This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Given that the sentence says "his body was cremated and his remains were scattered", it's clear what form the remains took - there's no need to introduce a slightly obscure technical term here. --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
Despite the public domain claim, the studio publicity still may not be legal for use. It is both undated and unsourced. Review the permission. Hitchcock is not a "film actor" as it incorrectly claims, nor is there a date/year of the image. The public domain claim itself also states the photo must be published between 1923 and 1963. Someone tell me how we know this photo complies without a date? How do we know it's not a 1964 or later photo? By contrast, someone has also removed an image with an OTRS ticket, so there is no question but that it can - and should - be used. That makes no sense. It's also a more recent and frankly, a better image, and was apparently taken by a well-known celebrity photographer too. So on the one hand you have a clearly legal, well-sourced and superior image and on the other you have a possibly illegal, undated and unsourced image and people are complaining? If someone can explain this logically, please do. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:D4A7:F6E3:8AC3:BD54 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You went against WP:3RR by putting in the same edit three times in less than an hour, despite being reverted by two editors. Now three editors. As User:Cresix said in reverting you, the Studio publicity photo is public domain and the better image for the infobox. I see you put a WP:Edit warring warning on his Talk page, even though he was the third editor to revert you, and only did it once. This after he put the same warning on your User talk:2602:304:5EA1:5289:44AF:D6AC:77D1:E320 page. No one has backed up your opinion that the Mitchell photo is better for the infobox. It has Hitchcock as an older man. The studio photo has him as he is much better known to the public, and as he looks less than 64 years old, one can assume it was taken between 1923 and 1963. Its permission entry says it is "PD-PRE1964", and it's being used on dozens of WP pages. You distorted that image when you placed it lower, and told me to fix it on my Talk page. There's no reason to use the most recent photo of someone who passed on more than 30 years ago in the infobox. You can place the Mitchell photo lower in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I invited you to review what WP:3RR actually says before accusing someone of violating it. Clearly you failed to do that. I reverted 3 times. 3RR says "more than 3 times." Surely you can count? But if you want to split hairs, as you apparently do, if I am guilty of 3RR, then so are you and so is every editor who reverted me, since edit warring with no discussion on the talk page, is still a violation. As for what User:Cresix said, what's the factual basis for the comment? Or are you satisfied to mirror it simply because it agrees with you? So mere opinion is sufficient, as long as it's an opinion you agree with? I asked a legitimate, fact-based question and you have still failed to offer a serious, fact-based response. Since we don't know the age of the photo, tell me how you or anyone else can claim it's in the public domain? It's a really simple question, can you provide a simple answer? Also you violated WP:AGF with your accusatory tone, not to mention you repeated the same vacuous claim that I distorted the image. Nonsense. I did nothing but move the image to elsewhere in the article, where it conforms to the exact same size & shape as every other photo in the article. So if that "distorts" it, then you must be saying that all the other photos are "distorted" as well. As to your suggestion here that there's "no reason to use the most recent photo of someone who passed on more than 30 years ago", that also defies simple logic. By the same token then, should we use a photo of Louis B. Mayer, Cecil B. DeMille, John Huston, George Cukor or some other legendary screen directors when they were younger or just starting out, in the infobox? No, obviously you want a recognizable and interesting photo of someone when they were at the height of their game. The publicity still is as dry as toast, unlike the OTRS photo where a better photographer captured a much more interesting, indeed iconic, image. Google the OTRS photo. It's pretty legendary and I would think WP editors would be happy to be able to use it. Guess not. But if you had really wanted to collaborate constructively, you would have simply restored your undated/unsourced and possibly illegal studio still in the Infobox - but you would have also placed the OTRS photo elsewhere in the article, as a good compromise. Instead you just reverted me. Twice - in a matter of minutes. Then had the nerve to lecture me about 3RR? But, per your suggestion, I'll restore the OTRS photo to some other place in the article - although again, it was originally the Infobox photo long before anything I did. I'll also wait until well after 24 hrs have passed to do it. I just couldn't bear another 3RR complaint. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:7D90:770E:FB0F:A6D9 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Where do I start? You couldn't see that the studio photo was being squeezed vertically the way you put it in the article? That photo appears to be of Hitchcock when he was past the age of 50, some three decades after he started out. That's when Hithcock was at the height of his game, in the 1950s, not the 1970s. Louis B. Mayer was not a director, legendary or otherwise. And you're the one who needs to review what WP:3RR actually says, particularly Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. You did the same edit four times in the space of 24 hours and four minutes. You were clearly WP:Edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Now I see what the problems are: First, you can't count. I reverted 3 times not 4. An initial edit is not a revert. One revert from another editor's revert and twice more because YOU reverted TWICE. So now would be a good time for you to admit that you edit-warred. The edit summary is pretty clear. You really should exhibit enough self-awareness to review your own actions before accusing others of the identical conduct. Otherwise it makes you look hypocritical. Or worse, just dense. Second, regarding WP:3RR and your one-sided edit-warring claims, see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others". You failed to follow that policy. I brought this to the talk page, not you. You were too busy edit-warring, then deflecting by finger-pointing. Finally, as regards your quote of 3RR: you're not an administrator - so the same rules apply to you that apply to the rest of us.
Now let's address the image. For the 3rd time now you've claimed I vertically squeezed the photo. Not once have you addressed my response that: the photo was the exact same size as every other photo in the article. Or my follow up: "So if that "distorts" it, then you must be saying that all the other photos are "distorted" as well." Not responding to either and simply parroting the same complaint over and over again instead, is also a sign of denseness. As regards Hitch's age at the time of the studio photo, he looks to be in his 40s in my view, which if you read the article, would place the photo in the section 1940s films. Whereas even the article notes, and you yourself concede, that the following decade were his peak years, which that studio still then pre-dates. But I'll go at it another way: do you know anything about photography? If so, can you honestly tell me the studio still is a superior image compared to the Mitchell pic? Hardly. I could discuss the quality of the photography with you, but I'm sure even you must concede, all things being equal, which is a better shot. But you also never addressed my core question: how do we even know the studio still is in the public domain, since it is neither dated nor sourced? I'm still waiting for you or someone else to address this fundamental question. Finally, you did successfully make one point: Louis B. Mayer was clearly not a legendary director. But obviously he was a legendary producer. Congrats on your one successful attempt at hair-splitting. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:A95E:C639:58B5:6D6B (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, where do I start? Where's the date on the Mitchell photo? Hitchcock is clearly past 65, my guess past 70. So that shot is not from his peak period. You distorted the studio photo when you moved it. I feel no need to discuss why other photos aren't distorted. You've been outvoted by three other editors as to the issue of putting the Mitchell photo in the infobox, so that issue is done. No one has backed your position. And the first thing you said above is a strawman argument at best. I wrote You did the same edit four times in the space of 24 hours and four minutes - which is entirely true. And you come back with I can't count? When I clearly said "edit", not "revert"? You were clearly edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I know where you can start: buy a mirror. You never denied you edit-warred - because you can't. You can only deflect. A rather desperate strategy actually. Accept personal responsibility for your own actions and don't worry so much about others. Your oft-repeated "distorted photo" nonsense is now so clearly, transparently ridiculous that even you can't defend it. So since you "feel no need to discuss" it, I "feel no need" to waste anymore time even dignifying it. Nor has anything been "voted" or "outvoted", because there has been no "vote." Just reverts without discussion on the talk page in violation of WP policy. Perhaps a formal RfC on the legality of the studio photo would give us an actual and definitive vote. Also perhaps a speedy on the photo, since it's provenance is in question, would also get some answers. At least we'd have an actual vote by people who don't have some ownership stake in the outcome - instead of by editors who seem to think they WP:OWN this article. If that consensus says it's status in the public domain can be assured, then fine. But the question is a reasonable one, deserving of a reasoned and reasonable response. I also don't know the date of the Mitchell photo or Hitch's age in it; but yes he looks older, which frankly, is the point. He looks how most people would immediately recognize him. He looks like Hitchcock the legendary director and film icon. I also know it's apparently a widely circulated & critically accepted photo so it must have some quality for all these various websites to use it. I also know that I asked you to compare the two images and challenged you to say which was the better photographic image. Your silent, no response, was telling. By comparison, how widely circulated is the poorer quality studio still? Mostly just on WP mirror sites. Deservedly so. It's a poor, generic washed out photo. It could have been taken at the DMV. But the bottomline is: here's something else that I do know with absolute certainty about the Mitchell photo, that you don't know with the same level of certainty about the studio still: I know it's completely & totally legal to use on Wikipedia. The End. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:112E:B710:7104:11C4 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm under no obligation to spend time answering all or any of your questions. You were outvoted by the fact three editors reverted you. No one has supported your position. You can call that The End if you want. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As I'm under no obligation to waste more time with you, since you're incapable of intelligent dialogue or coherent responses and are ignorant of WP policy - which you routinely either violate or misinterpret. So we're done. I will no longer feed the troll. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:5D6D:6CEE:FC28:69D3 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2013 (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.
it's totally absurd to call Hitchcock simply "British", given he made his home in Hollywood for most of his life, where he died, his major movies are distinctly American, and Hollywood was integral to his life. his American citizenship is simply an additional factor. given that Hollywood is such a prominent part of American culture, and Hitchcock became a major force within that culture, it is just silly to deny him of his Americanism -- where most of his major movies take place. trying to use some rule to explain away why he is denied being called British-American is the height of irrelevant pedantry.
actually, to appease the pedants, and yet provide the common-sense education that Wiki should be about, the first line should read something like: "..was an English-born film director and producer who made many major Hollywood films." that is, if people here are truly interested in actually informing people rather than holding on to their unbendable (but often unhelpful) rules. the introductory paragraph should be, in fact, about giving the reader as much basic info as possible within a few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
i would have changed this again myself, but unfortunately i am having log in problems. should definitely be "British-American". that is, for people who exercise common sense.
No, He's British with American citizenship. See Nicole Kidman] and the way they handled it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain someone's nationality is the citizenships they hold. It's a nuetral position and will stop a nationalist pissing war between Brits and Americans. How another page does it is irrelevant. I'll bow to a consensus here, not there.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
He was a British citizen when he became notable and was a US citizen for only the final third of his career; it seems best to emphasize that he was English. Perhaps edit the lede to read, "...Hitchcock moved to Hollywood in 1939, and became a US citizen in 1955." Ewulp (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Considered 'British-born American film director and producer'...? M Stone (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That could be misinterpreted to mean he moved to the U.S. as a child. The opening could simply read English film director and producer. Either way Hitchcock moved to Hollywood in 1939 and became a U.S. citizen in 1955 should stay in the lead as it seems like the best compromise and most accurate to me. The fact he became a U.S. citizen should not be only mentioned many scroll-downs into the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"Anglo-American" is the way to go! He was not a British director; he was an English director AND an American director.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nicole Kidman was a U.S. citizen at birth. She doesn't reside in the U.S., and never turned her back on OZ. Hitch didn't make another movie in Britain for 30 years (Dial M for Murder was shot in Burbank).Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The opening paragraph explains his nationalities clearly and concisely. "Anglo-American" could be misleading as it has several definitions, for example "of or belonging to the British American colonies" or "An American of English or other white European origin, esp. in contrast to American Indians or (later) Hispanic Americans." (both OED) Hitchcock became notable as an English director in England (1921–39). Subsequently he was an English director active in the US (1939–55) and after 1955 was an English-born American director. The first three sentences already provide this information; why add ambiguity? Ewulp (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that he turned down a CBE honour (assuming the A J Hitchcock on this government document is the same person) before later being knighted?--ЗAНИAtalkWB talk] 18:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)