edits to this article, maybe you should focus on the content and not editors and WP:AGF. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have zero interest in this article and I have even less interest in people who war their preferred version into an article contrary to WP:BRD. You, on the other hand, appear to, evidenced by your dodgy revert of the infantilebox. Keep up your "precious" work...whatever that may be. Cassianto^Talk 15:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And until yesterday you also had a total of two edits to the article. Considering you are guilty of edit warring to keep dross on the article, I'd take a piece of your own advice and focus on the content and not editors and WP:AGF. But that's fine: well done on edit warring to ensure there is much more emphasis in the IB on Guinness's two years in the military than there is in his 70+ year acting career. Genius move. We also still have more info in the article on one film he did not particularly care for than the rest of his stage or screen career. I was minded to re-write this one for FA, but given the level of 'stewardship' in keeping the quality so low, I think I'll pass. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If ever evidence was needed that we are in a race to the bottom, then Guinness, sadly, would be it. I'm looking forward to your revamp, Wallywhateveryournameis. Cassianto^Talk 17:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few of these filmography sections in actor/actress articles. Therefore, I've no objections to the proposed addition. PS: In case of concerns about the length? just have it collapsible. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

PS:The newly created Alec Guinness on stage and screen, solves the dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Resting place

User:MarnetteD In this edit [5] I reverted the addition of Cambridge to Petersfield Cemetery as the resting place, using the abreviation Rv for revert. If the edit summary was taken as being intended to mean 'revert vandalism' rather than simply revert, I am sorry. I do not see Cambridge mentioned with the pic as said in [6]. The Death section sources Petersfield Hampshire. I actually took said photo and I assure everyone that I was in Petersfield Hants at the time!SovalValtos (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation SovalValtos! I should have noticed that it was "Rv" not "Rvv" - many apologies. I am glad that you took that pic and that it is in the article. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Three years on and I see this was never resolved, so I'm going to throw caution to the wind and run the risk of upsetting a few snowflakes by suggesting that this change go very much ahead. Let's get one thing straight: Guinness is not "resting", he is not laying under a tonne of earth, with his arms folded, smile on face, eyes shut, dreaming of pink elephants skipping over clouds of honey. He is dead. Gone. Buried. 19 years ago. Therefore, I suggest changing the awful term "resting place" - used by the same people who use the term "reach out" - to burial place or burial site", if one must, or better still, delete the confounded thing altogether. I was going to change it myself, but since we have someone moaning over the deletion of some very insignificant WW2 "information" in the idiotbox, then they're also bound to melt over this change too. I would've posted below, but seeing as I'm only permitted one comment under such a header, I thought I'd save it. Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Have changed it. And added a source, that was missing, to support it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Hey! who are you calling a snowflake??

Cheers Martin. Cassianto^Talk 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is useful and has been on the page for over a decade. Not sure why it is being removed with no discussion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Now I have finished with domestic tasks, I have the time to reply in full; that seems pointless when closed minds are at work, however. Not every edit has to be cleared or discussed in advance before being made; we may as well just let dross remain in an article regardless how crap it is. Similarly, just because crap has been on a page for a long time, does not mean we have to keep it there. "Useful" is a rather flexible and—in this case—misused term. A military career listed in an IB? Jesus... that completely misleads the reader into Guinness's background. Do we understand the man or his films by knowing he is in Petersfield Cemetery? Crap, crap, crap. The lead is the place to provide information, not misleading little factoids that give "data" stripped of context, nuance, understanding and intelligence. Some of the information is wrong, or misleading, and the whole thing is best removed so as not to mislead or confuse any more readers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is confused by the information provided in the infobox. The information that is presented there has been included in the template because many people feel that the information is important to understanding a person and their life. The infobox is not a place to get a brief overall summary of "the man or his films" because that information is presented in the lead. You may not agree with that perspective, but I think the existence of the infobox from basically the beginning of the article shows that many people have felt it does provide useful information. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought this may be a waste of time. I have given examples about this specific IB. You seem to be discussing IBs in general, as the military aspect really is misleading g, whether you claim it is or not. I don’t see how you can claim it’s not misleading when that is present. This idiot box does no service to our readers in any way, shape or form. And just because it’s been there for a long time without anyone actually thinking about it in a critical manner is no excuse for keeping it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the infobox information about his military service is useful to understanding him as a person, and it's one of the parameters I appreciate being included on biographies. I don't understand how it could be misleading. The information presented about his military service seems very clear. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Because he’s a flaming actor - not in any way notable for his military service. Having military service listed makes him look like a career soldier not an actor. It’s misleading, despite your comments to the contrary. There’s obviously no point in continuing this: you’re obviously not goi g to approach this flexibly at all. - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Almost no one is notable for their date or place of birth either, and the same for most infobox parameters. That is the point of the lead paragraph: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". The infobox serves a different purpose than summarizing an overall picture for why a person is notable, and I doubt there is support for the statement that anyone is confused by an infobox. I don't think anyone legitimately thinks that serving two years in the navy makes a Alec Guinness seem like a "career soldier". However, many people do find it relevant to understand who he was and that it is useful information to have in an easily accessible format. You should try to understand that others may have a different perspective on this type of information than you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And there, in a nutshell, is why the idiotbox is so fucking pointless, and why these discussions are so fruitless. Editors who don’t grasp the point of what encyclopaedic content is supposed to be about: and it’s not providing tangential information in a position that gives way too much weight about a subject. Time for me to do something useful elsewhere, if improvements are going to face this intransigence. Feel free to have the last word. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your failure to assume good faith makes it hard for you to realize that people can have reasonable disagreements about what is encyclopedic content and how weight is judged, including professional organizations such as Encyclopedia Britannica, which includes an infobox on its website [7], as do others. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for questioning mg good faith. That’s always nice to hear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Your literal first response to me was, "Now I have finished with domestic tasks, I have the time to reply in full; that seems pointless when closed minds are at work, however." I have nothing else to say to you here. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but here's my problem with the infobox as it stands. Why do we list the military service record there? He's not primarily known for his military career, he's primarily known for his acting. So why don't we include something like that instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat makes the same point. According to him, Guinness is flaming actor. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, unless I hear objections I'll swap the military service for something about his acting career (1934-2000?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"I hate the Wikipedians! You are defeated but you have no shame. You are stubborn but you have no pride. You endure but you have no courage. I hate the Wikipedians!" -- Colonel Saito 123 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the issue with the military service record? I think we should keep it in the infobox, and I would support adding additional information about his acting career alongside the other information in the infobox. Guinness is also not primarily known for his birth date or place or his spouse or children either. The infobox is not designed to present only information that an article subject is primarily known for, since that is the purpose of the lead paragraph: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Has there been a discussion somewhere that military service or other infobox parameters should only be displayed for individuals who are primarily known for it? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem, as I have stated already, is that there is much more information about his 2 years in the RNVR than his 70 years on stage and screen. can you not see just how misleading that is for those people who only look at the IB? Don’t quote lead to us: that is entirely separate to the IB, which is why it can be so misleading. -SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so three of us have supported replacing the military information with acting statistics, and only one against. Andy Dingley do you have a view on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, make that four. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure. It would depend on Guinness, and I don't know his own history well enough. He's of a generation where their WWII service was significant. Certainly there are British actors of this period for whom it warrants inclusion, and the odd writer like Fleming too. But I don't know enough of Guinness to know offhand. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, what would be the reason for replacing the information rather than just adding additional information to the infobox? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert The principal reason is that an infobox is the first place people look for information, which happens far more often than you might think. For example, in the office at work, we were talking about pub quiz questions and somebody said "I've got a good one, who's older - Gary Oldman or Gary Numan?" A quick look at Wikipedia and the respective infoboxes gave us our answers. So, by extension, anything in the infobox is going to make people believe it's the most important thing about them, and hence having a number of fields about military service, while nothing about acting, strikes me as rather odd - and indeed, non-neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. Now that's what I call notable military service! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thanks for the response. I understand your explanation, but I don't agree with the statement, "anything in the infobox is going to make people believe it's the most important thing about them", especially given the "actor" occupation field. Is there any evidence that readers have been confused by an infobox in this way? Is your position that only individuals who are primarily notable for a career in military service should have their military service included in their infobox? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I support keeping the military service. A significant part of his life even if he was only 'acting' the role.SovalValtos (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

He's best known as an actor, rather then a military officer. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Recommend we delete the infobox. The military info is best in the article body. Infoboxes are best for politicians & athletes. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought, regardless of personal preference, info boxes were pretty much the standard for all articles, except those for classical musicians and for those where local consensus exists to not have one? The military info is still going to be "in the article body" - I don't think anyone was suggesting it should be removed from there? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

For actor articles, a compromise is possible, in the form of a collapsed infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No objections. Is that some kind of agreed policy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)