Talk:Bob Hope/Archive 1

Poor health as 100th nears
Hope is still mentally fine but has poor eyesight and poor hearing from what i have read

PMelvilleAustin 09:42 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Well, only 19 days to go until his 100th birthday! Longevitymonger

Ladies and Gentleman, its official now, Bob is a centenarian!!!!!!!!! Longevitymonger

Notes on death
Sadly, Bob Hope, quite possibly the world's most famous entertainer, is dead at the age of 100. During his 100 years and 60 days of life, Hope did almost anything imaginable, starring in movies, television specials, award ceremonies and entertaining troops overseas. He even found time to write nearly a dozen books and play (according to one source) over 2000 games of golf. Hope will be remembered for his quick one-liners and irrepressible sense of fun. Most of all, his trips overseas during WWII, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as Desert Storm have given our soldiers a look at what they're fighting for: the American way of life. Bob Hope will be eulogized as an American Institution, and fittingly, he was awarded over 1000 awards for his character, humor and compassion for other people. Thanks for the memories Bob! Longevitymonger


 * An interesting sidelight: his New York Times obituary carried an interesting by-line: Vincent Canby, who died three years before Hope. -- Someone else 04:29, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It is not unusual for the Times to collect tidbits and anecdotes about a person while he is alive for the purposes of preparing an obituary. They have a big database containing information about celebrities so that when they finally pass away (it has to happen eventually), they can print the article.


 * It's not unusual for most organizations to prepare obituaries for the famous. It is unusual that when they are published, the only byline goes to a dead person. -- Someone else 18:47, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There can be little doubt an editor at the NYT smiled as he released the obit under that byline. Wyss 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

POV text
I removed the below paragraph from the article:


 * Hope's humour rarely took any risks and while he is famed for his performances for the US military, very few of the young men ever found him very funny. One exception to this took place in Korea. Hope came on stage before a hillside audience of about 15,000 GIs and opened with a question about Korea's famous odor:  "What is that SMELL??" he asked. All 15,000 voices shouted out the answer:  "SHIIITTT!"  Hope paused and then said:  "I know...but what do they DO to it?!.....That audience found him very funny.

The paragraph is very POV and is totally unsupported by the research I've done. I've found universally that his visits were always very appreciated and always lifted the GI's spirits. While the annecdote above may be true (don't know, I haven't encountered it before) it is not typical of Hope's humor. &mdash;Frecklefoot 13:30, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, this article gives another anecdote of Bob Hope being unappreciated by the troops while in Vietnam: http://everything2.com/title/Thanks+For+the+Memory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.119.5 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir Bob Hope?
Can Bob Hope use 'Sir' in front of his name instead of KBE after it? Although an American citizen, he was born in England.


 * Before 1 January 1949, naturalisation as a U.S. citizen caused automatic loss of British nationality.  He became American in 1920, and although he was under 21 at the time, he probably lost his British nationality on the basis of his father's loss of British nationality.   Laws on citizenship were very different at the time.   JAJ 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he couldn't, as JAJ says. But even if he could, he would have used the KBE as well. It's not an either/or situation. -- Necrothesp 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as well. I suspect he'd have to be "Sir Leslie," as The Queen doesn't acknowledge nicknames. WHPratt (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the US considered him to have lost any UK citizenship is irrelevant: the UK recognises dual-citizenship and as this is a UK honour, UK rules apply.

As he was a minor when his family emigrated he was not a UK citizen in his own right (although he had the right to become one had he wished at a later date by virtue of his birth in England). As he never exercised this right, this was an honorary award and this is the reason why he did not have the right to use the "Sir" but as already pointed out, could use the KBE initials after.

Nicknames are also not a problem: there are any number of British actors and actresses with honours who use "Sir" and "Dame" followed by their stage name.77.101.233.240 (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that P.G. Wodehouse and Charlie Chaplin were designated "Sir Pelham" and "Sir Charles" respectively, despite their better-known handles. WHPratt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true, but attitudes to knighthoods were different that far back. Sir Michael Caine still privately uses the name Maurice Mickelwhite, but he's always officially referred to as Sir Michael, never Sir Maurice. Similarly, Sir Paul McCartney's real name is James McCartney, but he's only ever now called Sir Paul. 19:27 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been some wrangles about this on Wikipedia before. Actually, at the time he was born, with some very minor exceptions all children born on British soil automatically were British subjects, although this has since been changed. Whether he lost this later could be more complicated. As a general rule I would say that if someone did not use the title "Sir" himself we should not add it. Some people might regard it as a breach of American etiquette for a US citizen to use a foreign title, even if they were technically entitled to do so. PatGallacher (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to correct the comment regarding Paul McCartney above. 'Paul' is Paul McCartney's real name and always has been. His full name is James Paul McCartney. He's just (like a surprising number of people) called by his middle name. John2o2o2o (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Spirit of Bob Hope
I took a picture of this aircraft. Is there a way we can use it in this article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I put it in the memorials section. In truth it does seem to fit his cultural legacy somehow. Wyss 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The plane is not a C-130. I think it's a C-17, but I'm not sure.  71.138.26.220 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question of POV text
There is a line between POV and well-documented facts that I try not to cross. Bringing up the issue of Bob Hope's personal reputation is difficult, in that those who admired Hope's immense talent - and I am one of them - often prefer not to know the off-stage side of him. Nearly 30 years after Bing Crosby's death, it is not taboo to acknowledge that Bing was, shall we say, not a nice person. In Hope's case, there are two ways of looking at it: 1) We need 28 more years to dare speak the truth, or 2) Let's grow up and face facts: like many comedic geniuses, he had a dark side. So, what shall it be? User:Professor Von Pie
 * I think you would need more than one linked article to support your characterization of the claims as "well-documented." MisfitToys 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding information which doesn't correspond with the public image, but you have to do it in an NPOV manner. Don't just say "he was stingy and mean", give DOCUMENTED examples. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the common view, Hollywood stars having affairs is hardly indicative of a "dark side". Being a poor tipper is not exactly encyclopedic info, and someone who donates millions of dollars can't be called "stingy". If this info is included, it should be attributed to a source ("According to Joe Smith, Hope gave small tips and played around with starlets"). -Will Beback 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, if I found and submitted a notarized photo, signed by God himself, of Bob Hope kicking Mother Teresa in the ass, it would make not an iota of difference to certain people-- nothing will be tolerated about Bob Hope except very nice itty-bitty sound bytes suitable for an 8th grade book report. Listen, kiddies, there's this thing called acting. You see, it means a person pretends to be something to entertain others. Are you with me? But often, in reality, the pretend person is not exactly the same as the real person. For example, the real Jack Benny was not a cheapskate; the real Red Skelton was not stupid; the real John Wayne never served in the military. If you're having trouble, refer to the nearest adult... it could be a parent or teacher... and so it is not sacreligious nor unpatriotic to speak the truth about the real Mr. Bob Hope, who was substantially different than the performer. User:Professor Von Pie


 * Please do not insult your fellow editors by implying we are stupid children. -Will Beback 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply stupidity, but there is a childish, Santa Claus-like aura about this article and a few others that makes me wonder if there should be some sort of age/educational requirements for contributing and editing, although certainly that would be hard to enforce. I have provided ample evidence and played by the rules, but the article keeps getting vandalized, and I consider removing, altering, or defacing the truth vandalism. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a source of information, not fairytales or mere warm and fuzzy feelings. I'd never dream of inserting lies into an article and I don't see how anyone would, in good conscience, remove the truth. User:Professor Von Pie


 * I read the sources provided, but I see scant mention about stinginess. I do see a lot of other material which isn't in the articles, which makes it seems as if the editor was cherry picking (or perhaps, rotten-tomato picking). I didn't see anyone saying that this info was censored, or that it was "the result of the public's conflation of the beloved Hope media and the man himself." -Will Beback 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the stinginess is in there, and re: cherry-picking, one could say the same of the whole article in general, that only patriotism and generosity have been selectively used; the Hopes' decades-long marriage and religious piety mentioned, but no mention of philandering. So, cherry-picking goes two ways. And the person saying that Hope's story is censored as the result of the public's conflation of the beloved Hope media persona and the man himself-- that is ME saying that, in an attempt to thwart vandalism. I am telling the person about to vandalize a paragraph her/she doesn't care for: I know what you're about to do, and I know why-- you cannot separate myth and imagery from reality, and it is not my fault I wrote the truth, it will be your fault for trampling upon it. User:Professor Von Pie


 * Er, trust me, there's no conspiracy here to protect this celebrity's public memory.


 * Philandering is a PoV term, implying moral judgement and has no place in an encyclopedia (even as a verifiable quote it'd be dodgy).


 * So too with stinginess. Many people are careful with their money, it's a very unremarkable trait. On the other hand, Hope contributed vast amounts of his time to arguably philanthropic causes. If you want this word in the article, you must find a verifiable quote in a reliable secondary source.


 * Good faith (even if biased) content disputes aren't vandalism. Wyss 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I never said there was a conspiracy. A conspiracy must involved two or more people. The redaction and censoring of the Hope article is done completely on an individual basis. No, I never put the word philandering in the article, only the discussion; but even if I had, according to dictionary.com, it means engaging in multiple, casual affairs. That suits Mr. Hope to a T. It is no more judgmental a word than adultery. Stinginess and mean-spiritedness? His niggardly attitude toward his writers and mistresses, refusal to pay $250 for the use of a song, his callous AIDS joke as thousands lay sick and dying... I referenced everything. By the way, there is a reason that the Hopes, Gateses, Jobs and Waltons give away huge sums to charity; it is called tax deductions. And no, "good faith" is YOUR POV, Wyss, I wouldn't even dare assume the good or bad faith of anyone but myself. And your compromise of watering down what I wrote... an effort to pacify those who don't want their world rocked by the facts of life... it won't even last throughout the day; it will be expurgated. User:Professor Von Pie


 * I was talking about all the time he donated to the USO.
 * expenses for the shows were paid by US military = taxpayers, he then was paid millions by NBC for broadcasting them. (via biographer on "Fresh Air" - Terry Gross Show (anyone with LEXIS-NEXIS ?))Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob Hope has always bored me to tears. I mean, eye-watering, brain mushing numbness.


 * I haven't touched this article so I don't know what you mean by "compromise of watering down what I wrote."


 * You seem to have misunderstood what people mean here when they use the term "good faith."


 * Give me some enough source material and I could make almost anyone look like a jerk.


 * Your contributions tend to read like those old "Jimmy Fiddler in Hollywood" columns I've run across. That's problematic in an encyclopedia. Wyss 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, I confused you with Will Beback, who toned me down so as not to cause wikis rushing to their medicine cabinets for smelling salts. Gosh, if the thought of Bob Hope being not a nice man makes people faint, they better not look up Marlon Brando's article-- it might suggest he was chubby.

I think that Hope was uproariously funny in his prime, but that's not the point. I know what good faith means, but it can mean 14 different things to 14 different people. Anything about Hope, Crosby, Sinatra, etc. is going to seem like Jimmy Fidler et al.; what source do you expect-- Field & Stream? User:Professor Von Pie


 * I was talking about Jimmy Fiddler's writing style. Anyway, if a celebrity's life is encyclopedic enough for inclusion here, there is more than enough material relating to their professional career for an encyclopedic biography that isn't written with the same unsupportable rhetoric and filler as a gossip column, never mind Mr Fiddler's obsolete turns of phrase. I would add, the article can include references to personal relationships, so long as they're mentioned objectively and drawn from reliable secondary sources. I should add that your contributions now and then do seem objective and cleanly written, although you might want to consider integrating them more seamlessly into the text. Wyss 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw this defense of criticisms, but no criticisms -

"Although Hope was frequently criticized, most fans agree the accusations have no real merit and were only caused by jealousy of his immense wealth or resentment of his Republican political beliefs."

If he was frequently criticized, what about; and saying that it was because of "jealousy of his immense wealth or resentment of his Republican political beliefs", seems POV, as is "most fans agree" - fans are probably not the most objective, by definition. - Matthew238 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-write
This read like a gushing handout from his agent, written by a 1950s gossip columnist or whatever. I have left every bit of content intact but mostly re-written the article to conform to encyclopedic standards of objective tone and standard English (WP not a tribute site, gossip column, tabloid or blog). Wyss 01:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article could use one or two quotes about the delivery style of his comedy and maybe a reference to the docking fortune he made from investing in California real estate (notably housing tracts and rental properties in the San Fernando valley) during the 1930s, 40s and50s. Mary Miles Minter had invested in LA real estate before him and many celebrities later followed the example. Wyss 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added references to these things and more, along with some corrections. Wyss 01:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob Hope's name
The article states that he was born Leslie Townes Hope, but makes no mention of how he came to be known as "Bob". How did he come to be known as "Bob"?
 * I noticed that, too. It should tell us when he took the name Bob, as well as why. (It may seem obvious, but sometimes a name change is a deliberate move, as in Archibald Leach taking the name Cary Grant, and sometimes it's inadvertent, as when a friend of Julius Henry Marx gave him the nickname Groucho.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Charles Thompson’s 1981 biography, Bob Hope: Portrait of a Superstar he wasn’t happy with Leslie, saying it got confused with the girl’s name, and changed it around 1924 to Lester, which he though “a little more manish”. The same book suggests that Bob was taken in honour of good advice given to him by Bob O'Donnell, head of the Interstate Time agency in Fort Worth (he said that Hope wasn’t allowing enough time for the Texan audience to catch up with his fast patter, which improved his reception which had initially been poor). Between leaving Fort Worth and moving to his next gig in Dallas, Lester T. Hope became Bob Hope. Jock123 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

KCSG

 * In January 1998, the Pope on a visit to Los Angeles awarded the KCSG in recognition of services to Catholic causes to 67 people. Of those 67, 3 were non-Catholics - Bob Hope, Roy Disney, and Rupert Murdoch.For a reputable source, please see this excerpt from the January 3 1998 edition of the Los Angeles Times, Pope Honors Rupert Murdoch, Roy Disney, Bob Hope" Bwithh 01:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope had converted to Catholicism.

Comic
FYI, DC Comics published "The Adventures of Bob Hope" from Feb/March 1950 to 1968. The comic was edited by Jack Schiff.

Siblings
The article mentions that Hope had 7 other siblings, what were all of their names?

From Ancestry.com:

You have saved this record to My Ancestry (Shoebox). You have saved this record to My Ancestry (People I'm Looking For). This record has been added to your shoebox. 1920 United States Federal Census about Leslie B Hope Name: 	Leslie B Hope [Leslie T Hope] Home in 1920: 	Cleveland Ward 19, Cuyahoga, Ohio Age: 	11 years Estimated Birth Year: 	abt 1909 Birthplace: 	England Relation to Head of House: 	Son Father's Name: 	William H Father's Birth Place: 	England Mother's Name: 	Ann Mother's Birth Place: 	England Marital Status: 	Single Race: 	White Sex: 	Male Year of Immigration: 	1908 Able to read: 	Yes Able to Write: 	Yes Image: 	225 Neighbors: 	View others on page Household Members: Name 	Age William H Hope 	48 Ann Hope 	40 Frederic E Hope 	22 Wm J Hope 	18 Leslie B Hope 	11 Sydney Hope 	13 George W Hope 	9 Lucy E Hope 	5 Wang Lee 	20 Louis San 	27 Chung Rim 	29 Ernest Deckman 	42 George Alam 	39 William Howard 	63 View Original Record

View original image Stutzey (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Stutzey

From Ellis Island records:

Mother: First Name: Avis Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 31y Gender: M Marital Status: M Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0008

First Name: James Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 14y Gender: M Marital Status: S Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0010

First Name: Jack Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 4y Gender: M Marital Status: S Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0012

First Name: Ivar Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 16y Gender: M Marital Status: S Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0009

First Name: Fred Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 9y Gender: M Marital Status: S Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0011

First Name: Sidney Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 1y Gender: M Marital Status: S Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0014

First Name: Leslie Last Name: Hape Ethnicity: England, English Last Place of Residence: Bristol, England Date of Arrival: Mar 30, 1908 Age at Arrival: 2y Gender: M Marital Status: S Ship of Travel: Philadelphia Port of Departure: Southampton Manifest Line Number: 0013

Milton Hope was born in the US.

1. Ivar (Born 1892) 2. James (Born 1894) 3. Fred (Born 1899) 4. Jack (Born 1904) 5. Leslie (Bob)(Born 1906) 6. Sindney (Born 1907) 7. Milton  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.91.209 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Ellis Island website lists his age as 2, on entry in 1908, then why is his date of birth given as 1903? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miker2001 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I do not know what happened to my responce or corrections to this but Milton was Ivors son George Percy Hope was the youngest. Basically all records are not 100% right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.113 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Salt and pepper shakers
I have removed the following line: "During his retirement, he concentrated on his interest in collecting salt and pepper shakers." This exact same line also appeared (unsubstantiated and apparently untrue) in the article for Glenn Ford. If someone can provide a source to confirm this was the case, by all means put this line back, but otherwise I'm erring on the side that this might be some sort of weird nonsense added to this (and possibly other?) articles. 23skidoo 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Salt and pepper shakers" vandal is active again. For anyone with Bob Hope on their watchlist, please keep an eye on this page for any recurrence of this nonsense. 23skidoo 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Was he a Christian?
I am still wandering if he really was christain. My Mom says that he is one, but nobody ever says if he is one or not. If you know the answer please reply Thanks, MaxMap

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs
1) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
 * AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
 * AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
 * AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Post-nominals
According to Naming conventions (names and titles), "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare." While of British birth, Bob Hope became a US citizen at a young age, and so it's probably inappropriate to give an honorary KBE such prominence in the opening paragraph. It's discussed in the body of the article, after all. PyTom 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. If it that was important to him, who are we to contradict? I didn't even know he got hooked on golf in Canada of all places. But we did see a biography special on him last year where it pointed out all the rest of his family were of course British, and he was very worried about them during the war. It did show that he was unusually 'speechless' when he received the honour from the Queen and he mentioned that in tears. For whatever reason, it was apparently important to him.
 * Half my family are American, half Canadian. I'm sure if our granddad's had some honour from the other country they'd like to be remembered so. So who are we to say he shouldn't be remembered so?AthabascaCree (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger Tréville
Roger Tréville was 103 years old. He is oldest actor http://imdb.com/name/nm0874576/ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Tr%C3%A9ville http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Tr%C3%A9ville —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.172.74 (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

History of Eltham?
"Eltham was a civil parish of Kent until 1889 when it became part of the County of London, and in 1899, formed part of the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich. The metropolitan borough was abolished in 1965, and Eltham became part of the present day London Borough of Greenwich"

The above paragraph makes no sense in an article about Bob Hope--if someone wants to know more about where he was born, they can go to the Eltham page, where the exact same paragraph already exists. A Runyon 07:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you check the history, it used to read: Note: "The London Borough of Greenwich was part of Kent until 1941, when there was an administrative shake up" which is incorrect. I just made it accurate rather than deleting it - if you want to take it out, that's fine. Lion King 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that...and I agree that you made it accurate, but it's still a tangent that has nothing to do with Hope himself. Sorry if my statement above seemed a bit harsh, but this is one of my pet peeves about Wikipedia--sometimes unnecessary information gets added to pages and makes them bloated and hard to read. A Runyon 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, your statement didn't strike me as being harsh, I just thought that it warranted an explanation from me. I quite agree, my initial reaction was to delete it! Cheers, Lion King 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a character actor
I've removed Bob Hope from the category American character actors. I don't think he fits the definition of Character actor, his early career in theatre having been too brief and his movie career having led to stardom too quickly for him to have ever established himself in character roles. Whyaduck 06:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. No disrespect, I hope, but he's kind of the antithesis of a character actor, always playing himself or a younger veresion of himself -- unlike other old comedians like Mickey Rooney, Jack Lemmon and Art Carney who really did do characters. WHPratt (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Referencing
The horrible referencing style should be fixed. Theres no references in all sections but two and it's inconsistent. Missy1234 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs used as citations
Blogs are not recommended links for articles as per WP:EL. Recommend those links be deleted. Ronbo76 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Hope's religion
There is a edit war discussion on at Talk:Roman Catholic Church about Latin versus Roman Catholic. Hope's article has read Roman Catholic since almost day one. Ronbo76 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Any change to his religion should be backed by a citation that he was Latin rite. Ronbo76 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Children were adopted
204.193.198.243 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)annie

It is my understanding that all Bob and Dolores Hopes' children were adopted.


 * Yes, that's right. I've adjusted the text. -Will Beback · † · 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lived 95 or 100 years?
There is a discrepancy between the dates of Bob Hope's death at the beginning and the end of the article. At the beginning it states he lived 95 years and died in July of 1998. At the end it states that he lived 100 years and died in July of 2003. I think Wikipedia needs to do some editing. 69.109.120.40 05:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As he approached 100, there were rumors that he may have been two years older than he had admitted all along, and so might have already achieved 100 by that time. WHPratt (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [Sorry -- put that in the wrong section, and so have moved it.] WHPratt (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger_proposal
I recently undid a well-intentioned merge. Bob Hope short subjects is just a list, and could just as welll be part of this article. Thoughts anyone? TINY MARK  17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I say the short subject page should stay where it is. The reason I created it in the first place was that the page looked messy and it could just as easily be found by linking to it. I am prepearing the article to be nominated for GAstatus after I finish doing the cleanup. I will eventually put the link back into the body of the article and get rid of the sub paragraph header. That is the move of a good article. So, for that reason, I oppose the merge. Canyouhearmenow 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Films
The Films section has a huge space after the title due to the table on the right. Anyone know how to correct this? Isnotwen (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's going to depend on the browser being used, the font size, etc. I moved the image down a bit, but otherwise, it seems to be more a factor of preference settings, etc. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia manual of style for biographies
Clearly states that country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to subjects notability. Could someone please provide a coherent explanation as to why Bob Hope's birth place is important to his notability, as I would be really interested to hear it. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect as to what MOS:BIO states. It does not say anywhere that country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence. It clearly says "The opening paragraph should have:

It clearly says "Ethnicity or sexuality shoudl generally not be emphasized", it also clearly says "nationality" should be listed.
 * 1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles));
 * 2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
 * 3. Nationality & ethnicity –
 * 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)
 * 2. Ethnicity or sexuality should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
 * 4. What the person did;
 * 5. Why the person is significant."

Because Hope was clearly born in England, it should be mentioned, and because he became notable as an American, editors have used the "American-born Australian" to cover both specifics - her country of birth and from where she became notable. Please leave it as editors have determined. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Under point 3, subpoint 2, it appears to state precisely what I contend it does. Or am I missing something? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dual citizenzhip. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't see how it's relevant to my original question. As it clearly states in MOS:BIO that country of birth is only to be mentioned in the opening sentence if it is relevant to the subject's notability, I really would appreciate an explanation as to why Bob Hope's place of birth is considered to be important to his notability. I hope that is not asking too much. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It clearly states in MOS:BIO, section 3, point 3 (1) that mationality will be covered. You're overthinking this. Point 3(1) comes before point 3 (2) and is precedent. Every biography starts with the country of birth by stating "American", "French", "German", "English". Don't make this harder than it is. Your attitude leaves much to be desired here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, nationality will be covered. And you are free to mention Bob Hope's place of birth anywhere in the opening paragraph, just not in the opening sentence. So why are you attempting to skirt around wikipedia guidelines with this fatuous argument of yours? I do not believe Bob Hope's place of birth is a significant factor in his notability as an American comedian. Hence my original question, which I am beginning to suspect will not receive a sensible answer. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue this on two different talk pages. His nationality is English and American. He had dual citizenship. Citizenship does not equal place of birth, it equals nationality. I am not attempting to skirt anything, please dial back your aggressive incivility. The guideline says nationality. Nationality equals citizenship. Endless discussion has occurred over this in many places and this is the way that was developed for those who fall under this sort of classification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not necessarily equate nationality exactly to citizenship. There are subtle differences, however I don't think it would be useful to dwell on what these might be with respect to Bob Hope. The fact is that Hope's notability is as an American comedian, not as an English or English-born comedian. In fact I'm pretty sure that a lot of people around the world might not even be aware of Hope's country of birth, as it plays no part in his notability as an iconic American entertainer. I see no reason to change my belief that, in line with wikipedia guidelines, Bob Hope's country of birth is not relevant to his notability, and hence should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ernest, the country of birth is not relevant to Bob Hope's notability and should not be mentioned in the lede. - Josette (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Except the MOS:BIO states that citizenship should be covered in the lead. Dual citizenship, one by birth, one by choice, is a fact that cannot be deleted. This has nothing to do with his notability, it has to do with his birthplace. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are incorrect per MOS:BIO -
 * "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." "Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."
 * His birth nationality should only be mentioned in the lede if it pertains to his notability, which it does not in this case. - Josette (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Citizenship or nationality at the time the subject became notable is included. He had dual citizenship. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That Bob Hope had dual citizenship (did he? cite?) seems a bit of a stretch and his birth country does not seem to be important enough to be included anywhere in the article except mentioned as a place of birth. It therefore has no place in the lede. - Josette (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the fact that he was also well reknown in the UK during his height in America would make it relevant to put his birth place in. It would be like me going over to Slovenia and starting a music career that becomes a world-wide hit, except by your logic I will be classified as a Slovenian musician. 82.153.35.70 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal life
There has been some extremely negative information posted, for which no citation is given. I believe this needs to be addressed. 78.26 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete it. If someone wanted to add text like "Person X called Bob Hope vindictive and egocentric", I have no problem with that.   Pfalstad (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Text on Hope's involvement with Barabra Payton includes citations, footnotes of source material including relevant page numbers.Betempte (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Change in licensing for File:Colonnahope.jpg
As a result of some research, I found the copyrights for these images were not renewed. Full details can be found on the file. Because of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Need_advice.2C_please. conversation], am changing the licenses of the images in the NBC Parade of Stars portfolio to public domain-copyright not renewed. We hope (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Need for a complete revision of the article
A "too many cooks" syndrome has set in and a change in formatting is necessary. I have made a start. See what you think. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

Vietnam Vet. Please don't leave out the visit to Vietnam where he was booed by all the GI's there and was never invited back and never went back. Iaai0110 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Boxing
Bob Hope did at least one complete "spoof" boxing match with Rocky Marciano. As Hope came out of his corner he was wearing a very large pair of fake spectacles and walked right past Marciano who was convulsed with laughter.AT Kunene (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we remove the boxing record?
The "boxing record" section of this article is almost completely meaningless. I don't see how this record adds any useful information to the article because it combines real and staged fights, and in half of the listings, either the opponent's name or the result is unknown. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't mind keeping the section because it adds another dimension to his life. Perhaps if more details come to light, or if some kind editor adds text to the section, it could be moved into a sub-article (depending on what others here think, obviously)? GFHandel &#9836; 03:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
At the time he was born England had had a reasonably well-established system of compulsory registration of births, marriages and deaths for some decades. These records can be easily checked in the General Register Office. It seems unlikely that Hope could have falsified his year of birth by 2 years without getting caught. This looks like unsubstantiated tittle-tattle which should be removed unless better evidence can be found. PatGallacher (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Online English birth records easily available online at http://www.freebmd.org.uk show that the birth of a Leslie Towns Hope was registered in Lewisham in London in 1903, apparently some time in July, August or September. We only have the index available online, not the complete birth certificate, but this is surely him, the family could have delayed registering the birth by a few weeks. Dare I say it, this could cast doubt on some other aspects of Marx's tittle-tattle. See above about the boxing. PatGallacher (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but these online records at do look like me like a perfectly reliable source, they include e.g. a photographic copy of the index of births in Lewisham in 1903. They have already been used without anyone complaining at e.g. S.O. Davies. It is unclear to me why this is inferior to the US census records used at Joan Crawford. PatGallacher (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at WP:RS about reliable sources, this does not rule out primary sources under all circumstances, I think we can use them for such basic information as somebody's date of birth. See also Mick Mannock, James Connolly, and Breaker Morant, there could be a few others, which use this or similar sources. PatGallacher (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So freebmd.org.uk "looks like" a "perfectly reliable" source to you? Well, let's see what others think. Meanwhile, all I'm doing is making the reasonable request that you provide a full URL to support the information you are adding. To do that, could you please perform your search at the source and then provide us (here) with the full URL – e.g. by copying-and-pasting the result after clicking on the red "Info" icon? Until this is sorted, please leave the article in a state without the information you are trying to add (and I've your edit to ensure consistency pending this discussion). Thanks. GFHandel &#9836;  22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When you're accusing someone, even a deceased person, of falsifying something, the sourcing has to be impeccable, and this surely is not well sourced at all. Who suspected him of falsifying his date of birth? What is your sourcing for that statement? -- Dianna (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link. Scans are available, I recommend PDF. If you read what I wrote properly, you will see that I was actually saying that he appears not to have falsified his date of birth. I will deal with the issue of who suggested he did later. PatGallacher (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Who says he tried to falsify his date of birth? Also, census records cannot be considered totally reliable. Those scans are of someone having typed the info. In ancestry.com, I've seen many, many cases just in my own family, of mis-transcribed information. The original written sheets would be of more interest than a transcription. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, the 1940 U.S. census shows his name as Lesley Hope, age 36; along with wife Delores, age 30; and daughter Linda, age "8/12". Date of the census sheet is given as April 2, 1940. So if Bob was born in May 1903, he was still 39 in April 1940. The 1920 census, dated January 2, 1920, has Leslie T. Hope as age 17. Presumably it should have said 16. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim that he was actually born in 1901 appears to come from Arthur Marx's biography, see this version of the article. It is significant that there is evidence against this claim. PatGallacher (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What evidence did Marx present? I find it hard to believe that a guy listed as 17 in 1920 would already be trying to falsify his age. (I have been unable to find the family in the 1910 census.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Athletes have been known to misrepresent their age, usually to appear younger. Perhaps it had something to do with his boxing career? WHPratt (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to correct the statement above. There was a VERY WELL established system of compulsory registration of births, marriages and deaths in England and Wales in 1903. (It had been established in 1837). of course, a small minority of people still did not get registered, but Mr Hope was certainly registered.

In order to stop the nonsense as above, why does someone with sufficient interest in this just buy a birth certificate and be done with it? You have the reference details. It's not rocket science (honest!) John2o2o2o (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia manual of style for biographies
My dear Chaps and Chapettes, this discussion is further to the one above, under the exact same heading. In that above discussion it appears to have been agreed, pursuant to MOS:BIO, that Bob Hope's place of birth should not be included in the opening sentence of his article. To quote Wikipedia Manual of style "the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability". As is often the case with Wikipedia, over time, other editors will come along and revert previously agreed to edits, often without any discussion. So I am now, at this present moment, signalling my attention to revert to the edit previously agreed as being in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Namely, that Bob Hope is an American comedian. His English birth will, of course be mentioned further along in the article, just not in the opening sentence. However, if someone can furnish a valid, logical explanation as to why Bob Hope's English birth is important to his notability, then I will obviously reconsider my plans. Any argument, however, would need to amount to more than just saying he was English born, therefore it should be mentioned (in the lede). I look forward to any discussion. Thank you. Theodore D (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing "English-born". I feel you are not being earnest in your interpretation of the MOS. Here is the exact wording of the relevant part of the MOS:
 * 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 .
 * Do you see the word I've highlighted in green, and do you notice its tense? Well, that means that the underlined bit does not apply to Hope since he retained dual-citizenship.
 * If you really have an interest in this article, may I humbly suggest that you spend your time improving the many parts that still need attention? We could use some help in finding references for the many sentences without citations.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My dear chap, I am bewildered. I have already quoted for you the part of MOS relevant to this discussion above, in black and white. Whether Bob Hope retained dual-citizenship can of course be included in the article, just not in the opening sentence. Incidentally when you say 'dual-citizenship', are you meaning he was also an English or a British citizen? Theodore D (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've said all I'm going to on this topic, and will leave it for others to comment—and I'm very happy to abide by whatever consensus position evolves.
 * Before this goes much further however, could you (User:Theodore D) please state whether you are the same person who operated the User:Ernest the Sheep account? For a very few number of article edits (29 and 218 respectively), there are a revealing number of articles that the two accounts have edited in common (including this article). I ask primarily because I think it would be useful for other editors here to know (before engaging in discussion) if they are dealing with the same editor who stated that "edit wars are fun!".
 * GFHandel &#9836; 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion convivial rather than confrontational, please. Theodore D (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cite templates for referencing
I spent quite a bit of time going through the article and improving the referencing—including the use of cite templates. No other editor has complained about my work, and in fact, one editor even continued their use. Accordingly, I do judge there is a (albeit small) consensus for their use. Just a few minutes ago, user Bzuk decided that he did not like their use, and has started to remove them, however he is doing so in a very strange way (by removing only part of the cite template syntax, e.g. here). I would request that he stop the removal and reinstate the article to the consistent state I achieved so that the community here can discuss the future use of the cite templates.GFHandel &#9836; 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bzuk, you wrote on my talk page "The templates are still malformed...", however from your most recent edit at this article, I can only conclude that you have now done more to "malform" the templates than anything (you claim) I have done. Regarding your edit, could you please explain to the community here what benefit there is in removing just the "|date=" syntax from the cite templates used in the "guardian September 2009" and "bbcdeath" references? GFHandel &#9836; 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

They are malformed with titles not properly identified; it actually takes much more work to modify the templates than to properly write out the citation. The MOS style and Harvard Citation were already established before the recent changes which were entirely arbitrary and undiscussed. FWiW, I have changed a few within the templates to show the different output, but as I have mentioned, they read perfectly before the changes. The article uses a standard: Author, Title, (Place)publisher, Date style but when the templates are outputted, the main title of a work, i.e., article title (in a journal) are not identified, neither is the subsidiary title. The citation by template reads: "Comedian Bob Hope dies". BBC News. July 28, 2003. Retrieved September 23, 2011, while writing out the citation creates: "Comedian Bob Hope dies". BBC News, July 28, 2003. Retrieved: September 23, 2011." The later shows main title in quotation marks with publisher/source in italics, and linked to the date of publication. FWiW, the article was stable prior to a massive change to cite templates. See: WP:Retain, WP:Own and WP:CITEVAR. Bzuk (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Have you ever considered that the way you want it is not correct, and that the formatting agreed to by consensus at Template:Cite web (and currently used 1,162,584 times) is correct? Anyhow, we've both given our opinions here, and I will note again that no one else has complained, and in fact one other editor has been happy to continue their use. We should now both wait to see what other editors have to say. You should also be aware that I had not considered the reference work finished, and was intending to continue with the use of the template for the book sources—with the end goal being a request on this talk page to implement LDR. I would be pleased if you could assist with that. GFHandel &#9836;  21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there is no standard to changing citations to templates, and this is the key issue;"Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want... Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." I don't believe this has happened, and if a consensus was called to change perfectly good citations to error-ridden templates, guess where I would be voting? Bzuk (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC).


 * For the benefit of everyone here, could you please pick one of the Cite Web templates in the article and use all the appropriate/available parameters so that it is no longer "error-ridden"? If you can do that, then I will be happy to do the hard yards to convert the other Cite templates (now in use in the article) to your specification. If you can't do that, then I fear that the above is simply part of a crusade you have against the Cite templates—templates that have been used over 1.5 million times at WP. Could they really be "error-ridden" and still so widely used?
 * To the other editors here, please remember that the Cite templates have other benefits, such as: easily allowing reformatting changes (as discussed at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1), consistent formatting of more complex citations that inevitably develop, and bot-operated housekeeping activities (such as detecting dead links with certainty since things like |url and |archiveurl are clearly delimited).
 * GFHandel &#9836; 22:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion that the cite templates are incapable of producing the "correct" output is absurd. To take just one example from above, the publisher in the "Comedian Bob Hope dies" citation was in italics because it had been wrapped in the wikimarkup for italics, which I've now removed; absolutely nothing to do with "malformed" templates in other words. There are certainly those who argue against citation templates on the basis of a performance hit, but there's no argument against them in terms of functionality. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is still the old IT precept of "garbage in, garbage out," and if you don't know what the parameters of the fields in a template do, then errors do come out. Introducing the old canard that cite templates are either preferred, mandatory or provide meta data for some mythical, mystical future time, is being introduced. FWiW, I only wish that the cite templates could be seen as "bullet-proof" and accurate but that isn't the case, note the many offshoots of templates to cover print and non-print media. Not that I am a Luddite; I have been a reference librarian for years and have pioneered the use of electronic data processing in conversion of traditional libraries, but MARc record templates are "bullet-proof", wiki versions, not so much. Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
 * There's big advantages to improving the article by using citation templates and modern referencing systems such as templates. Articles that have their web citations wrapped in cite templates can be worked on and kept up-to-date with automated tools, and those without them cannot. Material inside citation templates can be accessed by Toolserver for detection of dead links and updating links. Citation bot can work on material in templates, but not on plain refs. For material sourced to books, the {sfn} system of Harvard references automatically collates identical references, and in addition, each citation is a clickable link down to the bibliography. I am in favour of GFHandel's plan for a complete referencing overhaul on this article and will help if he has any problems. -- Dianna (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see the work of bots may have some value, however, there is a difference of opinion in that introducing templates "improves" the citations. If the consensus is to change to this format, so be it, but that wasn't the case, a day or so ago, when massive changes took place without any deliberation or discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
 * I can see, looking at the editing history, why GFHandel did not think that would be necessary. You yourself had not visited the article for some time, and the other primary contributors are long gone. The book by Quirk is available at my library; I will fetch it tomorrow. There's also one by Grudens that I can get on intra-library loan. Some of these websites look kinda sketchy as sources (www.findadeath.com ?), so maybe we can do some improvements. -- Dianna (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the positions taken by GFHandel, Mally, and Dianna. The edits I saw adding cite templates were useful, and those removing them, were regressive. If there are any issues with proper use of the templates, I can help with that; I do so every day. This is an important article and should not be held back by retaining poor practises from years ago. IMNHO, this has nothing to do with personal preference. It is all about appropriate structure for an online database that contains an encyclopaedia. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC) In response, my last edit before the changes were on July 14, and that was the same day that the changes began; in total, 43 revisions of the citations. FWiW, note cite templates are not mandated nor recommended for everyone. Bzuk (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC). BTW, doesn't a call for consensus, at least have a reasonable period for a resolution, typically a few days. Bzuk (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I just restored the remaining Cite templates to how they were earlier today—at least as a consistent starting point. I'm aware that the Cite Book template can probably be improved, but I'm hoping that will resolve itself when I can get going (I just don't have much time at the moment). Thanks to all who commented here, and let me say that my faith has been restored by the confirmation that the Cite templates are efficacious. GFHandel &#9836; 01:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not what was resolved; a massive change was made without discussion or consensus, you asked for it, and received support from a number of editors. There is no vote on "efficacious" or viability of a style, merely, the confirmation, albeit hastily, of a decision to proceed in one way toward the development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Some things are missing.
I'm quite fond of Bob Hope's comedy and a few of his movies, but never-the-less there is a lot of what most would view as negative facts that aren't to be found here. It is my understanding that Hope became EXTREMELY wealthy investing in land during WWII in California, and specifically buying land lost to the US citizens of Japanese heritage who were tossed into concentration camps after Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure if the sellers are relevant, since he was just capitalizing (pun) on what was happening, but I do recall that during the Carter and Reagan years, his name came up in that context. I just heard a (Terry Gross) interview today on NPR where the author claims that Nixon briefed Hope on various military decisions during the VietNam war. (Whether this was due to his audience/popularity or perhaps due Hope being a large contributor wasn't mentioned (I speculate here). It seems that there is lots of evidence to conclude that his wealth is of note, imho, yet I didn't see any references to it. He was also notable (possibly only for those of us of a certain age) for his Pro-War stance in the Vietnam years, as well as his bigoted "comedy" in his later years. (Anti-gay, anti-feminist, etc.) We're all children of our times, so I'm not sure how relevant this is to his biography, but he had a national audience and probably should be viewed as a "culturally significant" persona. In the NPR show, his biographer (Zoglin) mentions that it is remarkable that although (he claims) Hope was 'the founding father' of stand-up comedy, yet had been 'forgotten' by the 1970's (possibly due to his content in his later years?), especially by comedians starting out then.173.189.73.230 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Was Bob Hope also gay?
Was Bob Hope also gay? The gay community seems to take it as a given: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3btgSGYshE   Does anybody know anything about this? Or did the studios keep Bob Hope's gay side completely out of the media? It would be a shame if he was gay and it doesn't appear in his Wikipedia bio.88.105.91.58 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't any famous person that someone doesn't say is gay. If you've got something reliable then reference it, otherwise it's a waste of Wikipedia space and very boring.BashBrannigan (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Hope may have invented the Russian Reversal.
In Soviet Russia, the Oscars Host You

http://time.com/3715747/bob-hope-russian-reversal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.108.189 (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

AIR FORCE REUNION SHOW AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN 1946
I ATTENDED A PACKED HOUSE AIR FORCE REUNION SHOW AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN IN 1946 (OR 1947 ?). IT WAS PUT ON BY BOB HOPE, JERRY COLONNA AND FRANCES LANGFORD. HOPE AND COLONNA OPENED THE SHOW BY DESCENDING FROM THE ROOF OF THE GARDEN BY PARACHUTES SUSPENDED BY ROPES TO A SCREAMING AUDIENCE. NEEDLESS TO SAY IT WAS A SPECTACULAR NIGHT. THIS IS MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I HAVE NO BACKUP OR REFENCES. HANK BENTLEY benttree720@gmail.com    I tried to establish an account but failed in the attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.150.54 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I found a source here which says the event (Sept 25, 1948) was called "Operation Wing Ding" and featured Gypsy Rose Lee, Marlene Deitrch, Jimmy Stewart, etc. Billed as the "greatest show ever put on in Madison Square Garden". This could maybe go in the USO section. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Marriage dates
The article states Marriages Hope's first short-lived marriage was to his vaudeville partner, Grace Louise Troxell, whom he married in January 1933[82] and divorced in November 1934.[83] In February 1934,[84] Hope married Dolores (DeFina) Reade, who had been one of his co-stars on Broadway in Roberta.

How could he marry Delores in February 1934 when he wasn't divorced from Grace until November 1934 ? 78.100.53.94 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Regards CSM

Dorothy Lamour photo?
Why is the Dorothy Lamour photo place in the section on "Extramarital Affairs". The implication of the placement being that he had an affair with her, but nothing appears in the content about that. If it's just to illustrate the general idea of 'affairs' that would be an inappropriate use. The photo should be moved. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

British subject?
I see from the above discussion,, that there is some question as to whether or not he retained his status as a British subject when he came to the US as child. Most countries don't impose this on children and children may have a birth right to a nationality but they generally need to actually affirmatively claim it when they reach majority. It appears Hope never did so and only was legally an American citizen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At the time he was born the UK did give citizenship to all people born there, and his parents were both British anyway. For me this isn't in dispute. That doesn't change the fact, however, that he's notable as an American. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From reading British nationality law and British Nationality Act 1948 it looks like the concept of Citizen came into existence in 1948. Not sure from reading those articles the status of someone who was born in 1903 and emigrated from the UK to the US in 1907 with his parents at age 4 and never made any claim to UK citizenship what his legal link to the UK was during his notable career. History of British nationality law makes this a bit clearer about 1903 and looks like British Subject status could not be lost for people born in UK at that time. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The crux of it basically is that legally he would have always been a British subject in addition to a US citizen. But in terms of notability he arrived in America at the age of four and grew up, trained, worked etc there. Therefore an American subject first and foremost. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See British subject. Unless he explicitly revoked his British citizenship he would have had the status of having dual nationality, as he automatically acquired British nationality by birth. Prior to around 1948 anyone born anywhere within the British Empire (with a few exceptions) automatically became a British subject, i.e., had British nationality.

In what way is he an American subject first and foremost? He had dual nationality, was born and raised until the age of 5 in Britain and his parents were both British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.213.86 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

American Masters documentary 2017

 * www.thirteen.org/13pressroom/press-release/american-masters-bob-hope/


 * "American Masters: This is Bob Hope… premieres nationwide beginning November 25 on PBS (check local listings). The unabridged director’s cut of the film, featuring over 35 minutes of additional footage, will be available to stream the same day via Passport for PBS station members (contact your local PBS station for details) at pbs.org/americanmasters and on PBS OTT apps. This version premieres nationwide Friday, December 29 at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings).


 * "“Alongside an examination of Bob Hope’s extraordinary career achievements is a portrait of a gifted man with enormous personal contradictions,” says filmmaker John Scheinfeld. “Even in the longer cut, I barely scratched the surface of his huge impact and influence.”


 * "American Masters: This is Bob Hope… features new interviews with Woody Allen, Dick Cavett, Margaret Cho, daughter Linda Hope, Kermit the Frog, film critic/historian Leonard Maltin, Conan O’Brien, Tom Selleck, Brooke Shields, Connie Stevens and biographer Richard Zoglin (Hope: Entertainer of the Century). Edited to evoke the fast, fun pace of Hope’s classic monologues, clips include highlights from numerous TV specials, his Pepsodent radio shows and classic films like The Cat and the Canary, My Favorite Blonde, his iconic Road pictures with Bing Crosby, and The Big Broadcast of 1938 featuring his signature song “Thanks for the Memory.”


 * "The unabridged director’s cut also features Hope’s 1930s comedy shorts and delves further into his radio and TV career, USO tours and charity work. It will be available on DVD January 9, 2018, from PBS Distribution and is also available as part of Bob Hope: The Ultimate Movie Collection DVD box set on November 14 from Universal Studios Home Entertainment." -73.61.15.43 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

infobox image
Is it really ideal for the infobox image of Hope, who was in his day one of the biggest stars, to be a photo where he's with somebody else? The brave celery (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agnews, Hopes, Nixons, Reagans 1971.png (discussion)
 * Hope WWII 44.jpg (discussion)

Only married once
It has been confirmed he never married Dolores. (86.148.226.57 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC))

Alleged Wife?
Why is his marriage to Dolores referred to as alleged at two points in this article? In other sources, it is not listed like that. I feel like this needs more explanation and if none is available, should be removed. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Political views?
I noticed it lacks a section on Hope's political views. I had to go elsewhere to find the info on his conservatism that is part of his downfall. For example, this NPR piece:

"On how Hope alienated younger audiences

Bob Hope was the establishment. Bob Hope was friends with Nixon. Bob Hope was speaking in favor of the [Vietnam] War. Bob Hope was expressing that kind of backward, suburban, WASP view of minorities, homosexuals, the women's movement. Even his comments on the women's movement were very condescending. He did a special in the '70s on the women's movement and it was so silly, so backward. And [in his act] the woman who had some big political office was dusting the chairs in between her meetings. It was just awful. He got mail ... from feminists.

He was clueless at that time. That was why that generation of comedians turned off to him. ... It's hard to be [a] comedian and be part of the establishment because comedians, their job is to satirize and to poke fun at the powerful people. And this is something that Bob was — one of the powerful people. So just as a comedian, he became less and less relevant." https://www.npr.org/2014/11/24/366137941/the-rise-and-fall-of-comedian-bob-hope

--