# Talk:Tom Hooper

Hi all,
1. I've reflected on the structure of this article after its promotion and Mr Hooper's nominations for The King's Speech. It is certainly his most notable project so far and deserves significant coverage - I would suggest its own third level section within Section 2.3, (the need for this will only increase with Mr Hooper's probable coming wins). The extent of the praise so far suggests that it will remain relatively important in his biography for a long time. 
2. There is a whole paragraph dealing with Hooper's criticism of the film's classification for profanity. I feel that this material could be largely  moved to the film's article (retain a mention) and replaced with discussion of Hooper's achievement on the film. 
Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 1, I'm really not sure about TKS's place in the structure at the moment; it certainly warrants significant coverage but I don't know whether it should have its own subsection just yet. That would leave The Damned United and East of Eden/Long Walk to Freedom in separate, short sections. I also don't know whether it should relate to his "probable coming wins" (which I don't think are all that probable - the DGA, BAFTA and the Academy are going to give David Fincher the directing award - the only award I can see Hooper definitely getting is the BAFTA for Best British Film). I think the structure of this section ought to remain as it is until the circumstances of his next film are know (e.g. indie or studio).
Most of the BBFC/MPAA controversy could probably be moved to the "methods and techniques" section I'm currently drafting, as it also relates to his opinions of the film industry as a whole, but it could probably stand to be cut down too. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like you are on the ball regarding both points, Bradley. I'm looking forward to the article's development. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Mmmm. This DGA flavoured humble pie is delicious. Om nom nom. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This article with Tom Hooper's mother [1] says he has dual British-Australian citizenship. 86.142.104.222 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely an interesting source, quite valuable for the The King's Speech article as well. I would not rush to add Australian/British to the first line of his biography, that is a delicate subject and this interview is a primary source in that regard. Some interesting information for the Early life" part of his bio. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added it for now until a better source comes along that spells it out (from his parental background it was always obvious he hold dual citizenship but, of course, "obviously" isn't enough). The website it comes from seems editorially sound and as the article is a straightforward question-and-answer format there shouldn't be too much trouble. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Australian media will inevitably claim him as Australian... (first cab off the ranks is here). However there is *some* validity to the claim, eg. in this interview he self-describes as "half-Australian". He does the same in this interview. In this interview he refers to his 'Anglo-Australian heritage'. Manning (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No, another Australian newspaper got in first a few days ago by calling him "Adelaide's Tom Hooper" -- comedy gold. Thanks for finding those sources. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No evidence has been found of his dual citizenship status. An interview in which he says he is "half Australian" is not evidence of his Australian citizenship. His nationality should remain British until evidence to the contrary is found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermankatnip (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 

I mended the article (we had similar with Scarlett Johannson where she mentioned her half Danish heritage). Hooper was born, raised and has had his entire career in England, a mention of his heritage suffices.Michael Jones jnr (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the Nicole Kidman dispute of a few years back, the convention has been to go with how the individual self-identifies. Manning (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does any of the above matter? You don't need to 'claim' him as one or the other... You can mention it in the article, but there's no need to assert he's British. Alionasa (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, there's a note that says PLEASE FOLLOW EXISTING CONVENTIONS; THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN IN 'BRITISH' ENGLISH AND DOES NOT USE CITATION TEMPLATES. I'm curious about the latter if someone doesn't mind explaining it to me. Alionasa (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being disputed however consider the following four sources:

1 - VOA - "(interviewer)Now, as you mentioned, you yourself are Australian, but your son, your children, are dual citizens of both Australia and the United Kingdom. (Hooper) "Yes, I was very, very insistent on this and I’ve never given up my sense of being Australian or wanting to be." Also... "(...the story)... was about a colonial Australian in Britain, and I was a colonial Australian in Britain".
2 - Sydney Morning Herald - "The King's Speech is a true Australian-British production, with Hooper perhaps the perfect director for the job. The 38-year-old is a dual Australian and British citizen, with his mother, Meredith, born in Adelaide and father, Richard, a Brit."
3 - Print Review "I'm Half-Australian..."
4- The Film Pie "So I’m half-Australian, half-English and I’ve got both passports.  I’ve been coming here regularly since I was 6 years old and we actually have a family house in South Australia."
Numerous American media outlets are describing him purely as 'British', however that does not appear to be accurate. These have all been referenced in the lede, presumably to press the case that "Australian/British" is not appropriate. However given his frequent and consistent self-identification, it seems correct to list him as British-Australian. (Wikipedia convention is to go with how the individual self-identifies, see here for a reference case.) Manning (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst born and brought up in Britain, Hooper's career was nurtured in British film and television..hes a British product, hence British film and television director, and his heritage as half English/half Australia stated. Hes at the very least a British-born film and television director (how i'd personally word it FWIW). Hes a British product who has nothing to do with Australian television and film. Slightly different example (as she was born and brought up the country); Naomi Watts who identifies herself as British, has nothing to do with British television and film.Guitar77 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, I dont' believe that "place of work' has that much bearing. Under your argument, most Australian actors would be considered American, as would many British actors. Self-identification has been the standard benchmark of ethnicity/nationality on WP (regardless of occupation). Manning (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's embarrassing for Australia to try claim him. Are you really that ordinary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.7.60 (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 

Not the most useful comment ever made, but I'm not claiming him - I don't care one way or the other. Just trying to get the article to be accurate. Why are you opposed to it, despite the references which support the statement? Manning (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hes a British director, a Londoner to be precise, who in an interview with The Telegraph does mention his heritage; 'It’s staggering, the way this came to me,” says British director Tom Hooper about his new film. “I happened to know about it only because my mum’s Australian, and she was invited along by some Aussie friends to a fringe theatre in north London to see a reading of an unproduced play. It was called The King’s Speech, and no one seemed to know anything about it. It was under everyone’s radar. And my mum had never been to a play reading in her life.” Fast forward a couple of years and Mrs Hooper’s son finds himself in an enviable position. As director of The King’s Speech, one of the most critically lauded films of this awards season, he has a strong chance of winning an Oscar in February. And he has entered the ranks of this country’s leading film directors, as if by stealth. A Londoner with boyish looks, floppy hair and a self-confident air.[2]. Although i've not often seen heitage mentioned so soon in articles before, it seems ok to do so after British director.KiwiJeff (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC).
I don't see your point. None of what you quoted makes it explicit he regards himself as "purely British", and the earlier references are quite explicit in that he regards himself as half/half. Manning (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hooper is a member of Directors UK: British film and television directors, the article's opening line, and he has also won awards for Best British director. He is not a member of Australian Directors Guild. Like many people he has mentioned his descent; American actress Rachel Bilson states she is "half italian". Personally, i'm half Scottish on my fathers side. Few other titbits of Hooper; On Britain: "We as a country are, thank God, uneasy about this, and very few British films ever tap into it." [3]. His home city: "It's also incredibly exciting as a Londoner to be able to say, well what did London really look like".[4]. While the Australian publication has Aussies pick up seven noms no mention of Hooper, in British publications:  Oscar nominations 2011 revealed: Briton TOM HOOPER is up for Best Director. The present wording in the article is accurate, though i'd mention heritage lower down as is the case in most articles.KiwiJeff (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)