Talk:Hugh Laurie/Archive 1

University
Stephen Fry's new book has a defrent degree that Hugh studied at Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.57.2 (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

French
The show has been a big hit in France for a few years, and people seem to love his grouchy character. I watched him recently on a French "celebrity" TV show, and I was amazed at how good his French is. He has a very diverse vocabulary, his grammar is impeccable, and he speaks with just a slight accent. I don't know where he learnt French, but it can't be just in school. This kind of training requires a deeper "study" (maybe he lived in France at some point, or he lived with some native French speakers?). Anyhow. Since I know the English Wiki often has a "trivia" section, I thought perhaps the actor's proficiency in French might be worth mentioning (I've seen this done on other pages). So long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can we watch those videos where he speaks French fluently? On which "French celebrity TV show"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo nono (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Birth
Is not true that hugh laurie was born in england to scottish parents "Not the Nine o'Clock News" -- you sure, sjc? IIRC, that was Rowan Atkinson, Mel Smith, Grif Rhys Jones and Pamela Stephenson. -- Tarquin 23:20 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)


 * I'm not sjc, but you're right. Even if he had a brief appearance in it, he didn't "come to public attention" because of it. So I'm taking that ref out. I suppose this raises the question: what did bring him to public attention? --Camembert 19:26 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)


 * I would have said his double act with Stephen Fry, first on Saturday Live I think and then on Fry and Laurie. --rbrwr


 * ... also, see http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Picture/4696/TV.htm --rbrwr

You're probably right. I must have been having one of those too-much-editing-of-typos days. Many apologies. user:sjc

Band from TV
Laurie is a member of the band Band from TV (www.bandfromtv.net) which is a charity project. Don't know what section that should go in. Anyone want to add it? Or if anyone knows anything about it/has some time on their hands they could make a Band from TV article. Greatersam 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that he is a very good singer, a piano player and a guitar player (maybe other instruments, too?). Can anyone tell me which was his first instrument? Is he a better piano player than guitarist? 84.60.179.8 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Loved by American audiences?
"American audiences have recently come to love Laurie as a grouchy, pill-popping doctor" Is it me or is this phrase not particularly NPOV?


 * You're absolutely right. I've changed it to "know". —Josiah Rowe 18:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it's still not very encyclopaedic, but then again, wikipedia isn't a proper encyclopaedia is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.1 (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment was six years old. And if you don't like it here, you know what to do. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Show title?
The show is not called House M. D. in the states... just House. House M.D. is the UK title... since the show originates from the US and that's where its primary audience is, shouldn't that be reflected in the text here, with the UK title mentioned secondarily?
 * The actual title is House, M.D., but it's usually promoted as just House. We should use the correct title.  violet/riga (t) 13:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe this holds true for both countries. The promotional/short title is almost always the more common one in everyday use, where unambiguous, but productions have names (in fact, several have this one).  Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "MD" isn't a British abbreviation, only American doctors use it. I doubt they'd invent such a title just for the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I read articles about the series before it even premiered here in the US, and it was ONLY referred to as House.


 * Which just reiterates what's already been said: the casual version is simply "House" but the official title is "House, M.D." Watch one of the FOX network promos in the US: the voiceover says "House" but the text onscreen ALWAYS says "House, M.D." A similar thing occurred with the old Jack Klugman series, Quincy.  The actual title was Quincy, ME, as shown every week in the opening credits, but you never hear anyone call it that.  P.S. Sign your posts, dammit. Canonblack 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at Talk:House (TV series). &mdash; Dan | talk 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

House is also loved by Australian Audience and espeshily me i am obsessed "I love you house or should i say James Hugh Calum Lauri,"

New Picture
I think we need a new picture of him, the one we have now is old and a bit blurry. GrandTheftFreak (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia: broken nose?
I'm curious about the trivia item on Hugh Laurie which states Laurie's nose is slightly out of joint because of the many fights he was in as a boy. Hugh Laurie's nose looks perfectly straight to me. This statements sounds more as if were describing Laurie's erstwhile comedy partner, Stephen Fry, who most definitely has a bent nose. Lenora 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is definitely a mistake. It's Stephen Fry who has the bent nose and he often talks about it in interviews.

Related to Mel Ferrer?
Simply...Is Hugh Laurie related to Mel Ferrer? I love to watch TCM. When i watched the movie "Fraulein", I just knew it was "House". Then I caught myself and thought of the timeline. Last week I watched "Knights of the Round Table". Hugh is the spitting image of Mel. Mel is 42 years older than Hugh. Can anyone answere this question. Mel must be an uncle, grandfather, or something.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.173.226.230 (talk • contribs) March 15, 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely to me — Laurie's family is English, while Ferrer's parents were from New York and Cuba. I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Ferrer's New York socialite mother had English family, but my guess would be that it's merely a coincidental resemblance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

House MD soundtrack
Does anyone know where I can find the House MD soundtrack, or in the very least the opening and closing credits?72.244.25.254 00:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The opening music is "Teardrop" by Massive Attack (check Amazon.com for the CD). Music for the show seems to be taken from a variety of artists so no single CD is available at the moment. Post an inquiry on the Fox TV's "House" site for help by other House-viewers as to other song titles: http://www.fox.com/house   Swizzlestick 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The opening music is different in different countries, as far as I know Teardrop is only used in the United States. However, the substitute music is very similar to Teardrop so the dramatic effect is much the same.

A Bit of Fry and Laurie
The selected filmography section contradicts what's listed in the episode guide for A Bit of Fry & Laurie. Filmography states 1989-1992; the epsiode guide states 1987-1995.


 * ABOFL started in 1987 and continued to 1995, the episode guide is correct. It had several large breaks between series though, which is possibly what's caused the inaccuracy in the filmography.

Family Guy
Hugh's in the family guy actor category. There's no mention of it in the article, is it true? Jefffire 12:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is. He's in "One If by Clam, Two If by Sea". -Digresser 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the pub he says "Or a ruddy nice plum-pudding"

Trivia: lisp
He has a slight lisp. Isn't that the kind of thing that should go to Trivia?


 * I don't think he has a lisp at all and I've watched his programmes for over 10 years. If he does have one, it's so slight that it's probably not worth mentioning.


 * He does have a lisp, a very slight one. I've only ever noticed it in House and I've seen 90% of his previous work in england. Maybe its part of his accent? Anyway, You can notice it from time to time on the show. It's acctually very similar to the one that the actor who played his son in "Stuart Little" has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.156.27 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Recent Trivia reversion
Thought I'd explain my reasons, since it's my second revert on this. Unnecessary repetition of the words "American" and "accent", and "maintains" sounds a little odd in this context. Chris 42 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

University degree?
The article states that Laurie achieved a third class honours degree from Selwyn college, Cambridge.

On Monday, July 31, 2006, Laurie was the guest on Inside the Actor's Studio. When James Lipton asked him about his graduation from Cambridge, Laurie replied that he hadn't graduated. This led to Lipton offering to arrange for Laurie to receive an honorary degree from Pace University at their next graduation.

So which account is right? Or is it possible that Laurie somehow achieved his degree without graduating?m--Rick 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He gained a 3rd class degree - ie he completed his studies successfully - but apparently did not go through the graduation ceremony and is technically a graduand. When I graduated (1996) those not attending their graduation ceremony in UK universities were deemed to have graduated in absentia. Maybe things were different in Hugh's day, or at Cambridge (or both). You can hear an explanation from the man himself from an interview on Aspel and Company, 1991 - at http://www.marykir.com/hl/other/interviews.htm --Niki2006 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't go to Cambridge either, but I'm about a year older than him and graduated in absentia too. -- Arwel (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At Oxford uni, if you don't go to the graduation ceremony then you don't officially graduate. I guess it's probably the same for Cambridge; the day is a huge tourist attraction, and they like to milk it for all it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.22.250 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's more than one graduation day at Cambridge as it is done college by college. And you do officially graduate, though in absentia, if you don't go to the ceremony there (held in the Senate House). 82.32.238.139 (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

American bias
I'm sorry, but for some reason the way the following sentences are written annoys me:

"However, it is his current role, starring as Dr Gregory House in the television show House, that has made him well-known to American audiences."

"Although Laurie has been a household name in Britain since the 1980s, he only really came to the attention of the American public in 2004, when he first starred as the cantankerous physician Dr Gregory House in the popular FOX medical drama, House."

It's as if he was a nobody until 2004 when he was discovered by the Americans. Much of the introduction was obviously written by an American, from the viewpoint of someone writing about a foreign actor. I am going to make a few changes later.N^O^el 05:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully agree, this is a general problem on Wikipedia where the audience is usually assumed to be American and not just english-speaking. I sometimes think there ought to be a separate Wikipedia for Americans and a "global english" one for the rest of the world, because the articles are so dominated by the view from the United States.

He was well-known in the USA to any Blackadder fan, of which there are many here.

Change it to something like "universal stardom", House doesn't just air in america. it's dubbed into all manner of languages and broadcast all over the world. Places where Mr. Laurie won't have been seen before.

fine, but then you can't riddle the article of every british actor with UK dialect on an American website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.55.81 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the world wide web is a British invention so by your rules... 'fine, but you can't litter the web with American dialect on the British World Wide Web'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.95.109 (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture
I'd like to suggest that the picture of Hugh is changed to something slightly more flattering, as this one says to me that he's just left court after being pronounced guilty on a DWI. Algebra Man 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's a terrible picture!

Here's three better ones I found just on google: http://www.nndb.com/people/283/000051130/hugh-laurie.jpg http://www.celebopedia.com/hugh-laurie/images/hugh-laurie.jpg http://www.givememyremote.com/uploaded_images/House_Hugh_Laurie-706066.jpg 68.39.233.1 04:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the more flattering pictures aren't freely licensed, as is required by Wikipedia's image use policy. The current picture is licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses; the images you linked to are probably copyright to the photographer or to the makers of House.  The goal for Wikipedia is to have an encyclopedia that can be freely copied, and sometimes that means that we've got to use a less flattering image.  We can use a few copyrighted images under fair use, but that's only allowed when a free image isn't possible.  For example, this image can be used in the Gregory House article, because all pictures of the character (as opposed to the actor) are copyrighted anyway.  But we can't use that as the primary image in this article.  (Whether you can use images of actors in iconic roles as supplemental images is a bit of a gray area.)  Anyway, that's why we've got that image on this page.


 * That said, if you can get the permission of the photographer for one of those other images, or find a better picture that's freely licensed, you're welcome to upload it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking, nay begging, that we leave the current (legal) image until a better one is found. - Dudesleeper 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope the search for a better picture is going somewhere, this one is terrible.--Prudentia 10:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm not terribly interested in how the right side of his body looks. asyndeton 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dr" or "Dr."
Just a polite note, as I find myself reverting on this rather a lot. The British abbreviation of "Doctor" is "Dr" (with no full stop), the reasoning being that it includes both the first and last letters of the word and therefore requires no further punctuation. The same rule applies for "Mister" (Mr) and "Missus" (Mrs) — see Full stop. I'm always respectful of the US spelling in American articles, so please try to do the same for British ones. Thanks. Chris 42 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an American show, so it's Dr. not Dr 12.207.126.125 04:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But this is an article about Hugh Laurie - who is most definitely English, and has done a lot more than just House (as you would know if you read the article) 88.111.4.0 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The character is American though so it should be the american spelling as that is what an American doctor would use. I'm British in case you think otherwise! Andy.Levett 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. While Hugh Laurie is English, the character Dr. House is American, so 'Dr.' should be used. -- Jelly Soup 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be Dr. House because that is the name of the American character in the American show. --AJKGordon 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm American and I agree the it should be respected but the character is American if he was british then it should be "Dr" or if it were refering to hugh Laurie himself then it should be "Dr" but in this case it's the American character that he is potraing that is being referenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.15.157 (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a South African and, while our English is closer to "British English" (I hate that term) than American English, I find that however you abbreviate the "Doctor" is goddamn irrelevant, just keep it consistent within an article, at least. And, while I confess to a bias against "Americanisms" (don't take offence, it's just that we can score higher points in Scrabble with British English :) ) it really is up to a writer to write in his or her own country's style, no?


 * And if somebody so much as SNIFFS "well, it's an American website" I am going to scream - an American website that is collaborated on by people from all around the world. If American were simply "better" why don't you just right the whole thing yourselves?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.44.248 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge from List of Hugh Laurie awards
IMO, the article in question is not significant enough for a seperate article, and this article is not large enough to necessitate separating the awards to a separate article. Please comment. --Swpb 02:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur, and I have already abused my privilege of being bold by merging them. At this point it should reside within Hugh Laurie, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list might be necessary. Combination 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Frank Zappa's bassist?
I've heard that Hugh Laurie was Frank Zappa's bassist, is this true? If so, it should be included in the article. Haddock420 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that was Shuggie Otis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuggie_Otis NickBrett 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Laurie is a talented pianist and drummer, but to my knowledge he's never been in any famous bands. You will occasionally see him playing the piano and/or singing in the various series he's been in, and he's doing it for real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Blackadder
He also played the role of Prince George in Blackadder. Should be added to the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned, at Hugh Laurie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Cleanup tag - why?
What's up with the trivia cleanup tag stating that the trivia needs to integrated into the main article. As far as I know, a trivia section containing snippets of trivial and small facts is standard for most bio articles on moderately famous living persons. Including the trivia in the article would be clumsy and awkward. I think we should remove the tag. Your thoughts? – Alex LaPointe talk  20:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While trivia sections are regrettably common, I wouldn't call them standard. They are in fact discouraged, per Trivia_sections.  Please try to including your trivia in the main article.  If it doesn't fit into another section, it probably doesn't belong at all. James A. Stewart (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

American-only view of Hugh Laurie
Hugh Laurie did several series of Jeeves & Wooster and for most of his career this was his most acclaimed and best-known role, yet this article gives it less mention than his brief cameo on Friends. Could someone expand the career section and talk about what he did before the Americans discovered who he was? At the moment it reads like a primer for House fans.

Early life: apparent contradiction
"Forced to abandon rowing during a bout of glandular fever (mononucleosis), he joined the Cambridge Footlights" "In 1980–81, his final year at university, Laurie managed to find time alongside his rowing to be president of the Footlights"

So was he a rower during the Footlights or not? Perhaps it's "temporarily to abandon rowing"? Or the "alongside his rowing" was added by an over-ardent fan keen to make him seem impressive? I don't know, but it doesn't seem to make sense as is Your thoughts? MickO&#39;Bants 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

English rather than British
Not just relevant to this entry on Hugh Laurie but it seems that many well-kown Brits are being described as English rather than British - almost as if there's a pro-English independence movement stalking the pages of Wikipedia. Does anyone know of any general discussion in Wikipedia about the correct convention for this? In my view, British is correct as we are describing a nationality. I have made the minor change in this article but keeping England as the sub-division of the UK for his place of birth. (Ajkgordon 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Do you object to Scottish celebrities being described as Scottish?


 * There is no pro-English independence movement (there is no need for one). The actors you are speaking about are described as English by nationality because they were born in England (which is a country) - so England is correct for those actors born in England - also the English flag should be used in the infobox for English-born people.


 * The United Kingdom (UK) is comprised of the three countries of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and is also comprised of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the nationality (and location and birth) for British actors is given in accordance to which country (England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland) their births actually took place. The countries are individual and separate and are not sub-divisions of the UK.


 * With regard to the UK flag, it represents all four countries of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), and contains the St George's Cross (of the English flag), and the St. Andrew's Cross (of the Scottish flag), among others.  Therefore:
 * British people who were born in England have the English flag in their infobox
 * British people who were born in Scotland have the Scottish flag in their infobox
 * British people who were born in Wales have the Welsh flag in their infobox


 * In a similar way:
 * the nationality of people born in the Americas are designated by their actual country of birth (United States, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina etc.) - their country of birth is not listed as the Americas &mdash; nor are the countries sub-divisions of the Americas.
 * the nationality of people born in Europe are designated by their actual country of birth (France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain etc.) - their country of birth is not listed as Europe &mdash; nor are the countries sub-divisions of Europe.
 * the nationality of people born in Asia are designated by the actual country of birth (China, Hong Kong, Bali, Singapore, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, Tibet etc.) - their country of birth is not listed as Asia &mdash; nor are the countries sub-divisions of Asia.
 * the nationality of people born in Africa is designated by the actual country of birth in (South Africa, Rhodesia, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia etc.) - their country of birth is not listed as Africa &mdash; nor are the countries sub-divisions of Africa.
 * Hopefully the above will help to clarify the issue. Figaro 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not similar what-so-ever, because all of the above are continents NOT countries. Obviously someone born in Europe, does not call themselves a European with respect to nationality, because Europe is not a country it is a continent. So there is NO analogy here. The UK however, is a country, and the only recognised nationality of the UK under international law is British national or British citizen, as it says in One's passport. Terms such a Scottish, English, etc, are not nationalities, the same as Yorkshireman is not a nationality. They are simply terms which describe where someone is from within the UK. Someone born in Yorkshire is likely to be proud of being a Yorkshireman and of being an Englishman, neither of which are nationalities however. People should quite rightly be proud of there identity, but there is no need to go around bending definitions of words to accomodate stupid notions as has happened on Wikipedia.


 * In a way you are both right. His nationality is both British and English.  In this case I would suggest it is best to describe him as English as this is more useful.  If someone is described as English it follows that they must also be British, but if someone is described as British he could be English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish.

This is another stupid point above, why not describe his nationality as being from Oxford, as that is more specific that England. Your logic is stupid.


 * Figaro, your comparison of the situation of Britain with the other examples you give is rather oversimplified. The situation in the UK is complicated but has more in common with the the relationship between the States of America than the countries of Europe or Africa.  America is a country, made up of many separate states, which have a certain amount of autonomy, but are mostly controlled centrally, as a single nation.  The relationship between the states of America is mostly political.  Europe and Africa are continents.  They are areas of land which contain many separate, completely independent countries.  The relationship between them is purely geographical.  The different countries in Europe have different languages, different cultures, different flags and different laws.  Therefore a Texan will normally call himself American whereas a Frenchman will always call himself French.  Like in the US, the UK is country, it is mostly controlled centrally, it has the same language (just about), and the same culture (more or less).  Like America, Britain also has one set of Armed Forces, and a common Flag.  However, unlike the US, Britain has a long history.  For most of that History, the different countries within in have been separate.  So while Texas has almost always identified itself as part of the US, England has identified itself as England, with and English flag (the cross of St George) and the English language.  Meanwhile Scotland identified itself as Scotland with a Scottish flag, and a separate language.  The UK was only formed in 1707 (with Ireland joining in 1801).  This relatively short united history means that there are still some fairly large cultural and linguistic differences between the countries, for example in most team sports players represent either England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland rather than Britain.  These differences mean it is useful to know which part of the UK someone is from.


 * I hope this clears it up a bit, read the UK articles for more info. It is quite difficult to explain - as a brit is just seems normal to be both British and English at the same time, and to define myself equally as both, I guess if you are looking from outside it may seem a bit weird. alihaig 88.111.4.0 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I deliberately tried to keep my explanation as simplified as possible, instead of making my explanation complicated and difficult to understand - hence your comment about it being rather oversimplified.


 * As a person who was born and raised in Australia (and with Australia being part of the British Commonwealth of Nations), I understand perfectly well what you mean, and I don't find it difficult at all that you feel that you are both British and English at the same time. I am not disputing this fact.  I am also fully aware of the history, importance and significance of the United Kingdom (UK) (both of which are the shortened versions of the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) &mdash; including the fact that the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, King James VI of Scotland, also became King James I of England,  following the death of Queen Elizabeth I.


 * My comment simply refers to the country of birth (within the United Kingdom) that a person is born in, within their infobox, and to try to explain why England and the English flag should be used in the infobox of a person born in England. The same applies to people born in Scotland (who should have Scotand and the Scottish flag in their inbox), or Wales (who should have Wales and the Welsh flag in their inbox), or Northern Ireland (who should have Northern Ireland in their inbox &mdash; however, I do not know what flag would be used for them).  Otherwise, the UK is too broad to define as a birth place.  The same goes for the UK flag if it is used to show the location of their birth.


 * As you have mentioned the US, people who are born in that country call themselves 'Amercan' because they are born in the United States of America &mdash; they are not called 'American' because they were born in the Americas. Figaro 02:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect this is all simply incorrect.

Nationality, which is what we're talking about here, generally refers to citizenship of a State. The only state that is relevant here is the United Kingdom. There are no English passports. Birth certificates don't state country of birth as Scotland. There is no Welsh army.

We are Citizens of the UK.

Comparing the UK to the Americas or Africa or Europe is quite clearly absurd. A closer comparison would be to compare the UK to the US.

Besides nationality is NOT dictated by place of birth exclusively. I was born in Germany, my father in India, my mother in England. But we all have British nationality.

While there may be some people, including actors such as Sean Connery, who would want to describe themselves as Scottish rather than British because they support the breakup of the UK, they are still British.

Therefore Hugh Laurie should be described as British with maybe the inclusion of English if that is how he describes himself. It is misleading and incorrect to describe him as simply English. (Ajkgordon 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

As such, I have made the appropriate changes. I trust this meets with general approval. (Ajkgordon 18:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Well, that's what you get for changing things without looking at the talk page....lol. I changed his nationality to English, so I guess I should explain myself. Nationality does generally refer to citizenship of a state, but that doesn't hold up too well for the United Kingdom. In most countries, the concept of a state and a nation are broadly congruent with one another, but there's no such thing as the "British nation"; the UK is a state made up of the English nation, the Welsh, Scottish, and part of the Irish. The Number 10 website describes the UK as being  "made up of four countries", so it doesn't seem unreasonable to give the precise country of his birth when saying he "is an xxxx actor". I think generally "Britain" should not be used as a synonym for the UK, not least because part of the UK (Northern Ireland) isn't even in Britain.


 * I did a little bit of a search, and found this interview in Playboy, where he refers to himself as an "Englishman", and talks about being from England quite a lot - he uses the word "Britain" once, when talking about the NHS. Quite apart from anything else, if someone refers to himself as being English, and it's not completely at odds with reality, that's how we should describe him too. Martin 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I would dispute that there isn't such a thing as the "British Nation". We have the NHS (National Health Service), the National Trust, the National Gallery... we even have the British National Party although I wish we didn't. And the UK is a member of the United Nations. Even if there isn't such a thing as the "British nation" there certainly is such as thing as British nationality. It's defined in British Nationality law. And it says so in my passport.


 * Place of birth is often irrelevant when talking about nationality. Many Britons were born outside the UK including my father, myself and my three children. But we're all British.


 * I agree with you about Britain not being used as a synonym for the UK although it often is, even officially. However, British is used as meaning from the UK.


 * As far as Mr Laurie's Playboy interview is concerned, many English Britons describe themselves as English or British depending on the context and audience. In this Time Out interview he says British exclusively. I still think that unless he expressly states that he is English rather than British, then he should be described as British. (Ajkgordon 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Just to muddy the water a bit, the island of Eire and Northern Ireland is generally classed as one of the British Isles which would make the Irish British (though I wouldn't choose to argue the point too stenuously in a Dublin bar!) The terms Britain and British are often used as synonyms for the United Kingdom but really it is a sloppy use of language: Britain/British are geographical terms not political.  However, I think it's pretty much universally understood that when someone is referred to as British it means a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.217.154.66.11 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the British Isles is purely a geographical term. In Ireland itself, the term is discouraged for obvious reasons. British, however, is the accepted descriptor for someone or something of the UK, e.g. the British Army, British Airways, or the British Prime Minster. It is not sloppy at all. (Ajkgordon 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Granted, there are many organisations that operate on a UK-wide basis, that style themselves as the "National xxxx"; similarly, there are organisations such as the English National Ballet, Royal Scottish National Orchestra and the National Assembly for Wales, which operate in only one of the home nations but use the word "national" in their name. We also talk about the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish national rugby teams (one of which is the team of more than one country).

As I said above, I'm not really too sure how correct applying the term "nation" to the UK is, and I suspect it is generally used because in most cases, its meaning is broadly concurrent with the word "country". The dictionary in Mac OS X gives: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". Its certainly arguable as to whether this description applies to the UK.

I guess I just don't see what describing him as "British" adds to the article; saying that someone is English (or Scottish, Welsh or Irish) tells you much more about them than saying they are British, and so I feel it's the way to go here. After all, he's in Category:English comedians as a more precise sub-category of Category:British comedians, so I don't see why the text of the article shouldn't follow suit. Martin 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Applying the term "nation" to the UK is perfectly correct, the clincher being that it is a member of the United Nations. While it is also quite correct to refer to any of the four constituent countries as nations as well. Nations within a nation if you like.


 * What adds to the article by describing him as British is simply accuracy. Our opinion on the merits of Englishness, Britishness, etc. are irrelevant. All other encyclopaedias would call him British. Wikipedia is open to influence by editors who have a strong POV and, while agenda pushing may not be intentional, it is this that is happening. You may be interested in a similar debate here that covers most of what is being said here. (Ajkgordon 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the link, it was certainly an interesting read...good luck with trying to achieve some sort of consensus! :)


 * I would caution however, against accusations of "agenda pushing". I know you don't necessarily have any editor in mind when you say it, but I think it could hinder your efforts. It's certainly possible for someone to describe Hugh Laurie as English without POV-pushing (as I can personally attest).


 * I think I have more of an idea as to where you're coming from now, but I'm still not convinced. The terms "English" and "British" are not mutually exclusive, and saying that he is English is not the same as denying he is British.


 * I suspect the easiest thing to do is to adopt the solution we generally use on bios of Northern Irish people; we just use whatever term the person in question uses. This works well with NI and is reasonably objective because there is a basis in both British and Irish law for it, but it would probably keep everyone happy. Although, such a solution is not without its problems. In Northern Ireland, people generally regard themselves as being Irish or British (or indeed, just plain old Northern Irish), and generally stick to those. I realise there are obviously lots of exceptions, but I think it's fair to say that NI society is generally more polarised than elsewhere in the UK. However, a person from England might talk about being British in one interview, and English in the next. What would be the threshold for inclusion I wonder? Martin 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points well made, Martin. Yes, accusations of agenda pushing are not directed at anyone in particular and shouldn't be taken personally. But there is a nationalist agenda within the UK and it is this that is being pushed here on the pages of Wikipedia. It's not malicious or necessarily anti-British or even pro-Scottish/Welsh/etc. It's simply a corollary of a current trend to highlight national identity within the UK. Which, by the way, I respect. But an encyclopaedia should not be used for political purposes however innocently. While I understand your point about those accusations being counter-productive and potentially hardening editors' views, I think the point still needs raising - albeit perhaps more diplomatically!


 * The way I view this is how, if I was ever afforded the honour, my entry in Wikipedia should describe my nationality. I have often described myself, for the sake of quick and easy (and lazy) communication, as English especially when abroad. I spent a large proportion of my life in England, speak with a RP accent (although so do many pure-bred Scots), support the England rugby team, and generally behave in such a way that would classify me as English rather than British if the same rules were applied as they are in this article. But, by any definition, I am British. Primarily because that is what my official nationality is but also because I don't specifically claim to be English to the exclusion of being British. (Indeed, if my nationality was to do with blood, then I am more Scottish than English. But no matter). I imagine that many of the subjects in Wikipedia, such as Mr Laurie, probably feel the same way - they don't necessarily think about it until they are forced to do so and in the meantime continue to use the words England and English without even thinking about the consequences. (This behaviour applies less in Scotland and Wales.)


 * In answer to your final point about threshold, I think that the default should be British unless the subject specifically classes himself as English/Welsh/Scottish/NIish to the exclusion of British, e.g. "No, I'm English, not British", in a sourced interview. (Ajkgordon 09:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC))


 * What is the beef here?

British is an official nation, England is not.

British is a nationality, English is a localisation.

End of

Andy Levett July 13th 2007

Completely untrue Andy. One of the most glaring errors I have ever seen on a discussion page. England is a nation with it's own national flag and football team for example. You are not confusing 'State' with 'Nation' are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank most of the people that replied to this entry, it was a very interesting read and very helpfull. Allthecoolnamesweretaken 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The rule is pretty simple actually. If you come from the UK and you're not from England you are described as British if you are successful, or Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish if you are not. For example, the British tennis player Andy Murray just beat Roger Federer, but tomorrow the Scottish tennis player Andy Murray will lose to Rafa Nadal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.22.143 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hugh is of English and Scottish descent. Simply describing him as English and ignoring his heritage is foolish. British is an accurate description of his heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.59.99 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't include heritage in the description, we use nationality. He was born in England, not Scotland. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think heritage has some connection with nationality? My boyfriend was born in Berlin, hence by your argument, he is German, however he has a British passport because he was born to British parents serving abroad in the British army. It should be clear that place of Birth is a silly basis to decide nationality so that leaves two options, heritage and legal citizenship. Heritage is hard to pin down, many if not most British people have mixed heritages which may well also include countries outside of the UK and trying to assign nationality on this basis is a recipe for dispute and controversy. That leaves citizenship status. It is clearly defined, verifiable and holds legal force. What's not to like?79.68.24.109 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 84.71.59.99..... go away with your heritage crap I bet your scottish claiming English people, I bet you would go through the roof if someone said they edited andy murray to British due to English ancestry he has so don't try and pull the sheets over our eyes like it's only england with heritages from other nationalities look how many scots have English surnames, Enough has been said....109.154.17.141 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As the above discussion illustrates, there is no consensus on whether a person born in England should be described as British or English. However, editors often change "English" to "British" in the opening paragraph of this article. If you are considering such a change, you might find it useful to read the essay "Nationality of people from the United Kingdom". While this is not a Wikipedia policy, it is a useful guideline. Describing Hugh Laurie as "English" in the lead is perfectly correct, and is consistent with the article's categories, such as "English television actors". Wdchk (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Wdchk, as you can see from my recent reversion back to "English." I also gave my reason in the edit summary. --Skol fir (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's face it, boyo, he is pretty English, isn't he. He describes himself as "a middle class Englishman" on the home page of his website. ('England? is that near London?' as all our better educated US friends would say? whoops, sorry) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture
What happened to the picture of Laurie on the introduction? And who is likely to have photographed Laurie personally and still be willing to display the picture on the Internet? -ACAbrahams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.142.204 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't know, what is wrong with this? http://www.noseque.net/wordpress/media/imagenes/Hugh_Laurie_gallery__296x400_0_1_.jpg Wikifriendawesome 11:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it is that it is not released under a free license. See Non-free content criteria #1. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

MBE or OBE?
The BBC article says: "British actor Hugh Laurie, star of US hospital drama House, has been made an OBE by the Queen." but "He was made a member of the Order of the British Empire in the 2007 New Years Honours list.". So does he have an OBE or an MBE? --Stlemur 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he got an OBE (officer rank) but the BBC offhandedly called him a member as in being in the group of people who have one of the ranks of the Order of the British Empire not that he got a MBE (member rank). Basically bad wording on BBC's part, he got a OBE. Gdo01 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Leiutenent George.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Leiutenent George.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GentlemanGhost 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Boxing
Maybe could be added to trivia - here's the source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETLHO8kbi_c&mode=related&search=

It's from the David Letterman show. Hugh talks about it himself. 60.234.223.209 15:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert
Re: this edit. A source is required before it can be included. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I add this image?
Can I add this image to the info box? Image:Wooster.jpg
 * No, see Non-free content criteria. It is an image of a living person which could be replaced by a free content image. Garion96 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard he's an atheist?
I think there's a category for that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. I've put him under "English Atheists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.38.11 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rowing
"One of the boats at Selwyn, his old college at Cambridge, is named "Laurie" in his honour" - is this correct, & is there a source confirming? I'm sure Selwyn have/had named a boat "Laurie" but given his greater rowing success I would have thought this would more likely be named for Hugh's father, Ran Laurie. Niki2006 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct - the boat was donated by and named for his father, as was another of Selwyn's boats, Ran. I've removed the incorrect statement. Crabula (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Since 2004 he has become known to international audiences"
Why does this article make it seem like he was virtually unknown outside of the U.K. before House? Blackadder has been on a near-permanent rerun schedule in Scandinavia during the past decade. All seasons of both A Bit of Fry and Laurie and Jeeves and Wooster have been broadcast here.

In stating that "Since 2004 he has become known to international audiences" is international audiences = the United States?

Why can't the article just state that he has had a long and successful career? I'd venture to say that more people in Scandinavia know him from Blackadder than from House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.184.22 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with previous contributor. Laurie has been a household name (excuse the pun) in scores of countries for decades.

Quote: 'he only came to the attention of a broader American public in 2004'

While this may be true, what possible relevance does it have for the global readership? Is the author going to list when Laurie became well known in Madagascar and Sierra Leone too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue or brown eyes?
I've seen pictures and videos of Hugh Laurie with blue eyes and some with brown eyes. Anyone know which is his natural eye color? 71.145.163.199 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

His eyes are blue - very blue indeed! You may have seen him playing Vincente Minelli in a telemovie, for which he wore contact lenses to give him brown eyes. Niki2006 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
I think we need a new image, i can hardly see his face in the one used... If anyone can find a new image would be much apreciated :D  -- MakE  shout! 03:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree...the old pic sucks. So, I requested for a new one from flickr. And, guess what? :-)  miranda   18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird quotes
What's up with the «foo» style quotes used abundantly in this article? While they may be common in some language, they're not normally used in either UK or US English. The article contains some "normal" quotes and quite a few of these chevron-style quotes (sorry, I don't know what their proper name is). Any objection to me replacing all the quotes with the normal "" style? James A. Stewart (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agnostic vs. atheist
When another editor blanked out the "Category:atheist" inclusion, I looked at the quote used in the article, which says (re: church/religion): "I admire the music, buildings and ethics of religion, but I come unstuck on the God thing." That is the basis for the inclusion of the category. Personally, I can't instantly arrive at the conclusion of that Laurie believes there is no God based on that quote. The best I can see is that he is expressing doubt, which is why I instead used the category agnostic. Because the quote is ambiguous at best, perhaps it would be better for an editor who has read something that states his viewpoint more clearly than "I come unstuck on the God thing." It's just too tenuous to arrive at a specific definition based on that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check atheism for a non-dictionary definition of the term. You also seem to misunderstand agnosticism. Laurie's quote fits perfectly well with weak atheism. If the guy had said, "We can't tell whether God exists," then you'd be right. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote doesn't support the atheism category (I meant categorisation in the ES), and I'm not convinced it supports agnostic either. Better sources should be found to support either. Verbal   chat  20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagine this - find me anything in Atheism that falls anywhere close to definitive in the statement "I come unstuck on the God thing." And in passing, I would suggest reining in your personal opinion of what I do or do not understand. I certainly do understand atheism and agnosticism, however I fail to see a definitive atheistic meaning in "I come unstuck on the God thing." Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the quote supports labelling him as an agnostic instead of an atheist. (Please note that I meant to say "agnostic" instead of "atheist", but my request still stands, here. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed at the fact that Christian editors who are wholly ignorant of Laurie's well-known atheism seem to think that agnosticism is a middle ground between atheism and theism. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making a whole lot of assumptions in that statement. How do you know that anyone here is a "Christian editor"? And when do you plan to fix the reference that you broke when you changed the quote? Meanwhile, you can't use YouTube for references and it would be especially nice for there to be a link for editors who are working on verification could check. For all we know, it's a made up quote. I'm very disappointed that a seemingly well-educated person would draw such impertinent assumptions and make sideways personal attacks upon editors with whom he disagrees by disparaging their intelligence. You never did explain how "I come unstuck on the God thing" verified atheism. No one said that the quote indicated a middle ground between atheism and theism. "Coming unstuck on the God thing" could just as easily have indicated that he believes it cannot be known. It's less than good faith to be as assaultive in your arguments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a made-up quote. Watch the video where he tells everyone he's an atheist. I put the link there so you can't say I'm misquoting a TV show. You're not going to tell me they made up the video, too, are you? Imagine Reason (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm telling you that YouTube cannot be used for references due to copyright issues, we'd like a link to the newspaper cited so that it can be useful to verification editors and you need to fix the reference you broke when you took out the root reference. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wildhart, this is why I cannot assume good faith in this discussion. You should know FULL WELL that TV shows can be cited as a source, when an appearance on the show is cited in an article. There need not be a newspaper article reporting on that appearance; that is a totally unreasonable demand. I am not providing Youtube links as sources; I am providing them in order to reject any claim that would undoubtedly arise if I don't that I am making up those quotes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1T7bKTOhb8 is a shorter video. Again, I am not using the video as a source; I am using the TV show itself. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does support agnostic either. We have no RS saying either, so both categories should be removed until an RS is found. I also think that raising editors personal beliefs to attack edits is uncivil and a personal attack, please don't do that again. I think Laurie is great, and I also think I've seen him say he is an atheist, but it might have been agnostic, or it might have been Fry. We still need an RS for the tags, etc. Verbal   chat  21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That vid is a good source, but it doesn't support the statement as it can be interpreted as being for comic effect. We need an unambiguous reliable source for claims of personal belief. I'm sure one exists, that video isn't it. Verbal   chat  21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OBVIOUSLY it's used for comical effects. It cannot be interpreted as an attempt at comedy, however, if it weren't true. To argue that he's not atheist in spite of such evidence is ridiculous. WP:DUCK. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, why can't an agnostic or other have made that joke? Your argument doesn't wash. I'm sure an RS does exist, I'll try to find one tomorrow. Goodnight! Verbal   chat  21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that YouTube cannot be used due to copyright issues, which would factually be what a link for verification of the statement would be. That is not the way that a television is supposed to be cited. At no point did I say that a television show cannot be cited and if you'd tone down a bit, you'd realize that. However, there are specific reference templates designed for television shows. You also assume that every computer in the world has sound available in order to verify it. I'm sorry if you think I was accusing you of making up the quote, my statement was that the Daily Telegraph article link would verify that the quote wasn't made up. This is a BLP issue. It has to be readily verified. I'm guessing you don't have a two year old newspaper laying about to check, so the quote was obtained somewhere. And thanks, Verbal, for fixing the ref. And I agree with Verbal, it doesn't require an atheist to make a statement about being an atheist on a comedy show for comic effect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot expect every source to be confirmed by you. Is there a valid reason to doubt Laurie's appearance on the show? No. Is there any valid reason to doubt his assertion that he's an atheist? No. You're making up your own rules, and you're misconstruing the joke. It's that simple. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, every source should be readily verifiable by anyone who is interested in verifying it. There is a valid reason to take a statement made on a comedy show with a grain of salt. Perhaps you know beyond a reasonable doubt that Hugh Laurie is an atheist, but for purposes of a biography of a living person, such a statement must be transparently verifiable. I am not making up rules as I go. YouTube is not acceptable in a reference, whether it is the reference, or it is the proof that the point being made was said in the clip. It is a copyright violation and cannot be used. Surely you've been around here long enough to know that. If one were wanting to use the show appearance itself as a source, then the parameters in includes everything necessary - even the specific episode data from IMDb. It is not a factor of whether there is a valid reason to doubt it, WP:BLP is the measure of what is valid. That's not too difficult to understand and abundantly vital to follow. And to repeat, you found the quote from the Daily Telegraph somewhere and I doubt you had a 2 year old newspaper at hand. Why is a link to that, which has everything else available, so difficult to provide? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh deary dear. You may be surprised to hear that there are ways of accessing old newspapers other than keeping hard copies. Personally, I use Nexis. Sometimes papers have their stuff online, other times they like to hang on to their copyright. So, you need a subscription to a service. Try a library.


 * Meanwhile, the exact reference, c&p-ed from the Nexis page with the returns removed and some commas added, is: Sunday Telegraph (Australia), October 28, 2007 Sunday, State Edition, Why he's a drama king, BYLINE: Richard Clune, SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 101.


 * The full quote goes:


 * "Every show we do is a disaster, I'm convinced of it. I go home and my head is full of all the mistakes I've made."


 * Given the accolades and acclaim attached to the series and Laurie's deft portrayal, such words seem strange. While he continues to periodically visit a therapist in an ongoing battle with "mild depression", Laurie doesn't view his professional pessimism as a by-product of the illness.


 * "No, I don't think it is part of that," he says. "I'm aware of the fact it's a bit weird. It's partly a superstition.


 * "I don't believe in God, but I have this idea that if there were a God, or destiny of some kind looking down on us, that if he saw you taking anything for granted he'd take it away. So he'll be like: 'You think this is going pretty well?' Then he'll go and send down some big disaster."


 * Personally, I'd trust a news service that's used by universities even over a paper's own site. I'll see what else I can find that way. TTFN. Oolon (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite know this, but I had asked the person who posted the (partial) quote for a link for it from wherever he obtained it and apparently he saw no valid reason why he should give one, although it was obvious to me he had copied it from somewhere. I was certain he didn't have the newspaper laying around the house. Since the new quote was posted rather quickly, I felt it was valid to ask for the source, which was not forthcoming. Thanks for looking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No probs, sorry for sounding a bit shirty. As it happens, looking up Laurie has netted me Emma Thompson for the [Lists of atheists] too. Oolon (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your contribution! It's funny that no one has yet to justify the label "agnostic" instead of "atheist," when there's no evidence Laurie ever spoke on the question of the knowability of the existence of gods. Repeated assertions of a baseless position do not strengthen it. When someone jokes about answering a question about God because he's "an atheist," only the most cynical viewer would say the humor does not depend on the speaker being actually an atheist. And if a citation is not inserted properly, then fix it, but don't use it to discredit the link; it's laughable that I have to even discuss these things. And I'll say this again: If you don't know that Laurie's an atheist, you don't know Laurie. Imagine Reason (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to get it. It's quite sad that you see no reason to have to provide verifiable sources for a quote which you put in. As I said, you got the quote somewhere, it's bad faith to refuse to bother to come up with a link, which we all know is available online at some site. It is entirely outside policy, especially so on a WP:BLP, to let it stand on something as - yes, actually it is - the arrogant statement of "it's laughable that I have to even discuss these things. And I'll say this again: If you don't know that Laurie's an atheist, you don't know Laurie." I have news for you, we don't write articles for the people who think they know Laurie, we write them for the people who don't. Being asked for a verifiable source is neither beneath you or laughable. What is laughable is that you actually think it isn't necessary. Please, a little less attitude and a little more following policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

House?
Didn't he play in a series called "House"? Or was that someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.78.59 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's him. SGGH ping! 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits about Craig and motorcycles
I don't think that should have been reverted - it should have just had a CN attached. It was a perfectly good fact, and if I hadn't caught it, it would probably have been lost, as anon IPs don't tend to monitor their changes and notice when someone reverts it, and then read the comment. I added a ref. Luminifer (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to previous work are incorrect
Some films like to books, etc. ie "The Young Visiters"
 * Not really. That particular film is included in the article for the author of the original book. Those are redirects, not inaccuracies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Vaudau
A sourced line was removed from the article without any discussion on that matter other than the single editor didn't feel like it was true. Judging from the editor's previous submissions, I don't think it's likely that s/he has the book handy. If they do happen to own the book, then I apologize, but if you could explain the situation before you remove something with a citation that would be VERY helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.120.114 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.215.162.52, 23 May 2010
editsemiprotected

Concerns the 2009 Peoples Choice award on the Hugh Laurie page. When checking the Peoples Choice site, I noticed that Hugh Laurie's name was printed bold, indicating that he won. On the Wiki page there is an indication that it waits for an up-date.

94.215.162.52 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made the change and added a reference. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Keith D (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

American accent between takes
"Laurie also adopts the accent between takes on the set of House, as well as during script read-throughs.[citation needed]" Lisa Edelstein mentions that in an interwiew with Fox News on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBdqED9bgtw&NR=1

There is also another video (don't remember which one) where the crew says that on the shooting of the episode "Lockdown" there was something unusual for them: hearing Hugh Laurie talking with his natural British accent on the set (because he was behind the camera, directing this episode, and being completely himself as an Englishman). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo nono (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And his old comedy partner Stephen Fry mentions the same thing in an interview for the British talk show Parkinson. It's about 1 min in.  On this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k-T8S0lEwQ  .Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooh. Found a reference in the New York Times.  Am adding.  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing
There is no mention yet of translations of his novel. According to an article in The Guardian newspaper the French translation was a monster best-seller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf Heben (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy guest star
I tried before to add this to the article, but it got deleted. Hugh Laurie guest starred in the Family Guy episode Business Guy as House/himself (reverts to himself towards the end of the episode) and as previously mentioned in the chat, as a bar patron in One If by Clam, Two If by Sea. If someone could add these for me in a way they would not be changed, it would be much appreciated. PS you have to laugh at the nickname.-- Gregory House M.D. (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just one reference to help- | here for Business Guy--Gregory House M.D. (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

MI-5?
Why isn't there any mention of Hugh Laurie's appearances in the BBC "MI-5" television series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.236.105 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is, it's just that the show's original name is Spooks - it's only known as MI-5 abroad. Arthur Holland (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would adding something like "spy thriller series Spooks on BBC One (called MI-5 in some countries)." be a bit more informative? Not everyone who watched MI-5 knew/knows that it's original title is Spooks. Repeter (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)