Talk:Alfred Molina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British-American[edit]

Should he REALLY be listed as British-American. So many UK actors live and work in Los Angeles, they can't all be considered British-American, can they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.182.109 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree VsanoJ (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/molina-gets-passport-to-the-us_1044016 http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2008/03/immigrant-of--1.html

He's actually American now. However, I'm resisting changing it until I find some more reputable sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.251.108 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/Alfred-Molina/biography/

If the man has stated himself that he's a US citizen, then I see no reason not to list both his nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.251.108 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List both his nationalities, by all means, but the term British-American doesn't make sense. Why not just "British-born American"?124.120.138.145 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't make sense either, because he's both. --Nutthida (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be quite obvious that he has taken American citizenship to smooth the way for working and living in the U.S. He still works regularly in the UK (he was recently in a biopic of Joyce Hatto and a sitcom). All over Wkikipedia there is an attempt to claim as many figures as possible as 'American', when it's clear they are merely residing, he is clearly British. This is not the same as e.g. Eddie van Halen or John Barrowman who have actually come of age in America.Marcvanderloo (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining American citizenship makes his nationality American by US law. He did this by choice well aware of the legal result. Calling US citizens 'American' in articles is not an attempt to claim as many figures as possible as 'American' it is an attempt at factual accuracy and completeness. He retains his British citizenship by British law so he is now a dual national and should be referred to as such in the article. He gains very little in terms of smoothing the way for working and living in the US by obtaining US citizenship. About the only change US citizenship gives anyone over legal residency is the right to vote and the obligation to pay taxes on all worldwide income. I suggest the we presume that his choice to become American was not for the trivial purposes of making his life easier and it is much more likely that he actually believed in what he swore in his oath of allegiance at his citizenship ceremony. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia biographies aren't an encyclopaedia of American law (funny you use that as an argument, since you were dismissive when I said Molina is British and not English by law). There is a guideline on the difference between nationality and citizenship. Nationality is very much about self-identification.. Take for example Sir Michael Gambon, he has both British and Irish citizenship, but because he self-identifies as British he is described as such in the opening paragraph, even though legally he is also Irish, which is mentioned only in the infobox. As I said before, Molina is a Brit who happens to also have American citizenship. That's just my opinion though, and I'll give way to any consensus.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't dismissing what you stated, I just thought that what you said was counter to what was in WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, an essay written by people who I am assuming are familiar with the issue of how to label Brits. Its basic conclusion - it's complicated, there is strong disagreement, don't edit war the issue, get concensus. On the Brit side of things I have no problem going with what you stated and only changed the infobox attribute to citizenship as that should not be contentious in any way, where nationality in the infobox may be.
There is also a difference between Citizenship, Nationality and National identity. Citizenship and nationality are formal legal issues defined by the laws of countries involved. US law differs from UK law in how it defines the terms. By UK law, as you asserted, he holds British citizenship and British nationality. By US law he holds American citizenship and American nationality. National identity is what he considers himself and that would require a strong recent statement by him to refute the presumption that the latest legal nationality he obtained is what he considers himself to be. Based on order obtained, he used to consider himself English and may now consider himself either both or American only, but we don't really know for certain unless he tells us. Both belong in the lede per WP:OPENPARA as that talks to his notability and whole life, not just his current state. We don't need to make a choice of one over the other when both are listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add: the article WP:Citizenship and nationality used as justification for the definition of "nationality" as an culture related unchangeable identification, as is being argued by some here, is a failed proposed change to the MOS. As discussion on that article's talk page pointed out, the definition of "Nationality" as a cultural identification in the proposal differed from the definition of "Nationality" as a legal issue in the article Nationality. That proposal was basically defining "Nationality" as being synonymous with "National Identity". We should be using "nationality" as described in the article Nationality for what goes in the lede. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite comical that you think he 'really believed in the oath he swore'. You Americans really live a dreamworld. He clearly went where the work was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcvanderloo (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty demeaning to him to assume what he was lying when he swore an oath. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's implying that Molina was 'lying', more that the oath isn't actually significant. All soldiers in the British Armed Forces have to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, that doesn't mean they are all diehard Royalists. Swearing on the bible in court doesn't stop people perjurying themselves. It's just something people have to do, regardless of whether or not they believe in it. If I had the opportunity I myself would take out American citizenship just for the handiness of it, and naturally would do the oath, but I certainly would never describe myself as an American afterwards. I don't have a problem with the way the article is currently written btw, I'm just saying.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How significant he takes the oath is personal to him and unless he says something we can't known his true feelings. Having taken that same oath myself for the same purpose I like to believe others doing the same feel the same way about it as I did. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh of course we don't know either way, the point I'm making is that the fact that Molina swore an oath isn't itself evidence that he identifies himself as American. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:OPENPARA the statement about what nationality to put in the lede says "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." He became a US citizen in 2004. He is notable for a significant body of work since 2004. The last phrase of the sentence therefore does not apply in this case. This person is a classic case where both nationalities should be listed in lede. People who did nothing significant after changing nationality get only the nationality when they became notable listed. If other articles are doing it differently in a way that conflicts with the explicit MOS guideline, they should be revisited and not used a license to do it that way here. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident,) (or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident) when the person became notable.)

That's how interpreted the paragraph. The two are connected. Furthermore, he became notable to Brits in the late 1980s and early 1990s. America is not the centre of the world. Other articles are not conflicting with MOS guidelines, that's pretty arrogant of you to assume that your interpretation is instantly correct in a dispute.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second phrase is a conditional phrase, notice the big if that precedes it. It only applies or becomes relevant if the condition that applies to it is true. This is not just my interpretation, it is standard rules of interpretation of written English. If the intent was to only list the nationality when the person became notable they would have just said that with a lot fewer words. The fact that he became notable when a Brit is why that is listed there and not just American. The fact that he is still notable as an American is why that also should be listed there as well. American is not the centre of the world but it is also not a pariah to be avoided at all costs either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained above my interpretation of the sentence. The way I read it, '...when the person became notable' is not attached to the the 'if' part, it applies to both. So it's two different conditions- The coutry of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident [when the person became notable], or secondly 'or if notable for past events...' The alternative structure would be to repeat the same phrase twice, which is unnecessary.
You're arrogance is beyond astounding, which is as why I said I can't be bothered for this. Even before with numerous editors disagreeing with you you refused to give ground, and now you instantly dismiss me despite me explaining in clear detail my reasoning. Molina's American citizenship is listed in the infobox, but he is first and foremost recognized as a British actor. Notice that is how the page stood for eight years after he had American citizenship, until you decided that you were right and everyone else was wrong.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your bracketing is not supported by the punctuation in the sentence, commas have meaning. Your interpretation basically reduces down to "list nationality at time the person became notable". If that is what was meant they would have just said that. What they are actually saying is list current nationality unless mainly known for past events then, in that situation only, list the former nationality. In this case, it is ambiguous as to whether or not he is mainly notable for past events before 2004 or events after 2004 so listing both is appropriate. Eight years ago, he was of course, mostly known for stuff that happened before 2004. Eight years have passed and he has done a lot more stuff so he is no longer mainly known for his pre-2004 work. That justifies a change to the lede from what it was eight years ago. (Also personal attacks are not appreciated, I really am trying to make a good-faith effort to improve this article and also follow the MOS in doing so) --Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't try and lecture me on the English language, the bracketing perfectly supports the punctuation of the sentence. Of course my interpretation basically reduces down to that, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. People should be described in the opening as the nationality that is relevant to their notability. In this case, an established British actor taking out American citizenship for convenience in his fifties is not relevant to his notiblity.
Oh, and of course, my edits aren't good-faith, I'm not trying to improve this article and I don't try and follow the MOS? Yeah okay. And no, it's not a personal attack to call you arrogant if you display arrogant behaviour. You've refused to accept consensus, you've displayed a huge American-centric bias and you've assumed that you're the only one with good intentions.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've always assumed good faith about your contribution, please give me the same consideration. My only bias is towards neutrality, neither pro- nor anti- American. Without a statement from Molina about his motives in obtaining American citizenship we can't make any assumptions, but the fact he lives and works in the US is a pretty strong statement in of itself. As I said before, if your interpretation of the MOS was what you it say it is they would have just said that and nothing more. The notable mainly for past events part is important or it wouldn't be mentioned. What is relevant to his notability is his notable activities. 40 credits before 2004, 34 credits 2004 and later. 15 awards and noms before, 16 after. He is no longer notable mainly for past events, that is for his work prior to 2004. In 2004 he was, he is not now. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on the good faith angle, as I explained in my last reply. And you really have completely missed the crux of my argument. And the fact that he lives and works in the US isn't a statement of anything. According to this interview, he lives in LA because of the sunny weather. Sunny LA to dreary cold wet dull grey London, hardly a tough choice. And of course he's going to work in the US, the British film industry is tiny compared to Hollywood. It's career progression, nothing more. You really must be naive if you think people still choose where they live out of patriotic sentiment. Molina is one of but thousands and thousands of Brits in the film industry that live and work in America. But whatever, as I said before I can't be bothered with this, you clearly ain't gonna change your mind and I'm not getting into an edit war. Adios --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman 3[edit]

i think it is unnecessary having on the page that Alfred is in spiderman 3, just because he appears on a screenshot of the opening credits from spiderman 2 doesn't mean he is in the movie85.240.83.35 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well Known[edit]

The article noted he was well known in the U.S for a number of films, but most of these films were succesful in the U.S as well as the rest of the world. He is renowned actor from the four corners of the globe! --Tukogbani (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTING HILL[edit]

how is noting hill working class? if thats working class, then what is woolwich? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23423423K897987 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Notting Hill was very much a working-class area back then. The gentrification of the area only began in the late 1960s.124.120.138.145 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname "Fred"[edit]

On Craig Ferguson 21 April 2011, Alfred appeared to refer to himself as "Fred". Can we find a reputable source that this is his nickname? - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard him refer to himself in other places (and others refer to him) as "Fredo", which is short for "Alfredo". Again, any kind of verified reference would be nice... Scarletsmith (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred's wife Jill Gascoine always called her husband Fred. His full name is Alfredo, Stage name is Alfred. Gail I Crawford (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alfred Molina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Molina. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British[edit]

it should also be known that he is not American he just lives there. so it should just be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalgeek123 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Molina is British as this is where he was born, but after living in the USA for some years desided to get American citizenship. He is British first of all. Gail I Crawford (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Entry[edit]

Molina also appeared in "Undertaking Betty" (2002) Source: IMDB

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.110.7 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darorcilmir (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional TV appearance[edit]

Alfred Mollina also appeared in an episode of Bones Feb. 17 2011. The Bikini in the Soup. 2607:FEA8:FEF0:7F30:B97D:D601:5DDE:C84F (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sapito, not Satipo[edit]

Please correct. In Spanish it means "little toad." 2600:1700:63D1:73F0:C416:9A9F:80A9:708 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Molina&oldid=1211130151"