Talk:Anne Hathaway

Archive link needed

This reference needs a new archive link, but I haven't been able to find a workable one. Any help would be appreciated.

Cumming, Gillian (June 29, 2008). "Anne Hathaway's chaos controlled". The Daily Telegraph. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Recent editing

Hello,

I recently did some significant editing of the page, which was reverted here.

@FrB.TG, would you be willing to discuss my changes to the page section by section? I put a ton of time and effort into my edits, and I'm feeling quite devastated that my 2.5 weeks of work has been undone. However, I respect your request that my edits need to be discussed. There has been little activity on the page and its talk page recently, so I'm not sure that editors besides you and I will partake in a discussion unless we invite them. I may have made mistakes or removed too much content, but I feel that I made many improvements to the page, and I would feel very sad if we threw the baby out with the bathwater. Please let me know how we should move forward with this. Thanks.

OrdinaryOtter (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

OrdinaryOtter, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article and beside your mass removal of content, I did like many of your changes. It was just hard to keep some and revert some parts. As you know, I mainly take issues with your removal of content that isn't trivial. For example, in "2001–2004: Early roles and breakthrough", you removed the film met with mostly negative reviews and was a box-office failure and In terms of the princess role, there is only so long that you can play those as a young lady before you start feeling really ridiculous. from the quote box. I'm not sure why a film's reception is considered trivial and as for the quote, the original opening explains why she feels a sense of urgency. She explicitly points to age, public perception, and the self-consciousness that comes with outgrowing ingenue roles. The part you removed strips away her reflection on how Hollywood typecasting intersects with an actress's age.

You also removed a large chunk of content from the public image section. Removing an entire passage omits significant, neutral coverage of a major visual and cultural phase in her career, specifically the famous "Hathahate" media phenomenon. The backlash against Hathaway in 2013 was widely documented in cultural journalism as a prominent pop-culture milestone. In a biographical section specifically dedicated to "Public image, a subject's own awareness and pushback against their media archetype (the rigid, overly polished "theater kid" persona) provides essential balance between secondary commentary and primary perspective. The listing of these perspectives serves another purpose: to frame the shift. She was initially framed as an unpretentious, down-to-earth "girl next door" before the media narrative temporarily flipped to viewing her as overly rehearsed, especially during the "Hathahate" phenomenon.

Another issue I have is your removal of content for being "outdated" simply becuase it happened while ago, including quotes from her (that still apply) or historical achievements like being one of the highest-paid actresses in 2015. Historical achievements are permanently relevant facts. A subject's early commercial breakthroughs, historic earnings milestones, and major honors do not cease to be encyclopedic simply because time has passed. FrB.TG (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, this is very helpful feedback. Going forward, I am going to be much more careful about removing segments or coverage of particular topics without discussion or consultation with other editors, especially in Featured Articles.

Is it okay if I very slowly and carefully re-introduce changes that I made which are simply copyedits or purely cosmetic, while posting on the talk page about segments that I think should be removed or changed in a major way? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Feel free to copyedit wherever you see appropriate. Just any major change you might make like large removal of content, discuss here first please. FrB.TG (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Just giving you a heads up that I restored some of my changes here. As I mention in my edit summary, I did not remove any large chunks of content, but rather condensed and re-arranged the existing content. I removed mention of the "Jewish wedding" based on another talk page thread above. If you feel like looking over my changes, I would welcome any feedback you have. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Nude scenes

Resolved

Regarding this segment:

"...she starred in the drama Havoc (2005) as a spoiled socialite, appearing partially nude in some scenes. Hathaway denied that taking the role was an overt attempt to be seen as a more mature actress, citing her belief that performing nudity in certain films was merely a component of what the art form of acting demands of an actor; appearing nude in appropriate films was therefore not morally objectionable."

Do we need the bold text? It seems to go off on a tangent instead of sticking to the main topic. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It is rather jarring and not needed here. If Hathaway previously made remarks about finding appearing nude to be morally objectionable, it would make some sense. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have removed the bold text from the article. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)