Talk:Peter Ustinov

Filmography
What about-(AGATHA CHRISTIE'S SPARKLING CYANIDE, 1983.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.159.83.36 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow overlooked it in Filmography with its alternate title. So now I wish to know how to add both the American title, The Man who Wagged his Tail" and to create those titles as links to the synopsis I provided from the Fandango.com site (if I'm allowed to use that text). Thanks. Oneworld or none (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am totally new to this and don't know how to proceed. I want to add a film to the filmography which links to some information I gleaned from a website but don't know how to do the addition as a link. I also don't know if this website text violates the GFDL (whatever that is). I would like to participate with my ideas and knowledge but don't have time to learn a mountain of skills.

Here is the info from the Fandango.com website:

Full Synopsis Cast & Crew Related Movies Peter Ustinov stars as a nasty, grasping Brooklyn slum lord who earns the hatred of everyone. An old lady, cast out on the street by Ustinov, places a curse on his head. The result: Ustinov turns into a dog! Forced to witness the world from a mutt's eye view, the surly landlord truly understands for the first time what it means to be on the outside looking in. He also experience two new sensations: Love and devotion. Ustinov is snapped out of his spell (standing naked in a garbage can!) and vows to change his ways. Despite its overall New York ambience, The Man Who Wagged His Tail is a European production, filmed for the most part in Spain. Its original title was Un angel paso por Brooklyn. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

The entry in the Filmography section would be: either the Spanish-language original title (english translation) is "An Angel Passes over Brooklyn" OR the American-release title "The Man who Wagged His Tail." Oneworld or none (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Klop
Who is this 'Klop' that appears in line 5 of childhood and early life? Fairlightseven

"Klop" was the nickname of Ustinov's father, Iona (Jona) Baron von Ustinov. In particular Ustinov's mother, Nadia Benois, called her husband this. According to Ustinov's autobiography *Dear Me*, his mother wrote a memoir, *Klop*, about her husband,  which seems to have done justice to his originality of character, but which was also quite frank about his deficiencies.

By the way, it's possible to take issue with the article which describes Ustinov's mother and father as "fighting all the time." According to *Dear Me*, the father was indeed an arrogant, philandering, emotionally abusive jerk whomn his son seems to have despised. However, Peter Ustinov wrote in the kindest and most loving terms about his mother. He described her as patiently putting up with her obnoxious husband and finding peace and satisfaction in her painting. He also specifically said that "her behavior was always perfect," whereas the father was a selfish boor. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 09/10/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.103.70 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Marriages
Could someone tidy up his marriage dates on the main page? They don't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.154.126 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship
I'm a great Ustinov fan but never knew about the Swiss citizenship thing. Did he retain dual British citizenship? If he lost it, did he ever regain it?

Knighted foreigners are not given the 'accolade', the right to call themselves 'Sir' or 'Dame'. That is reserved for British citizens only. Cheers JackofOz 02:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * British citizens only? Dame Kiri Te Kanawa and hundreds like her are brits?.. Moriori 02:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Or citizens of nations in the British Commonwealth, yes. Chowbok 18:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. The answers to my two questions are NO and NO. The right (for titled people) to call themselves 'Sir' or 'Dame' is not reserved for British citizens only, and hundreds of people like Dame Kiri are not British citizens. Moriori 23:56, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * The original poster is wondering how Ustinov could be called "Sir" if he had Swiss citizenship. Bringing up Dame Kiri is irrelevant because while she's not a British citizen, she is a citizen of a nation in the Commonwealth. So what you're doing is nitpicking because he said "British citizens" when he meant "citizens of the Commonwealth", while ignoring his actual question.Chowbok 15:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You think seeking accuracy is nitpicking? Jacko stated inaccurately that "knighted foreigners are not given the 'accolade', the right to call themselves 'Sir' or 'Dame' ". I pointed out that THAT statement is not accurate and gave Dame Kiri Te Kanawa as an example . Totally relevant. Totally accurate.  FYI, at Heathrow immigration Dame Kiri has to join the aliens queue, while people from the country which bombed England, (which Dame Kiri's countrymen and women helped the Brits defend), go through the fast lane. She's truly one of Jacko's "knighted foreigners". Chowbok, can you say which particular power lets  you know that when Jacko writes something he means something else. Moriori 22:03, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * You're still out of order. In the context of honours such as

knighthoods, citizens of Commonwealth countries are regarded as British. It is possible for Canadians, Australians, West Indians etc to recieve knighthoods, but it is not possible for a US, German, French etc citizen to do so (other than an honorary one - eg Bob Geldof (Irish Citizen)). The point about passports is a piece of anti-European polemic and not germane to the issue. Exile 14:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, Exile. Dame Kiri Te Kanawa etc is entitled to a damehood because she is a citizen of a country that acknowledges the Queen as monarch. The monarch is the "fount of honour" in relation to honours. In some cases (eg. the Royal Victorian Order) she awards them in her personal capacity, without reference to any other authority. In most cases, however, she awards them only on the advice of the relevant government. In the case of Dame Kiri, for example, the Queen awarded the DBE on the advice of the New Zealand government, not the British government. This is because the Queen is Queen of New Zealand. Dame Kiri is not somehow British for the purposes of honours, she is entirely a New Zealander. Same for any other non-British Commonwealth citizens. JackofOz 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I somehow managed to totally miss the above debate until now. Yes, I was wrong. It is not just "British citizens" who get to be Sir or Dame, it is indeed citizens of all countries that are members of the Commonwealth. Sorry if I was a little non-specific there.

However, this whole debate was tangential to my original question, which so far remains unanswered. When Peter Ustinov acquired Swiss citizenship, did he renounce his British citizenship or did he have dual citizenship? This is very germane to whether or not he may be referred to as "Sir Peter Ustinov" or simply "Mr Peter Ustinov". Does anybody know the answer?? JackofOz 01:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There would have been no obligation for him to renounce his British citizenship (and indeed it's quite a hard thing for anyone to lose, you have to go through some hoops). He was referred to as "Sir Peter" until his death. -- Arwel 02:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Very enlightening. Cheers JackofOz 22:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For ex-member countries of the British Empire see British subject.


 * New Zealand didn't get separate citizenship until 1949 so Dame Kiri Te Kanawa was born a British subject, i.e., a British citizen. For Australia the relevant year was 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. What's happened to peoples' understanding of their own damn political systems? Listen: The Crown can knight any of its *subjects*. The Crown has no citizens. It has *subjects*. Citizens are members of a *nation*. The nation is not the same thing as the monarch.

Kiwis and Ozzies and Canucks (like me) and a great many others are *subjects* of the Crown, currently personified in Elizabeth II. Nobody gives a damn if they're "British citizens". (We aren't. Period.) The Queen knights us because we are her subjects, equal to the English, Scottish, and Welsh, but not citizens, in any sense, of the UK. Is that so entirely hard to grok?

The OP's very coherent question was, could Peter Ustinov, if he had become a Swiss citizen, and was therefore no longer a subject of the Crown, have enjoyed the honours reserved to knighted *subjects* of the Queen?

While I'm aware that people frequently say "British subject" when they mean citizen, that expression is really an abbreviation for "British [citizen who is also a] subject [of the Crown]." Everybody on the page now? Laodah 16:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Taking out Telegraph article

 * "I Can Only Speak Ill of Sir Peter" (Telegraph article)

I'm taking that one out since its not at all NPOV. If it goes back in, it should be referenced in the article and commented, with a reference to the author of the article. It makes no sense to put references to polemic attacks into an encyclopedia "as is". -- Paniq 16:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Now wait a minute. That link to the WFM obit is just as NPOV as the Telegraph article. Why are only negative links removed?


 * Either the WFM link should be removed as well, or the Telegraph link should be put back in. If there really is a rule against NPOV external links, then half the links in Wikipedia need to be removed... Chowbok 16:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I just looked at NPOV and I don't see anything about that. However, the whole point of the WFM link is to document that Ustinov really was president of WFM, and to establish the years of his presidency, as well as other facts, in case someone questions it later. A POV link is okay, in my opinion, if its purpose is to document a fact in the article, or if it is balanced with a link with an opposite POV - especially if the two are clearly denoted as such. This is doing a service to students and other researchers who may want to find information on both sides of the issue. Rad Racer 16:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the view that the link to the Telegraph article should be deleted. If it were merely documenting Ustinov's views on Tiananmen square, the Iraq war and so on it would be acceptable, but a link to such a vitriolic piece (pretty much par for the course for the Telegraph, I fear) is another matter.Jon Rob 10:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Difficult one. Usually I am strongly in favour of linking to critical articles in order to maintain balance, but since Pollard's piece is such utter crap (as a piece of journalism, regardless of its treatment of Ustinov) I'm not so sure in this case. A compromise might be to link to this and this (the second is essentially a bulletin board and may not be suitable) alongside Pollard's contribution. Badgerpatrol 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's crap about it? I think it provides an important viewpoint. Again, that WFM article is just as fawning as the Telegraph article is vitriolic. And what's wrong with vitriol anyway? &mdash;Chowbok 14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's crap because; a) it utilises hyperbolic, polemic and overly emotive language ('stomach churning' 'his politics were so vile, and his judgment so warped...' ) that are out of place in what seems to aspire to be a proper piece of journalism (even in an opinion piece); b) more significantly, he uses direct quotes from the subject, but then draws from them interpretations that are so semantically divorced as to make them completely irrelevant to Pollard's arguments (quote: Kosovo "was a mistake because it was not done through the UN" essentially becomes 'Ustinov supports ethnic cleansing and tyranny'; "it's very difficult to have the same attitude to human rights..." becomes 'Ustinov supports murder and detention of Chinese dissidents'; 'Stalin had caused "suffering" to "thousands"' becomes 'Ustinov supports Stalin'; 'The formation of the committee for the World Criminal Court is very important because there are corporations more powerful than many governments' becomes 'Businessmen are criminals'). I don't see the relationship between those statements. Deliberately misrepresenting quotes is TERRIBLE practice for a journalist. I think many (myself included) would support the idea that an encyclopaedia should be trusted to only include verifiable and factual material (including links to outside sources, unless accompanied by suitable exposition). 'Vitriol' (here is the first definition I could find as an example) implies a level of attack that goes beyond one's beliefs and includes bitter personal opinion (including by definition skewing of the facts to support said opinion) and ad hominem attacks (as in the Pollard piece). Linking to one-sided pieces outside of wikipedia is in my opinion justified, provided there is balance (ie other accompanying links reflecting the spread and preponderance of opinion). In general however, there is an incumbency upon us to parse out lower quality journalism where appropriate. (Note that I am not suggesting that the Telegraph link should automatically be discarded, although I am leaning that way at the moment.) I am not able to comment on the other article you mention because the link to it appears to be broken. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with using emotive language in an opinion piece. It's not a straight news article. Also, I think this is largely a British-vs.-American style difference; American opinion columns tend to be much more subdued. I do think Ustinov's flippant remarks about China and Stalin do demonstrate an underlying sympathy, and it's naive to say it doesn't. Nobody's going to come out and say "I support killing and imprisoning political opponents", but it's pretty difficult to mistake your point of view when you repeatedly sympathize with tyrannies and not the victims of tyranny.


 * Let me set up an analogy from the other side of the political fence. If somebody said "It's true that Hitler caused suffering to thousands", how would you take that? Yes, on the face of it it's an anti-Hitler statement, but I think red flags would be triggered for anyone who thought about it at all. Any reasonable person knows that Hitler did far, far worse than cause "suffering", and did it to millions, not thousands. It would not be at all unreasonable to assume from this statement that the person who said it was at least somewhat sympathetic to Nazis, or a holocaust denier (in fact, it's common for holocaust deniers to concede some mistreatment to Jews, in an attempt to appear more reasonable and moderate).


 * Also... I say this with a little reluctance, since it's not very nice to attribute motivations to people you've never met; so do forgive me--but I can't help feeling that there's some (very possibly unconscious) bias here. I don't see people arguing that the external links attacking, say, David Horowitz, be taken out. There is some discussion about consolidating redundancy, but nobody's saying "this is just too unfair and mean--it should be removed". Not even the link to a self-identified Communist page calling him a fascist (talk about vitriolic). Or take a look at David Irving, which has links to several articles calling him (accurately) a holocaust denier, which he of course denies. You can go to any number of articles about right-wingers and see plenty of external links to negative articles about them, and they engender no controversy (or should they). But one link to a mainstream article attacking a beloved figure from the right, and I have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep it in.


 * As I said, I could be totally off-base here. But we all harbor biases, myself included.


 * That all said, if you can find a mainstream source that makes essentially the same point in a more subdued manner, I would not object to replacing the link with that. But we have to have at least one thing in here that indicates what Ustinov was--a hard-left apologist for murderous governments. I know without even looking that the articles on Ezra Pound and Martin Heidegger have references to their fascist sympathies (as they should); we should do no less for this fellow, no matter how witty and charismatic he was. &mdash;Chowbok 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S., I've fixed the link to the WFM article. &mdash;Chowbok 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Everybody has an opinion about almost everything- of course bias, either conscious or unconscious, is an inescapable fact of life. I can however honestly say that I really know very little about Ustinov or his politics; in fact, whilst I was aware that he was associated with UNICEF and so forth, it was a surprise to me that he would harbour opinions that were in any way controversial. I clearly need to read more. It is possible that his opinions on certain issues may strike more of a note of (dis-) cord with a US audience, I can't say. Regardless, I think (with respect) that you don't really see my point. I'm not objecting to a frank and fair assessment of Ustinov's views, although from the small amount of research I have done, it seems to me that calling him 'a hard-left apologist for murderous governments' is a little extreme. What I do have reservations about is including a link to a shoddily constructed piece of journalism. My objections to that are outlined above. I'm not in a position to dispute that Ustinov may or may not have been an apologist for the Chinese or Stalinist regimes (and if his views were widely publicised or affected his career and outlook significantly then they should definitely be mentioned appropriately in the wikiarticle)- but the Pollard article doesn't really support that thesis, to my mind at least (note that I am not saying that said thesis is therefore untrue). It is an obviously biased piece of vitriol, not a fact-based contribution to journalism. It is internally inconsistent (the chosen quotes do not match the stated interpretation) and clearly does not even pay lip-service to any idea of presenting a balanced approach. Opinion and editorial is one thing, but if it doesn't at least attempt to invoke some supporting evidence then it may as well be random words. It simply strikes me as a poorly constructed and spiteful attack. I wholeheartedly agree that if a better piece can be found to make the same point, this whole discussion becomes moot. As for the WFM link- it is slightly fawning, but only in a general sense that is characteristic of (almost) all obituaries, in the UK at least, and I think further afield. It doesn't strike me as unusually rose-tinted, but if you strongly object to it, then I personally have no preference as to discarding it; all that it establishes is that Ustinov was a believer in internationally federated governmental systems, an opinion that can just as easily be mentioned in the text. I'm quite sure that other obits can be found from independent sources not associated with Ustinov, e.g. other newspapers, the BBC, the AP, etc etc. As for the other figures you mentioned (I know virtually nothing re Heidegger, but a little about Pound) I would suggest that the major difference may be that Pound's views significantly influenced his life and work. For my own part, I can only say that Ustinov's general celebrity derives from his acting, humanitarian work, and reputation as a raconteur. The (UK) population at large do not associate him with extremist views of any sort, to the best of my ability to tell. The first two obits I can find (in the left-leaning Guardian newspaper and the centre-right Times) do not portray his views as extremist or otherwise obviously objectionable. By contrast, Pound's reputation as a facist equals or exceeds his fame as a poet. Equally, David Irving is famous primarily because he is a Holocaust denier. I do not think that Ustinov is identified with his political views quite so clearly. Nonetheless, the more verifiable information the article contains regarding Ustinov's life and beliefs the better, this is an encyclopaedia after all. Thanks for your reply (unusually for wiki, it was a thoughtful and reasoned argument!). All the best, Badgerpatrol 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And likewise to you. It's nice to be able to debate on Wikipedia without it getting nasty.


 * I was not suggesting that the WFM link should be removed by any means--in fact, I would argue against removing it. I just think we need balance.


 * I think the fact that Ustinov's views weren't widely publicized can be put down to a general idea among many people (including most in the media) that flirtation with Communism and sympathy for left-wing tyrants just isn't as big a deal as flirtation with Fascism and sympathy for right-wing tyrants (I'm equally against both, BTW--Pinochet supporters disgust me as much as Castro supporters). I guarantee you that if Ustinov had a history of saying favorible things about Franco you would have seen it in every obituary (and rightly so). That's why the Pound analogy is important; he's famous because he's a poet, but his reputation as a fascist is alive because everybody agrees that being a fascist is a bad thing. Ustinov not being identified with his political beliefs, to my mind, is an argument for including the link--to provide little-known but important information about him.


 * I'm getting a little off-topic here, but I also have to quibble about Irving. There are lots of pimply neo-Nazis in Idaho or wherever, but Irving is notable because he really is a legitimate historian and scholar who has published some important work and he has these abhorrent views. &mdash;Chowbok 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree (for the most part)- it is clear that historical figures who sympathise/d with despotic Communist governments (ie Stalin etc) are not villified in the west to the degree that those who sympathised with fascist governments (ie Hitler, Mussolini) would be/are. This is, I suspect, a simple accident of history- fascist Germany and Italy were once the clear enemy, the Communist USSR and China never have been. (For this reason, I would not necessarily agree that an overt sympathiser with Franco alone would be regarded in the same way as Pound, Joyce, Mitford et al.). I'm not for my part, sure from what I can find on the web, that Ustinov falls into this category. I do genuinely feel that this may be a cultural distinction- I don't think that his views are as derided in the UK (where similar (or even more outspoken) views are quite commonplace) as they may be in the USA (although I am of course not disputing for a minute that the US has (pretty much) a free press where controversial views may be freely aired). There is no doubt however that at least some of Ustinov's viewpoints were unusual and controversial- and well worth mentioning on this page. As for Irving- I feel that he has been almost totally discredited as a historian. Some may maintain that his scholarship is still valid in some areas, but I suspect the preponderance of opinion would hold that his work is so polluted by nonsense and his own POV as to be wholly untrustworthy (a good case in point are his casualty figures for Dresden; once these were accepted and propagated even by serious scholars; I don't think anyone believes them now (and this change of opinion is not just a factor or Irving's subsequent fall from grace with the public at large; rather I think evolving views as to the quality of his scholarship)). Historians trade on a) fair use of the evidence; and b) (by extension of 'a')- trust. Few people (scholars or members of the public) trust Irving to tell the truth now. Returning to the point- an exposition of Ustinov's political views is obviously relevant- but that article is not a good source. If a better constructed one can be found- so much the better. If not, it is still worth preserving, if only to express the point that he was ill-regarded by sections of the press. The level of vitriol shown by the Telegraph is a little out of place relative to other papers; it is possible that there is some agenda there beyond a simple political disagreement. Nonetheless, I don't dispute that it is sensible to maintain the Pollard piece as a placeholder until a better constructed piece can be found to make the same point. It is crap journalism, but (in terms of effect rather than quality), it is seemingly the 'least worst' option. I can't find anything better to make the point, but it is not to my mind an erudite or well-argued journalistic contribution. Frustrating, but can't be helped for now. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian composers
As I recall, the Russian composer for whom Ustinov was marked down was Rimsky-Korsakov and not Shostakovich. (It's funnier that way, too, dont you think?) I just (re)listened to him telling the anecdote in his "Ein Abend mit Peter Ustinov" to be sure. I googled and couldn't find any reference to his telling it with Shostakovich, but I found several obituaries in which the Rimsky-Korsakov version was mentioned. Accordingly, I made the change.
 * Rimsky-Korsakov is correct (Dear Me, Chapter 9, p. 162 of paperback). Few in the era when Ustinov was a schoolboy would have known Shostakovich's name, let alone his work. Their sensibilities were of the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:303B:700:4D5D:FCBA:EC08:EECE (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In All Directions
"Sadly no recordings survive" probably refers to the television special of 1966, to which the article is then linked, rather than the original radio series. I think the 'spiv' characters referred to turned up in the brace of repeats on Radio 4 in 1985. As it stands this passage is unclear in meaning. This problem also exists in the Peter Jones article. Philip Cross 15:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ustinov's Ethiopian ancestry
"...Ustinov never publicly acknowledged his African ancestry..." - except I seem to recall reading about his Ethiopian ancestry in "Dear Me". I think he was quite proud of being so extensively out-bred. Putting something in your autobiography qualifies as publically acknowledging it, does it not?(SpikeMolec, but not signed at the time, for some reason)

Ustinov was clearly as proud of his Ethiopian ancestors as he was of all the others. In his autobiography "Dear Me", published in 1977, he refers to it repeatedly. In discussing his far-ranging ancestry, he explicitly mentions five of his sixteen great-great-grandfathers, one of whom "survived the endless struggle for power in Addis Ababa." He mentions his grandmother's younger sister, a lady-in-waiting at the court of Haile Selassie. He describes a dinner given for Haile Selassie at his parents' home in London, and a later meeting with Selassie and his grandson, Alexander Desta. He also makes it clear that others knew of his mixed race background, commenting wryly about someone trying to spare him mention of the touch of the tarbrush. It is simply false to say that Ustinov never acknowledged his African ancestry.
 * I agree, which is why I'm removing the offending statement from the article. JackofOz 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Height
IMDB has him at 5'11 1/2" not 5'9" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.96.223 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ustinov's Russian ancestry
I vividly recall an interview with Ustinov on TV some years ago when he talked about his father (so I remember, but it must be his maternal grandfather Benois) who was a general-major (one star) architect. Ustinov mentioned that his grandmother was therefore entitled to be addressed as "your little excellency". The Czar was so pleased with one of Benois' designs that he was promoted to general-lieutenant but then had to not only reaffirm his allegiance to the Czar but also swear allegiance to the Russian Orthodox Church. The problem was that Benois was a Protestant and he refused. He was therefore exiled (I recall that exile was a commutation of a severe sentence but am now unsure). None of this is in this article. I can't have dreamed it. Was Ustinov making it up? Gwgoldb (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New Picture!
Oy, please, can we replace the picture for the God's sake? That's a hell of a gunt he's got going there, front and center. Women and children may be watching, for the love of Bakula, to say nothing of how unflattering the picture is in general. Maybe a shot with a little less of a fupa, brahs?

unreal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Rutherfords (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Smile
Peter was also awarded the Order of the Smile 216.27.141.84 (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheryl Crow - There Goes The Neighborhood
Is there vehement opposition to mentioning Peter's appearance in the aforementioned song, in this article? Vranak (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Vehemence signalled here. I detest the triviality of Wiki's 'In Popular Culture'. So some famous-for-fifteen-seconds rapper alludes to something they saw and half-understood in a meme, and therefore earns a spot in a universal work of reference? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:303B:700:4D5D:FCBA:EC08:EECE (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

wp:honorifics
Honorifics, such as "Sir", "President", "Pope", "Doctor", "Lord", "King" are only included in article titles if that is the name by which the person is known. See wp:honorifics. Repeated insertion of the "Sir" is disruptive. Stop.Shajure (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Idly, please feel free to see, say Peter Sellers and many others who were not know as "Sir" or "Dame".Shajure (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sir Peter Ustinov Allan Warren.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sir Peter Ustinov Allan Warren.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 16, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Swiss citizenship and the UK tax system
We currently state: ''In the late 1960s, he became a Swiss citizen to avoid the British tax system of the time, which heavily taxed the earnings of the wealthy. However, he was knighted in 1990, ...''.

Getting a non-honorary knighthood means he must have retained his UK citizenship, and was a dual citizen of the UK and Switzerland. How did continuing to be a UK citizen protect him from the UK tax system? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Knighthood
This could apply to other articles. I think when a person dies they lose whatever knighthood/peership etc they have. That being the case should his name in the first part of the article be written as Sir Peter Ustinov, CBE? --86.146.113.245 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually...wp:honorifics - unless this is how the person is known, the "Sir" would not appear at the start of the lead at all.Shajure (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The person keeps the knighthood wether they died or not. It can not renounced. Bob3458 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct. If you look closely, you may see it listed.  Please read wp:honorifics... this is a postnominal (after the name) title.Shajure (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Honorifics, such as "Sir", "President", "Pope", "Doctor", "Lord", "King" are only included in article titles if that is the name by which the person is known. See wp:honorifics. Repeated insertion of the "Sir" is disruptive. Stop.Shajure (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Idly, please feel free to see, say Peter Sellers and many others who were not know as "Sir" or "Dame".Shajure (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, please note that the Sellers article is a Featured Article, and represents an example of excellence in WP articles. No Sir.Shajure (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I verified we do have a redirect from Sir Peter Ustinov, in case anyone searches for him that way. If you feel strongly that this is how he is known, proposing the article be moved to the "Sir..." name would be a good idea. However... he wasn't, isn't, and it won't fly (my opinion).Shajure (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A better citation would be more ideal
"University of Toronto Honorary Degree Recipients 1850 - 2016 Sorted Alphabetically by Name of Recipient" I suspect is replaced each year... not sure it matters much.Shajure (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Peter Ustinov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714123625/http://www.peterustinov.org/ to http://www.peterustinov.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wfm.org/site/index.php/pages/673
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wfm.org/IN_HOUSE/sirpeter.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301081807/http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/i/inalldirections_1299001635.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/i/inalldirections_1299001635.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Discography
The discography currently has 1 disc, when, for example, mentions 46 - some of these are only tangentially related, but his recordings are easily in the double digits. There's citations elsewhere in wikipedia: George Martin recorded one of his early works - Mock Mozart with Antony Hopkins playing harpsichord. NB not Anthony Hopkins, as cited on Discogs; the spelling on the record label itself is 'th' but it's the wrong guy. Hopkins-the-composer later composed the music on Ustinov's Billy Budd (film); they're pictured working together here (again, Getty mislabel Hopkins as the actor!). His Peter and the Wolf (1956) is the one I knew as a child. Anyway just spotting some easy additions.

University of Dundee Rector succession box
In the University of Dundee Rector succession box I have changed Sir Clement Freud to simply Clement Freud. Freud succeeded Ustinov in 1974 and served until 1980. According to his article he was not knighted until 1987. This means that at no point when Freud was Rector of the University of Dundee would he have been entitled to be addressed as "Sir". Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Estate squabble - propose to remove
I see that the antics of his presumptive heirs is being added to his article. The squabble, and/or the individuals involved if adequately notable, can have their own articles. I don't see how this adds to the knowledge about Mr. Ustinov. I will remove it, probably tomorrow, unless there is support to add it.Shajure (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Not seeing anything further, I am removing it.Shajure (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

2003 TV movie of the same name
There appears to be a 2003 TV movie of the same name.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0354213/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt

This seems to have caused a bit of confusion.Shajure (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

works
He didn't write anything with Thurber. Perhaps he did a reading of Thurber. Should this be in spoken word? Cloudjpk (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed revisions - students that were not violent and taxes that were not heavy on the wealthy
Shajure undid revisions and suggested that “militant” = “violent”. These words are not synonyms. History and lexical bundling of “militant” when added to the one being negotiated with necessarily biases the article in favour of the negotiator. Further, the editor suggested that “heavily taxed the wealthy” was hard to disprove. However, “heavily” and “wealthy” are such subjective and highly modal attributions that there is no way to prove either way. 5.151.174.80 (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting, consider adding text (sourced and balanced based on how many reliable, published sources say it did not heavily tax the wealthy. Also sources that the students were non-violent. " I encourage you.  The fact that I think the effort will be difficult has no impact on the fact that I encourage you to undertake it.  The fact that the words you point out are the point of view of the published sources is true.  Thus, a balanced view from sources that disagree is valuable.  Go For It!  Shajure (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Shajure ... suggested that “militant” = “violent”..." Don't do that: You made that up. Focus on the content, not the editors.  It [focusing on editors] will consistently work very poorly indeed.Shajure (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Further, the editor suggested that “heavily taxed the wealthy” was hard to disprove." - again false. Stop that. You may reread until it doesn't say that, then you will have read what I wrote.  "Finding sources that SAY the wealthy were not heavily taxed" may be hard.  I suspect it will.  My opinion is of no consequence or value, and you may consistently and safely ignore it.  Please leave me out of all your future efforts to find wp:consensus.Shajure (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Another editor fact-checked the source and found that the students were NOT characterized as violent or militant, and removed that comment. Excellent work there.Shajure (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)