Talk:Bob Hoskins/Archive 1

The Wall's only dialogue?

"He made a cameo appearance as a rock band's manager in the Pink Floyd film The Wall, where his one-word expletive exclamation was the film's only dialogue." I don't think latter part is correct... 149.159.92.56 07:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film in years, but there was SOME dialog, wasn't there? There's some spoken parts, even on the album (e.g. "Do you wann take a bath?", "It's a man answering; he keeps hanging up.", "You behind the drapes there, stand still would ya") AHands 18:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard this myth before and I thought it was wrong so I just checked the movie. There are a few examples of dialogue in the film although most of it is masked by the music soundtrack to some extent or another, or else the speaker is off screen (or on a TV screen). The american groupie gets quite a few lines in fact. The thing with the "one-word expletive exclamation" is that the music fades out entirely for the line, maybe its the one moment in the film that feels like a regular movie rather than an extended music video. Or maybe its the dramatic power of the moment that fixes it in peoples minds.

However, the line is in fact "Fuck me!" so its not a "one-word expletive" anyway. Or is that just me being pedantic? ^ It's just you being pedantic. :)) (120.149.119.141 (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Batman

Removed the Batman Begins reference, since The Penguin was not part of the film.

Actually it is still in the article. Wasn't it eventually the Scarecrow who ended up as Batman's adversary? Jrn105 12:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

?

"Hoskins is known for his "cold bum test", which he uses whenever he receives a new script. He takes it to the lavatory to read, and if it's an enthralling script, his buttocks will have gone cold due to the time elapsed." This line was uncited and seemed dubious and so I removed it, seeing that this is a biography and all. --208.127.64.60 10:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the Move

The BBC TV series "On the Move" was part of a wider adult literacy project. Barney the bear was not in it. See http://www.literacy.lancs.ac.uk/links/docs/changing%20faces%205%20timelines.pdf for details. The wikipedia article on The Dooleys (who performed the theme song) gets it right. 172.188.38.57 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"No free image"

How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eddie_Valiant.jpg I didn't want to put it up since I'm not entirely sure of the copyright laws, but since it's already on Wikipedia under a free license, it should be fine, right? 68.35.187.239 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish heritage?

We say he spent time on a kibbutz. Did he have Jewish heritage? This seems like a reasonable issue to discuss in the article. john k (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some people did this as a means of spiritual growth or a sense of adventure or rebellion. Without a reliable source, we can't say he's Jewish. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He's quoted in Times Online as saying he's not Jewish (he originally mentioned it back in a 1999 interview). Could be worth adding to the article... i.e. "In 1967, aged 25, he spent a short period in kibbutz Zikim in Israel (although he is not Jewish)". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallucinations?

Well over ten years ago, I saw an interview of Hoskins on an American television show, though I can't remember the name of the program. He talked about how he would do mental exercizes involving visualizing objects. Unfortunately, it caused him to start seeing things, especially after the filming of Rodger Rabbit, where he used the technique to visialize the animated "actors." All I've been able to find about this are re-quotes of a 2009 article from UK magazine Ok! (here). I can't find anything else hard on this to source. There's not a lot of "personal life" data out there for Hoskins, despite his large body of work. Durty Willy (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ads for British Telecom

The article does not mention his appearences in the "It's good to talk" advertising campaign for British Telecom. I never saw these, so can not add this. HairyWombat 02:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Film entry Danny the Dog

Bob Hoskins starred in the film Danny the Dog in 2005 - a role like that in the Long Good Friday. It is a pity it is not mentioned in this entry. The film is excellent:

Danny the Dog with Jet Li, Morgan Freeman and Bob Hoskins Director Louis Leterrier Produced by Luc Besson Martial arts direction: Yuen Wo Ping — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.118.1 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

None

I've seen it say "None (atheist)" or "None (agnostic)" in various other articles. So why do you have a problem with it with the article about Bob Hoskins? Captain Cornwall (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Cornwall: That does not imply that they were correct. This is an either … or … or … situation.
It cannot be two (with one in parentheses)
Even the reference provided supports this criterium:

"I was brought up an atheist while my dad was a communist. I can’t really believe there is an old fellow up there guiding us all. I can’t really believe there is heaven and hell." - Bob Hoskins in an Oct 2002 article in the Scotsman titled 'Preacher Features'.
In his April 2012 interview with Saga magazine, Bob Hoskins states candidly he is an atheist. "I’m an atheist you know, so family is everything, I’ve got money, yeah, but it’s my family that I care about." - Bob Hoskins.

But your claim that Hoskins is "Agnostic" is not even supported in the article's references.
I think "None" is correct here. Regards, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gareth's comments. BTW the field is normally only used if the religion is a part of the persons public life not their private one … in the case of none we leave it blank. Also be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF when claiming that "I have seen it in other articles." MarnetteD | Talk 20:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it from the info' box. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks G. Capt Cornwell please be aware, while we are aware of the nuances in a situation like this, that is an "in universe" perspective. Our articles are to be written from an "out of universe" point of view. Thus "none" and the "xxxx" next to each other are going to cause confusion for some (many?) readers. I would suggest that one or the other be chosen based on sourced material in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 21:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

There are two periods in a row. Please remove one of the periods from "Super Mario Bros.. He" 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:2B89 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Early life

I believe he attended Highgate Woods secondary school. (source: that was my school and I remember parents/teachers talking about it when Roger Rabbit came out. Many kids in that school live in Finsbury Park as Hoskins did.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.41.72.25 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A reader's memory is not a reliable source. An article that states it is necessary. Jim Michael (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Junior" in his name

In Wikipedia articles "Junior" (and "Senior") should only ever be included in the names of people when they have used it themselves. I have not come across any evidence that Bob Hoskins ever called himself "Bob Hoskins, Junior" or was ever commonly known by this name. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's style principle on this matter, I have now twice removed the inclusion of "Junior" in his name. The fact that he had the same name as his father is not sufficient reason to include it. Neither is the fact that some media sources include it ~ most of which are clearly echoing its use in this article. Therefore do not include it again without clear and incontrovertible evidence that Hoskins himself used it as part of his name. Afterwriting (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Obituaries are quite solid evidence that it was part of his identity. One cannot just discount it like that. There's also a difference between formally addressing and informally addressing oneself. "Bob Hoskins" is an informal addressing. "Robert William Hoskins, Jr." would be a full (and therefore formal) addressing. Take for example Bill O'Reilly, whose real name is William James O'Reilly, Jr. There's also President Jimmy Carter whose real name is James Earl Carter, Jr., and Will Smith whose real name is Willard Carroll Smith, Jr. Removing the "Jr." when his father was "Sr." is essentially discounting/discrediting his father's identity. If they had different middle names, then "Jr." wouldn't apply. This obituary for example is certainly not mirroring or "echoing" the Wikipedia article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with XXSNUGGUMSXX assessment. It is verifiable. We aren't using it as the article title but only in the lede and the infobox which is quite proper. As well as Jr/Sr WikiP bio articles include middle name(s) in the lede whether a person has used their full name themselves. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting, forgive me if I am assuming things incorrectly but I think that you are applying article naming conventions to the text of the article. Per WP:COMMONNAME we don't use the Jr in the title of the article. OTOH per WP:FULLNAME we do use Jr in the lede. I hope this helps you to understand what is occurring here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD, you've hit the nail right on the head. The clarification you gave should help. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

While it may be verifiable in the sense that one obituary has used it (I am assuming that "Vulture"/New York Media is a RS, it's not my field), that's not a reason to follow it blindly. Of the mainline English-language media, I found only plain "Robert William Hoskins" in Daily Express [1], Telegraph [2], BBC [3], Guardian [4], Scotsman [5], Independent [6], Stage [7] (and in the US) the Washington Post [8], New York Times [9], Los Angeles Times [10]. (The Times is behind a pay-wall, so haven't checked; the Financial Times didn't give any version of full name). These are all serious publications who will have researched and updated their obituaries seriously over time and, to me, they carry much more weight. Furthermore, his biographer Karen Moline sticks with the same version [11]. Davidships (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked the LA Times, and it does not use Jr. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes sources give full names without suffixes, but that doesn't always mean there is no suffix, particularly when parents' names are not given. For example, Presidents John Adams and Theodore Roosevelt were both Jr.'s, but this is often left out since parents are not mentioned in such sources. As for Vulture, yes it is reliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Davidships all of those omissions have nothing do to with what his name was at birth. When there are WP:V sources that weighs far above those that were too lazy to be complete. MarnetteD | Talk 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Too lazy to be complete"?! That is a quite bizarre and irresponsible comment. We know what his full name was at birth and, being British (and English for what it's worth) it is highly unlikely that this also included "Junior" on his birth certificate or any other legal documents. You seem to be assuming that it was part of his full name on the basis of American custom. That is not an acceptable argument at all. Afterwriting (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is preposterous (if not offensive) to assert that all those professional journalists and editors, working for the most serious newspapers in both Britain and the US, as well as Hoskins' American biographer, are lazy. I wonder just how Vulture discovered that his parents adopted a very American style (not completely unknown in UK, but extremely rare) for their son in 1942? Oh, and (without looking at them all again), most of the obituaries did mention the parents' names. Davidships (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's all note that the use of 'Junior' in this way is solely US usage. Since Hoskins was British, the only reason to include it with his name is if he incontrovertibly expressed a wish to be known that way, which seems unlikely, given his character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onanoff 13:25, 3 May, 2014 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "solely US usage". Also, to be specific on his nationality, he was English. "British" is an ambiguous term that can also refer to those from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, so I would discourage using that term when you know the specifics (which in this case, we know he was English). Evidence has been provided that it was part of his WP:FULLNAME, which I suspect you've confused with WP:COMMONNAME. I suggest you simply let this one go. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Let's all note that the use of 'Junior' in this way is solely US usage." Really? Do you have a verifiable source stating that. Have you even read. Have you even read WP:FULLNAME yet. It seems unlikely as your edit warring shows. [User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]][ | Talk 17:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to come out in favor of removing Jr. from Hoskins' name. It's a naming convention for sons with the same names as their fathers, but not uniformly used or automatic. That is, not everyone who could be named My Father's Name, Jr. is named My Father's Name, Jr. (or II, for that matter) as XXSNUGGUMSXX seems to believe. Given the preponderance of media sources not using Junior, and remember they fact-check more carefully that websites, and one smallish website that does, I think it should be removed. Dismissing that many major media sources, particularly the LA Times with its entertainment journalism pedigree, as lazy in favor of one media website is a bit too POV for my blood. Rather, I'm inclined to dismiss the website as having made the assumption that Jr. was part of his name with nothing to back it up. --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

For your information, MarnetteD, please note that I did NOT write the above comment about "solely US usage" as you have falsely assumed. Your argument about WP:FULLNAME is irrelevant as there is no evidence that "Junior" has ever been used by him or his family. Therefore there is no evidence that it actually has ever been part of his full name despite some ~ mostly American ~ media sources including it. It cannot be considered part of his full name if he or his family have never included it in his name and it is more unlikely than likely in Britain that it would have been included. The distinctions between "British" and "English" etc used by XXSNUGGUMSXX are equally irrelevant and an erroneous red herring.Afterwriting (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmargi, there is also III being son of Jr., IV being son of III, etc., though that only applies when they all share the same first-middle(s)-last name. If Hoskins' father was also named "Robert William Hoskins", then removing the suffix is essentially saying he didn't share his father's full name. If there was another person in his family aside from his father who previously named "Robert William Hoskins", then he would be III. Two others, IV, three others, V, etc. It isn't just used in the United States, though, I will say that. Afterwriting, I was indicating that "British" is broad and "English" is more specific. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Use of Jr. is the family's choice, and removal simply indicates the family chose not to use it. It says nothing about whether he uses his father's name or not. I know you feel strongly about this, but please resist the urge to school other editors on the use of naming suffixes, particularly when you a. don't know how much they know (your lesson being off-point given my comments) and b. are in error regarding the use of Jr. yourself. I'm an American well versed in British social customs, and I agree with the posters that use of Jr. is very unusual for British men. --Drmargi (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

All of this argument is based on American customs. This is not directly or automatically applicable to British citizens. How many times does this need to be stated to you?! And your distinction between "British" and "English" also has no real relevance to this issue. I have lived much of my life in England and people there are just as likely to refer to themselves as "British" as "English". Afterwriting (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's odd did you not state "that his parents adopted a very American style"? Again you did not provide a source to back up the assertion. FULLNAME is relevant since there is a source. You are certainly free to ask about the source at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. MarnetteD | Talk 18:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

NO ~ I did NOT state "that his parents adopted a very American style"! Why are you making such completely factually false statements about my editing? That is completely unacceptable. As for "sources" the overwhelming weight of reliable British sources in quality newspapers have not included "Junior" in his name. If it was part of his name then they almost certainly would have done so. It is, therefore, almost certainly NOT part of his full name and should not be included in the article without any clear evidence that it was. The burden of proof is on including it ~ not otherwise. This should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmargi, "nonsense" seems like a stretch, and I wasn't exactly trying to "school" anyone. Nationality/ethnicity aside, it comes off as discrediting his father's identity to state this Hoskins wasn't a Jr. It might not be used in conversation, but formal documents are another story. If both son and father were named "Robert William Hoskins", a suffix wouldn't likely be left out on son's birth certificate. What sources indicate his father had a different name than "Robert William Hoskins"? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This business about discrediting his father's name is a reflection of your values and your beliefs, nothing more. It's entirely POV. On what are you basing the assumption Jnr would have been on his birth certificate? Do you even know how the British record a live birth? You're jumping to a lot of increasingly larger conclusions here. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah that was Davidships. My apologies. You did write this "All of this argument is based on American customs." which is still unproven. Also your previous post was removed in an edit conflict. Althoough Wikiprogramming usually prevents this but I have seen this occur on talk pages including AN/I. Many apologies for not noticing that this had happened so it was quite proper for you to restore the comment. The personal attacks however are not proper. MarnetteD | Talk 18:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What really is not "proper" is having to keep on dealing with repeated tiresome and erroneous arguments and attempts to silence me on my own and other talk pages. And all of that other editor's argument was in fact based on American custom. Every bit of his or her argument was based on what is customary in America and in complete ignorance of British custom. There is ~ or at least was (as I cannot currently find it) ~ a statement somewhere in one of the MoS-related pages saying that "Junior" should not be used in a person's name unless that person actually used it. Regardless of whether it is still there it seems an appropriate principle as ~ at least in Britain ~ it would not automatically be part of someone's full name. Afterwriting (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling one's argument "erroneous" can come off as offensive, and I was quite offended when on your talk page you called my statements "ignorant", "BS", "crap", and not having "a clue". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems, MarnetteD, that you think I failed to provide a source to back up an assertion. I am a bit puzzled as to which assertion that was. Davidships (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Where this came from

Okay. Back in 2006 Sr was added to his fathers name with this edit and Jnr was added with the next edit here. Both of those are based on this website. '06 was either just before or just after (mists of time) the need for WP:RSs became a must for BLPs. Again I would suggest that we get input from editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (even though he has passed away this noticeboard gets quicker replies that the biography project talk page) if they concur with those of you who want the Jr removed then that will be fine with me. MarnetteD | Talk 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a very wise move. What troubles me, and I have no skin in this game, is that the suffix pro's are hanging their arguments that Jr. should be used on the evidence from two very minor media websites with no evidence of fact-checking (one of which may be fan submitted), in the face of half a dozen or more major American and British newspapers, all with well-established policies of fact-checking and none of which uses Jr. It makes it tough to lend any credence at all to those sites, particularly given the abundance of copy errors and lack of editorial oversight of most entertainment websites. It also occurs to me that the abbreviation Jr. is American usage; in Britain, Jnr is used. That suggests the two sites are both American and making an assumption based on American use of generational titles. --Drmargi (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand why NNDB wouldn't be used, though Vulture isn't grossly unreliable or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not, but it's also outside its area of expertise when it comes to generational titles. You've got six major world news papers on one side of the issue, and one small media website with no editorial oversight on the other. The balance simply is against Vulture. Moreover, look at what the author generally writes about. It's more than obvious that he made an assumption, possibly based on NNDB, possibly not, but didn't fact check to a reliable level. Even the most reliable source can be unreliable under the right conditions. --Drmargi (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Drmargi for bringing some calm to this kerfuffle. I wonder why there is such determination from some to stick with the "Vulture" version against the weight of other RSs? Obituary writers of the serious British press are usually most assiduous with fact checking, and habitually check the open-shelf official records for birth names (and obtain the birth certificate if there is any doubt about date, place or parents' names). No doubt the heavyweight US press are equally professional. I notice that nobody seems to give any weight to his biographer, which also seems odd (she is American, so presumably is well familiar with US naming practice) - I don't have that book, but wonder if anything there throws more light on this? Although it was not authorised by Hoskins, much of her research and writing was done in the UK. Davidships (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. We'll find the right answer as long as we keep talking calmly and civilly. Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the biography Karen Moline and it doesn't mention anything about whether he was a Jr. or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. No reason to doubt, I think, that her editorial conclusion was that father and son were without Sr/Jr. Davidships (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. It doesn't state anything about his parents' names, therefore we can't use that to conclude if he had a suffix or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not a complete representation. She refers to him as Robert William Hoskins, no Jnr three times between pages 7 and 15. Whether she mentions his father's name is irrelevant. It's clear that her research did not indicate he used or was named Jnr Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple. She may have just not mentioned his father at all. In any case, he was definitely Jr. if his father was Sr. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's exactly that simple. Yet another source does not support the argument that Hoskins was a Jnr (British usage), much less a Jr. (American usage.) You continue to demand that sources prove a negative: that Hoskins did not use Jnr. (which you persist in erroneously formatting as Jr. -- see our own article on generational titles to verify). That's not how reliable sources work. The burden is on you to provide reliable sources that Hoskins family named him Robert Wiliam Hoskins Jnr. Whether his father was a Snr is irrelevant. Whether your sources mention is father is simply diversionary smoke and mirrors. The fundamental issue, which your weak sources do not support in the face of numerous opposing sources, is that Bob Hoskins was given the generational title Jnr. Your argument that "the source didn't say he wasn't, therefore he might have been, and we should leave it in" (erroneously formatted in American usage) simply does not hold up. It's time to drop the stick, back away and for the use of Jr. in any form to be removed from the article. You simply do not have the sources to support its inclusion. --Drmargi (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No XXSNUGGUMSXX, I did understand your earlier point, but it is not for us to conclude anything. I am merely saying that, like the media RSs I instanced above, this RS is also giving his full name as just "Robert William Hoskins". That has to be taken into account in considering the relative weight where otherwise acceptable RSs differ, as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As for your last comment, I have no idea why you are repeating this dogma, which has no foundation in British reality. Several editors have pointed out already that this is not the usual practice on this side of the Atlantic in the 20/21st century. Davidships (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's necessarily "dogma", but saying he wasn't Jr. when his father was Sr. is essentially discrediting his father's identity (assuming they shared the exact same name). If you'd like specific examples of English people using Sr./Jr. or Snr./Jnr., I'd point out Pilgrim John Alden's eldest son was John Jr. (or Jnr). If Vulture is not counted as a sufficient source, I'll keep searching. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources I found:

• Philly identifies him as "Robert W. Hoskins, Jr."
• Italia-24news calls him "Robert William Hoskins, Jr."
• Euronews calls him "Robert William Hoskins, Jr."

There are also some non-English sites calling him as such. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

John Alden did not receive his name in the 20th century (I have no doubt that up to the 19th century the use of Jr/Sr was less rare in Britain than now). None of the results of your trawl are very impressive - all short pieces from news organisations that are not noted as experts in checking the names of people born in England, they naturally depend on other sources (perhaps including WP). Its not the numbers of RSs that are relevant at all, it's their weight as mentioned a few lines above.

For the life of me I don't understand your point about his father being "discredited". His birth name was what it was and he would only have adopted an additional "Sr" if he later decided to name his son "Jr" - none of the British RSs (nor the US ones I instanced above) give his name as "Sr", they state that both their names were the same. I am sorry that you find that impossible to accept. Davidships (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

Given that we have no consensus to include the generational title Junior, and questionable (at best sources) that that use the American version of the title, which a British family is unlikely to do, and no source that they adopted the American form, I have made the decision to be WP:BOLD and remove Jr. from the article. I see no reason the discussion cannot continue, but I don't think we can reasonably say that we have a reliable source to include the title, particularly in the face of multiple major news outlets, none of which use it, and a handful of minor websites to support its inclusion, all of which erroneously use the American syntax. It seems likely to me that they have either made the assumption, picked it up from one another or seen it here, and assumed it was correct. --Drmargi (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, refs don't support his father having the same middle name as him. They only list his father as simply "Robert Hoskins". For the record, "Jr." (or Jnr) isn't exclusively American. Enrique Iglesias's family and Adolf Hitler's family are non-American examples. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read what others write carefully. No one said Junior was exclusively American, just that the use of Jr. as the abbreviation for Junior is the American style, whereas Jnr is the British style. --Drmargi (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Source for "On the Move"

Lots more about his breakthrough role here [12]. Onanoff (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Brazil

I would like to include Brazil in the first paragraph where it says "He appeared in films such as." I'm not sure what are the criteria for including a film in that initial list but I think Brazil is just as noteworthy as the ones listed. Bryan (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First new posts like this go at the bottom of the page to keep things in chrono order. Next, I can understand your affection for this film. The usual way of things is to not turn the lede into a list. His onscreen time in this film is minimal and it is debatable how big a part of his career it is. However, if enough other editors are in favor of its inclusion then we can put it back in. MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And a half years old?

I get noting a death within a short time before someone dies - "2 weeks short of his 72nd birthday" and such. But "six months" as stated? Even if it is cited, it is such a meaningless fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.78.3 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. You are quite correct. MarnetteD|Talk 05:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disease

Hoskins is listed on Progressive supranuclear palsy. Right or wrong? 81.231.164.31 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

2000 Don Quixote TV Film

as Sancho Panza and John Lithgow as Don Quixote

Craig9mm (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What is your question? The item is listed in the Bob Hoskins#Television table. MarnetteD|Talk 20:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal Life

Is Mr. Hoskins's opinion on Tony Blair really necessary? It seems more like someone using this article to take a cheap shot at Blair than add something significant about Hoskins.I suggest it should be removed. Asburyparker (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Really necessary?" I mean, is Wikipedia "really necessary"? Blair was a uniting figure, then a divisive figure. It's interesting to see that Hoskins had certain views that were ameliorated according to prevailing circumstance. They're properly sourced, he chose to make his views known, and there's precious little else about his personal life. I think it's thin gruel to suggest this is a POV by an interested party. Keep it. Captainllama (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)