Talk:Susan Hampshire

IMDB gives her birth date as 12-May-1937, which is different from the 1942 mentioned here. - rr Also noticed that some other web sites give 1938 as the year. - rr

I'm loathe to change this as it has already been changed before and although I can't access the source quoted in the article, it looks like its a reliable source. However at least two other usually reliable sources do give Ms Hampshire's year of birth as 1942 - In The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 03, 2007, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/5734935 (another subscription only service) Who's Who 1994 published by A&C Black. - The current on-line edition does not state a year of birth.

Anyone got a more up-to-date published Who's Who in their library? Mighty Antar 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE ON YEAR OF BIRTH

Miss Hampshire confirmed on live TV in March this year 2007, that she is 70yrs old on May 12th (2007.)[user:carbob] 6 october 2007

Susan Hampshire states in her autobiography Susan's Story that not only does she not learn lines from listening to tapes, but she thinks it is not a good way to learn. Unless someone has a valid reference (by that I don't mean IMDB-- they've got the same information on their site) that states that somehow between the publication of her autobiography and the present that she has decided to learn this way, adding information that she does learn by listening to the lines on tape would not be a way to help the article. --Discreetpiratepete 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

How is it disrespectful? Every biographical article on wikipedia refers to him or her by his or her last name. All using the title "Miss" does is lengthen this article which already needs a good cleanup. Look at the pages for Judi Dench and Jane Goodall. They are referred to by their last names. It's a sign of respect that they are well known enough to be referred to by their last names rather than first AND last or last with a title. Adding the "Miss" is incredibly old fashioned and superfluous besides. --Discreetpiratepete 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, it IS disrespectful to refer to a successful adult person on a first name basis. Therefore, I have removed all references to "Susan" without the "Hampshire" attached at the end.--Discreetpiratepete 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Wikipedia says that it is not acceptable to refer to subjects on a first name basis. Please read this article about editing wikipedia for name usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Subsequent_uses_of_names

Here is a quote from that article: "For other subjects, it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant."

While I and probably many more people think it is super cool that you know Susan Hampshire personally (and believe me, I've been a great fan of hers for years; I do think it's very cool), that is irrelevant to the article. So, unless everyone reading this article knows Susan well enough to just call her that, which will probably never happen, she should never be referred to as just "Susan." There is a possibility of referring to her as Lady Kulukundis, but as that is not her professional name, I believe it would not be in the best interest of the article to do so.

I am scouring Wikipedia for more information on name usage, but from what little I have found, Wikipedia agrees with me that the use of the title "Miss" or "Ms." is excessive in an article wherein Susan Hampshire is the only Hampshire (i.e., she is not being distinguished from another Hampshire). I will leave that aspect unedited until/if I find out for sure that it should be changed. --Discreetpiratepete 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you seem to have appointed yourself ,the only person fit to decide, what is or is not exceptable for this 'entry'. I and any imformation I could have supplied, will bow to your 'superiour knowledge' of the subject and withdraw.

And for the record, I do not consider knowing Miss Hampshire as 'cool'. I consider it a great privilege.[carbob] october 9th 2007

Excuse me for trying to follow along with Wikipedia's site guidelines. I am a person who is very concerned with how an article is put together. You should definitely submit any verifiable information to the Susan Hampshire page. I hope you aren't going to let a disagreement over what to call her in the article affect what so many people are going to read about her. All that would do is prove that you were not serious about the page.

How did I appoint myself the only person fit to decide? All I did was look at formatting for this website. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit almost anything, but if people don't work together to use a standardized format and style, the whole site loses continuity. Had the situation been reversed or had you found information to contradict me, you wouldn't be the only person fit to decide. Wikipedia decides.

I apologize if the "cool" thing offended you, but also for the record, I would consider knowing someone I highly respected "cool" and would personally have put "privilege" under "cool." And I would consider it more than a privilege to know her. It would be... cool. That's the only word that I think could fully capture the idea of not knowing her, considering I do not, but since you do, the idea is not abstract for you and of course you have a more concrete term for it. I hope you don't have a problem with someone thinking knowing her would be cool, since she appears to be a cool person. Substitute "neat" or "great" anytime you like, but for me, cool also holds the idea that she is more than just another talented actress-- she is someone special and important in her own right. I never meant anything personal, and I never meant to offend you with anything. If I have, I truly am sorry. --Discreetpiratepete 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright... what on earth does the English rose thing mean? It needs to be cited somehow, or linked/explained.--Discreetpiratepete 02:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a good question. Being English myself, I know exactly what it means, but I'm damned if I could define it. It's a type, like Sloane Ranger, but nobody seems to have bothered to define it, as they have the latter. Attractiveness is certainly implied, and a pleasant voice and personality -- or at least, good manners. Other examples from Miss Hampshire's generation of actresses would include Jacqueline Bisset and Samantha Eggar.

That's the best I can do for the moment. Paul Magnussen (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its a very old-established term in the UK (or in England at least) for a beautiful, pale-skinned, rosy-cheeked English girl - the term tends to crop up in idealised portrayals of Victorian England and in all the worst poetry and romantic novels - according to the OED it's recorded as far back as 1902. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could we get a better photo? You can't even see her face in the current posted photo. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are too many "citation needed" tags in this article for comfort. The absence of a source for the allegations that she is dyslexic and this has "caused her great problems" – added by Discreetpiratepete (talk · contribs) on 4 October 2007 (diff) – is a particular issue (read the biographies of living people policy for further details). All these claims about dyslexia will have to be removed unless they are sourced a.s.a.p. - Pointillist (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've found three sources and fixed the article. - Pointillist (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Hampshire. 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/20140625195121/http://populationmatters.org/about/people/patrons/ to http://www.populationmatters.org/about/people/patrons/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply