The marriage and sexuality section seems heavy on gossip and light on evidence. Grant's daughter and two of his wives denied homosexuality or bisexuality. That seems to trump claims by authors trying to hawk a book by attaching themselves to the subject, yet the rumors appear first as if they were fact. I'm going to try editing the section to rely more on those who knew Mr. Grant without dispute over those who claimed to have known him. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I trimmed the section for balance, while keeping all of its source citations. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
fixed up poor phrasing in the intro section - it's highly debatable that grant was known more for comedy than drama, makes more sense to simply say that he was known for both. also deleted this unreferenced/possibly completely erroneous claim slapped into the middle of the Academy Awards paragraph in the intro section ("...due to the fact that he was not signed to any specific studio in an era when the studios controlled the identities of the recipients"). whether it's true or not, it's not significant enough to be added to that section i wouldn't think (the only info really needed in the intro is that he didn't receive the award, not theories as to why.) it also made the the first half of that paragraph a particularly sloppy/lengthy run-on sentence.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.142.97 ( talk) 05:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Footnote #21 is Hadleigh 2003, p. 238, but there isn't a work by "Hadleigh" listed in the references. Does anyone know what book this is supposedly referring to or should this be removed? Jtyroler ( talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Should anything about Grant's work on radio be included? He starred in "Mr. and Mrs. Blandings" in 1951. He was in two classic episodes of "Suspense", "The Black Curtain" (1943) and "On a Country Road" (1950), plus radio versions of some of his films, including "Suspicion" on Academy Award Theater and "The Bishop's Wife" on Lux Radio Theater that I'm aware of. There are probably others. Jtyroler ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grant, Cary (Suspicion) 01 Crisco edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 17, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Beyond a statement about his screen persona that Grant supposedly wrote, which is quoted from a secondary source, there's nothing about Grant having been a writer, yet there are three "writer" categories on the article. Why is that? – Salamurai ( talk) 01:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago a few editors used two separate rationales for completely removing the simple fact that Cary Grant was an American in the lead paragraph.
The first editor claimed the fact that he didn't fit the definition of "English-American" based on the Wikipedia article English American. Presumably because he was born in England. Yet somehow completely ignoring the section on "Expatiates" or people who move to the US from England to become citizens. So yes if you want to use the article for your criteria, he most defiantly fits the definition.
Both editors expressed concern that since he became notable before actually becoming an official US citizen, that WP:OPENPARA is criteria enough to exclude his American citizenship from the lead. Somehow both editors completely overlooked the fact that being a resident of the United States is also criteria for inclusion:
In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident.-- JOJ Hutton 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Since at least 21 April 2011, the lead has read "English actor". Discussion on this talk page under the section Talk:Cary Grant#New section on citizenship, in line with discussion on other subject who changed their nationality, concluded that a hyphenated term, such as British-American or English-American is misleading, implying that the subject was born in the US and thus depreciating their birth citizenship. Grant was born English to two English parents in England: he was certainly not "English-American" in its most commonly understood sense. Hyphenated terms are ambiguous. To emphasize that he became an American, the qualifying phrase "who later gained American citizenship" was added to the lead sentence.
Thus it stood until 24 March 2013, when Jojhutton changed it. He was reverted by an editor involved in the original discussion. He began to edit war over it, and was repeated reverted by editors involved in the original consensus. He has not sought nor gained a new consensus, and continues to occasionally change it arbitrarily, usually without an edit comment stating what he is doing. He has been asked to show consensus for his change or to start an RfC. Continuing to change the article to an ambiguous term previously rejected by consensus is disruptive editing and should be reverted on sight, and probably reported.
To make this clear: Grant was a British citizen for 84 years, an American citizen for only 44. Regardless of what the US citizenship oath was at the time, he retained his British citizenship under British law and died a dual citizen. Yworo ( talk) 04:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The wording "Cary Grant was an English actor who later took American citizenship" was proposed by User:Sue De Nimes on July 17, 2011. There were no objections to this wording at the time and it was implemented as the consensus version of the article. No further discussion occurred until 24 March 2013. Here is a sampling of the history of that wording and who changed it when without discussion or gaining consensus.
This non-consensual change went unnoticed until User:Sue De Nimes corrected it on July 21, 2012
Again, this non-consensual change went unnoticed with some minor back and forth wording changes until April 6, 2013, when I noticed the change from the previous consensus version without any new consensus having been formed on the talk page:
Since that date User:Jojhutton has repeatedly restored his preferred wording, without establishing any new consensus to override the July 2011 consensus, while falsely claiming that he is restoring the "consensus" or "original" wording. This is simply a false assertion, as I have just demonstrated. This may of course be unintentional based on an incomplete knowledge of the consensus formed after long discussion and the actual history of the changes from it. Yworo ( talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the ambiguous hyphenated term, English-American, be used to describe the subject? On other subject's biographies, such as that of Charlize Theron, it has been concluded that the hyphenated term occludes and depreciates the subject's birth nationality. Grant is not a person of English ethnicity born in the US as one interpretation of the term indicates. In addition, WP:OPENPARA specifies that the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable is what should be used in the lead sentence. Grant clearly became notable before he was naturalized as an American citizen. Consensus above (leaving out the non-policy adhering suggestions) was to make the lead sentence "... was an English film and stage actor who became an American citizen in 1942" in order to be completely accurate about the subject's nationalities. Yworo ( talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would dispute the statement that Grant made an "overtly partisan appearance in introducing his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention". The fact that he "spoke of "your" party rather than "ours" in his remarks" means that he was not endorsing the party at all. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I would dispute the statement that Grant made an "overtly partisan appearance in introducing his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention". The fact that he "spoke of "your" party rather than "ours" in his remarks" means that he was not endorsing the party at all. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The contention was that he was "overtly partisan." Noting that he voted for Nixon and Reagan has no relevancy at all relating to that. (
Sellpink (
talk)
12:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC))
Some years ago, I either read or heard in a documentary or on Turner Classic Movies (somewhere!) that when Cary Grant had rheumatic fever, he was cared for by his close friend, one of the "Brewster sisters". Since I cannot recall which actress, it would either be Jean Adair or Josephine Hull. This information struck me, and stuck with me, due to the rheumatic fever in my own family.
If true, it's not only a sweet detail, but speaks directly to Grant's health both during the purported bout of RF and the probable sequelae of a serious life-long condition called "rheumatic heart disease". People with RHD are much more likely to have strokes than the general population due to clot formation on damaged heart valves or the higher incidence of atrial fibrillation. There are other serious effects of the condition, too. Does anyone owning Grant biographies have any information on Grant and RF?
(Unfortunately, the WP article on rheumatic fever has a section on rheumatic heart disease that delves deeply, and heavily laced with jargon, into changes that occur in heart cells and lacks simple, plain information on the disease's consequences. For more information, see this patient information article from Circulation, a journal of the American Heart Association, for a clear explanation of RHD:
Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Jack Breeze ( talk) 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Second hand books are fine, one of the new £12 ones you listed is actually 0.01 used. That's fine, can you re check?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool Ssven.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Had to remove this due to problems with Nelson 2007 vs 2012. Best once somebody gets the book to verfiy it and this can be elaborated on and restored.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
His widow Barbara Harris described Grant as "probably more Republican than anything else, but he was more interested in the issues. So could go either way". He did not think film stars should make political declarations: [1] "I'm opposed to actors taking sides in public and spouting spontaneously about love, religion or politics. ... I'm a mass of inconsistencies when it comes to politics." [2]
Grant maintained friendships with colleagues of varying political positions, and his few political activities seemed to be shaped by personal friendships. Grant condemned McCarthyism in 1953, and when his friend Charlie Chaplin was blacklisted, Grant said that Chaplin's artistic value outweighed political concerns. [2] He was also a friend of the Kennedy brothers and had close ties with the Mankiewicz family, including Robert Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz, and hosted one of Robert Kennedy's first political fundraisers at his home. Grant made a rare statement on public issues after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, calling for gun control. [3] In 1976, after his retirement from films, Grant introduced his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention. [1]
I'm curious as to why the 1941 picture of Cary Grant was changed to a screencap of North by Northwest. The previous one seems better to me (it's even a featured picture), unless there is some sort of copyright dispute involved. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes you're right, and it does capture the ironic sense of humour. I just wanted to see how I could change the look of the article in time being!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I need some motivation to start working on this. Any objection to me restoring the colour image of him during the writing phase to make the page look more appealing to me? We'll restore the black and white one when completed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This looks plagiarised from wikipedia. I've used it as a source in several places but it will have to be replaced I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This statement is sourced (and I've looked it up in the source; it's there), but it can't possibly be correct. There was no State of Israel until May 1948. The authors of that biography must have either got the chronology wrong, or maybe the donation was to a pre-state Zionist organisation. (The extract from the source comes up for me here.) Do any other sources mention this? Also, the article states in the body that Grant thought his father was partially Jewish, then in the footnote it says he donated money to the State of Israel in the name of his dead mother. Anyone able to clarify on either of these points? — Cliftonian (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:DATERET was written so that there wouldn't be edit warring over dates, yet Ssven has insisted that this article conform to his preferred date format. This article has had the MDY date format for nearly 14 years now. Please drop the stick and just move on. JOJ Hutton 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a very obscure book. I don't know what's in the book exactly, but to suggest that Cary Grant's father was not his biological father is a pretty tawdry and exceptional claim, and it would definitely require much more extensive sourcing. Where else is this claim made? This falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Other issues: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 19:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, at first I thought it was from the book I had. I didn't write that. It depends if that book is considered a reliable source or not. You could write it as xxx argues or claims that and it wouldn't be problematic. Perhaps I can get a copy of the book later in the year and see. I'll come back to writing this in a few weeks but I'm going to busy over the next month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cary Grant/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Needs refs ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd thought that there was something covering this previously but can't seem to find it. It's pretty important to mention I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ssven2: Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll be trimming the homosexuality section anyway so it reads better. I agree that it's not well constructed. Personally I don't think Grant was gay at all, I think he mainly liked women though from what I've seen, but probably had a few affairs with men too, a lot of the Hollywood stars did. The LSD stuff is very well documented, but I'm reluctant to rely on Higham and Moseley for that. We'll see how it goes. I'm on to the McCann book now.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the trim, but I do think we need to mention the Porter claim as a few authors have mentioned him attenting places while in New York and I think some minor detail on him living with Scott is necessary given that he was a major part of his life. Can you try to find the page number for the Parsons claim and format as sfn? I can't find any other source ion a google search which mentions he sued her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the section on Grant's "Sexuality" contain:
William McBrien, in his biography Cole Porter, claim that Porter and Grant frequented the same upscale house of male prostitution in Harlem, run by Clint Moore and popular with celebrities, [1] Grant lived with actor Randolph Scott off and on for 12 years, [2] which led to rumors. The two had first met early on in Grant's career in 1932 at the Paramount studio when Scott was filming Sky Bride at the same time as Grant was shooting Sinners in the Sun. [3] They moved in with each other soon afterwards, and according to Higham and Moseley were pressured by the studio to be photographed on dates with Sari Maritza and Vivian Gaye to diminish rumors of homosexuality. [4]
-- Collect ( talk) 12:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Several authors, including Higham and Moseley, [5] have implied that Grant was homosexual, [6] while others including Hedda Hopper, [7] and screenwriter Arthur Laurents claimed that Grant was bisexual. [8] Although biographer Robert Nott writes that there was never any evidence that Grant was or had been gay, and that such rumors were based on gossip. [9] When Chevy Chase joked on television in 1980 that Grant was a "homo. What a gal!", [10] Grant sued him for slander, and he was forced to retract his words. [11] Similarly, when gossip columnist Louella Parsons suggested he was gay, he sued her for libel. [12]
Grant had roomed with his actor friend Randolph Scott in between his marriages, which led to rumors. However, Virginia Cherrill, Grant's first wife, said that Grant and Scott were only platonic friends. [13] Grant's daughter Jennifer Grant stated that her father was not gay, although he "liked being called gay". [14] [15] He once used the term during a scene in the comedy Bringing Up Baby. [16] In 2012, Dyan Cannon, his wife of four years, said that Grant was not gay: "[He] was all man in the bedroom. That part of our life was very fulfilling. There were no problems. There's rumors about everyone in Hollywood." [17]
References
No, I didn't ask you to rescind your close, but you know it should have been closed as moot. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is very heavily sourced to [2] (Higham, Charles; Moseley, Roy (1990). Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart. Avon Books. ISBN 978-0-380-71009-6. per Wikipedia biography) :" Mr. Higham is the author of several celebrity biographies specializing in the revelation of unflattering details (the Duchess of Windsor was a prostitute in China; Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy). He and Mr. Moseley, who has written books about Merle Oberon and Rex Harrison, set out to reveal how unpretty was Grant's life. "
With such a "glowing" review, I ask whether the biography of Cary Grant should rely so heavily on a book the NYT would likely have burned.
People magazine said [3]
The NYT review [4] noted:
A review that says the book is not convincing, is "lurid" and is more "innuendo" than "biography" would seem to indicate a somewhat less-than-reliable source.
Re: Higham, the Los Angeles Times [5] said:
OK - a book not regarded as genuine "biography" by any major reviewers, which has an author who appears to be a tad fanciful in his handling of the truth, etc., which links Cary Grant to the Manson murders, is a reliable source? Collect ( talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The sad thing on this is that you think I wouldn't have known this or haven't the ability to judge sources. I have 300 odd articles of FA or GA quality, and am more experienced writing here than both of you. Higham was the first book I received and the first book I went through, and I didn't use it to claim anything which was obviously false. If it's a stronger claim I would only ever say "Higham and Moseley claim" anyway. Most of the material I checked with other sources and it checks out. Now if you would all kindly fuck off and allow me to write this it'll get balanced out with the other sources eventually anyway. It's pretty insulting to me that you think I don't know what I'm doing, much like it was with Rationalobserver criticism of the Sinatra article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't the best book to start with but the first which arrived so I started with that. I have the Wansell and McCann books still to go through and potentially more books, probably half a dozen. I extracted what I thought was accurate or useful from the first book and will do the same with the others I go through. That's how I write articles. I'm barely 1/6 through writing this properly. To turn up so prematurely and start slagging it and me off and not allowing it to be written and balanced out is pretty unfair. We're all volunteers here and I'm making an effort to get an important article into shape. Your condescending attitude and picking the most extreme claims as examples of the entire book being a lie says it all. Now are you going to let me write this properly or are you going to sit on your throne dictating and lording it over the sourcing? Clear off please, and allow this to get written with a better balance of sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Collect, you're removing material which I know is verifiable in other books, the McCann book says something similar about the pocket money and I had intended replacing the Higham source as I go along. To completely remove material and not give me a fair chance to develop and boost with other sourcing is disgusting and actually disruptive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The material mostly wasn't bad material though. You removed any mention of Randolph Scott for instance which is absolutely ridiculous as it's documented by dozens of authors and the top newspapers. I've just had to waste half an hour repairing the damage you did to the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you were lecturing me on what is needed to pass FA, that seemed strange because to my knowleddge you have no experience with FAC whereas I've contributed or reviewed well over 100 articles. You were right on there being a problem at FAC if the article relied primariy on Higham and Moseley, but if you allowed it to be written properly instead of moaning about it that would be sorted out soon enough.♦
Dr. Blofeld
19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to tell from the above discussion exactly which topics or statement in the article would benefit from have multiple sources to avoid any implied bias and non-neutral issues. To avoid edit conflicts, maybe any concerned editors can just note below any commentary that could be contentious or less credible due to its single source, such as Higham & Moseley's book. -- Light show ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the key facts in the bio given in the first sentence of the lead, is his nationality per his notability. This was edited as American per MOS but was reverted w/o a rationale.
As part of that revert, the alt description of the photo was changed to a meaningless description. And the clearer cropped image was also deleted w/o explanation. -- Light show ( talk) 18:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
He was English. "He became an American citizen in 1942" covers that. I doubt Grant himself would have ever called himself a real American. If I hear a single further complaint from you Light show on this I'll go further than requesting an interaction ban from commenting on articles myself, SchroCat and Cassianto write, I'll provide enough evidence to get you banned from the site. Your vendetta has gone on way too long now. You know what happened with Kubrick and Sellers. If you don't want to be banned get on with something else and belt up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Per the lead's last paragraph, Grant was awarded an Honorary Oscar by Frank Sinatra at the 42nd Academy Awards in 1970. This is a major award, and possibly his most valued. Yet the source for it was deleted without explanation. -- Light show ( talk) 20:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The lede does not need sourcing. The body is sourced now with detail on Frank Sinatra's speech anyway with a reliable, non-copyrighted source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"Personally I don't think Grant was gay at all, I think he mainly liked women...", commented Dr. Blofeld earlier. Yet, besides doubling the size of the ambiguous "Sexuality" sexion, which relies on rumors and denials of the rumors by those who knew him best, we now have a photo for innuendo. Why is that photo put in a "Sexuality" section? In fact, why is there a sexuality section at all? IMO, it implies that editors may have an obsession with his bedroom life. I suggest moving the photo, a bad one anyway, to a neutral location, and reducing the 500-word tabloidish Sexuality commentary. -- Light show ( talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose we remove any commentary that relies on gossip or rumors since they are not from reliable sources per guidelines, ie. soap, including "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." And although such gossip about living persons can be defamatory, it does not mean that WP can feel free to add the same rumors just because they're dead and can't complain. The current BLP guideline: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Any support? -- Light show ( talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no assumption made about the sexual orientation of either man re: the photo. The two men shared a home and were starred in many films together.
The photo was taken for publicity and with the consent of both persons to photograph them at home. Those are the facts--they shared a home together, were friends and worked together in many films. The only one making the connection to the photo and alleged homosexuality is you by the removal of it.
Am guessing that any and all posters and lobby cards here-PD or non-free-picturing these two men together ought to be removed so that no one assumes either was gay. We hope ( talk) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be more suitable to use for the section then? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Light show Last warning, I see one more conflicting edit or comment from you and you'll be up at ANI with ban request from wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I am aware that Light Snow edits this article so i will not try to fix the quote problems (hes has an ownweship mproblem)... but think others should take a look as per MOS:Quote. A famous person like this should not have such a bad article. Think its time to get some help here as the quotes are out of control. -- Moxy ( talk) 00:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I've given it a read and trimmed/paraphrased or removed a fair number of quotes, but only those which affected the readability. If you actually take the time to fully read it I think it reads well and is really informative, a reasonable balance. Multiple quote boxes are perfectly acceptable in articles and frequently appear in articles promoted to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Will begin soon.
JAG
UAR
13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Those were all of the minor prose 'issues' I could bring up from my first read-through. I'm exhausted. Brilliant article. It is comprehensive, well written, and enjoyable to read. No doubt it's future FA material. I would strongly recommend removing the infobox to maximise readability. JAG UAR 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said to Sven I think 12,000 odd words and 70kb of readable prose is what we should be aiming for, so it still will need a trim in parts but as Sven says it's already had a good trim today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is now at 165K in gross length, placing it in the top 2500 of the longest articles on Wikipedia. (or in the top .05% of articles in length) Wikipedia:Article size suggests a split at the 100K mark.
The Higham problematic book is used as a cite 54 times, rather a great many more than I think reasonable.
The "see also" links to a Wikipedia book which consists of this article, and articles already linked to within this article. Self-referentialism gone amok.
The article has 37 image boxes - of which 8 are very extended quotes - basically of copyrighted material, which may exceed Wikipedia guidelines for such quoting of copyright material.
Higham was frowned on in the New York Times - but we still use it for "Women would not feel threatened or overridden by his personality, and yet at the same time they would warm to his apparently unequivocal masculinity", Higham and Moseley believe that the real reason was that he stole a valise full of paints, which is self-referenced for good humor in The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947). The source does not make that claim as such - it says that the "paints" line was used in a movie, but not that they thought it was the "real reason" at all. Higham is used for the bit ""shed his callow, awkward manner, his strutting, bowlegged, cockney walk and his excessive mugging; he looked like a man-about-town and at the same time he displayed the necessary roughness of an Australian type."" which is clearly opinion and not a statement of fact, from a source whose opinions were attacked by such places as the NYT book reviewer.
"Several authors, including Higham and Moseley in their book,[366] have implied that Grant was homosexual." 366 is their book, 367 is Kahaney and Liu. Lo - the claim is assigned to a New Yorker book review - of the Graham McCann book. It would have been more sensible to say "three" and not "several" and cite McCann directly rather than imply Kahaney and Liu were the ones posting that opinion.
We devote 20 lines to implying Grant was gay - when all the main sources say it was absolutely just rumour at most. We use a photo of Randolph Scott and Grant - from a Modern Screen article promoting seafood. When Grant was alive, he won lawsuits (defamation) over this rumour, and now that he is dead we can basically imply he was gay anyway.
Another long section on LSD - which appears not to have been that big a deal, but is now overemphasized in this biography, and using an overlong quote as well.
As for proper length of quotes: WP:MOSQUOTE Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editor's own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement. Some of the "quotes" used are even over a hundred words long. This is not "brief" in my opinion. Looking at the boxed quotes: 65 words, 35, 78, 92, 71, 71, 60, and 96 words. Not exactly the permitted "brief quote" I fear.
And more if needed but the initial and main problems are:
It contains copyright infringements. explicit ones, also excessive length of quotes, also misattribution of claims
the prose is clear and concise not.
all in-line citations are from reliable sources as one main source used is contested as being reliable. (NYT review: "The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism", People review: "In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo", with regard to Higham, the LAT has "At the conclusion of the account of his investigation, Donati writes: 'Charles Higham describes himself as a serious writer and a scholar; yet, in the academic realm the worst sin is falsifying primary-source material to prove one's thesis. Deceitful, pseudoscholarship degrades information and distorts the truth'")
I rather think this covers the current state of affairs. Collect ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's 78kb readable prose Collect. We're aiming for about 70, same as Laurence Olivier. I suggest you read Michael Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Elvis Presley etc. And yes, given that he's considered the greatest film actor in history by many and an icon, you would expect it to be longer than your average article, so being in the top 2500 sounds about right. We don't use many long quotes, and the Higham book is not used to make claims for anything controversial. Appropriate weight is given to the sexuality discussion because most biographies devote significant weight on it. It's perfectly balanced with counter claims. We cover what is covered in biographies, and this is mentioned in practically every one. We do not omit or censor material because of the POV of the "concerned" editor. Bore off and do something useful with your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"After a role as a pilot opposite Jean Arthur and Rita Hayworth in Howard Hawks's Only Angels Have Wings, which was praised for its aerial photography.[153] He finished the year playing a wealthy landowner exploited by Carole Lombard in In Name Only, a sentimental melodrama involving a love triangle."
"his last film of the year was the romantic comedy The Philadelphia Story, where he played the ex-husband of Hepburn's character."A film isn't a place, so "where" isn't appropriate.
"... feeling isolated and discontent"How can you feel discontent?
"... not the actions of a man who had irrevocable turned his back on the film industry. Do they really say "irrevocable rather than "irrecovably"?
" ... so that 1939, he was "already an astute operator with various commercial interests"Seems to be a word missing there.
"When the company divided in 1980 into MGM Films and MGM Grand Hotels, he continued to sit on the board of both."He couldn't have continued to sit on the board of both as neither company existed until the split.
Fine, give it a "proper GA review" then, I'm sure the article will only improve further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As Eric seems to think I'm dishonest or lazy and don't have the best intentions of the quality of the article at heart, I invite an additional full review by somebody neutral here.... Hell I invite two or three GA reviews if it'll help this article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing would be to open a peer review once you've finished Ritchie. I'd have done that anyway, though I'm sure it will be gatecrashed by Collect and wanting the HIgham material completely removed...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Higham book contains a lot of intricate details like that which are obviously not invented, and they're often not replaceable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and I think all my concerns have been addressed. There are a few other copyedits I wanted to look at, but I think somebody else will probably get to them. I think consensus here and on the parallel conversation at WT:GACUP that the GA criteria has now been met. As the old saying goes, if anyone can improve it further, please do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It had been met anyway, and everybody knows it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Grant was married five times, three of which were elopements..... Needs fixing. Yes, I could have done it myself, but many angels fear to tread in GAs. Moriori ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Trying to lend a hand but I do not have a copy of the books and with some of them, the only full view source is an eBook, with no page numbers. I can locate the information in other books online with page numbers, so it will mean adding some book sources and making some changes to sources because of that. We hope ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:LASTNAME subsequent use: the subsequent references to "Archie Leach" should be as "Leach" and not "Archie", just as references after "Cary Grant" should be to "Grant" and not to "Cary." He was not widely called "Archie" in the press as a rule. Collect ( talk) 12:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There is some confusion over the use of the names in the early section, swapping between. Leach and Grant. Could we call him Grant throughout, but make it clear that he performed under his birth name (a practice followed by the John Le Mesurier article). Any counter thoughts to this? – SchroCat ( talk) 08:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've also noticed an inconsistency in the spelling of Theat er/re, when not used as a noun. As the rest is in US spelling, I think this probably should be too. – SchroCat ( talk) 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it should be all US spelling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This is just a friendly suggestion, but maybe you should open a peer review? It seems that a lot of editors have suggestions and opinions on the article, with a peer review the Talk page won't become too bloated with a gazillion different sections. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 09:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Yes, you should probably remove most of the GA additional comments to PR. I only started it to demonstrate to Eric that I am certainly open to a thorough review and further constructive comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Opinion SchroCat, Ritchie333, TrueHeartSusie3, Ssven2 etc on merging personal life into main body? I think the prose might perk up a little with some biographical variation from just focusing on the films. I think it'll be better for it if we merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I know Collect is objectionable to any mention of Grant being gay but I'd be more alarmed by the fact that this article has an LGBT studies project tag above even WP Bristol. Is this acceptable given that he wasn't confirmed gay or bisexual? I'd be tempted to remove it, though as there is a large amount of LGBT related material written about him you could probably argue it qualifies under LGBT studies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Folks, I know this is an issue, and I also know it was a demand of the original GA reviewer, but the oversized photo of Grant and no infobox looks terrible; for actors, we do need the biographical informational summary that infoboxes contain, as well as the wikidata parameters. We can go into the eternal ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debate, but it is appropriate to include them on popular culture biographies such as film actors. At the very least, a collapsable box or at the very, very least, make the picture the default size, as it is, it takes up half the screen on my browser and squishes the lead text in a way that looks quite odd. Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I see
Checkingfax has added access dates to Google book refs. As you've been told very recently, and as is specifically stated in the {{
cite book}} documentation, these should not be added. These should be removed, preferably by the editor who added them.
On a second more general note, a number of the book sources have a published date, which is too specific: it should be a publishing year only. –
SchroCat (
talk)
08:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
unless I am blind, which I am.{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
SchroCat is right - Google Books is convenient for accessing a book source, but convenience is all you have. The ISBN is sufficient to be able to locate the book; if you've got a full British Library pass, you should be able to get any book and verify the text, for mere mortals an inter-library loan will have to suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice the quotes had been de-boxed, and was about to restore them, but edit conflicted. Could we please discuss the issue here before any more reverting? The argument to remove them has simply been " WP:MOS" - the MOS is a big place and I am certain parts of it contradict each other; however, my counter-argument for retaining boxes is simply that it looks better when browsing on my iPhone in landscape mode. Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
quote box}}
documentation puts the MoS in a nutshell and states that they are only for
pull quotes. I carefully crosschecked the article and none of the quote boxes are being used for pull quotes. When reading an article it is actually very distracting for us on desktop computers to have to jump around to quote boxes then try to figure out where they go in context. So, there are two solutions:
{{
quote}}
template. Or:{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Reping
Ritchie333 {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, we have quite a number of guidelines all consistently against excessive style markup and other decoration for purely subjective aesthetic purposes; this is a clear community consensus in general, and need not, per WP:BURO, WP:GAME, WP:CREEP, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc., be nit-picked down to specifically addressing every conceivable form of it. (Yet, again, we already have MOS:BQ saying not to abuse these templates this way.) The template documentation is not out of date; the comment above is getting the history completely backward. It's the historical deployment of pull-quote templates in many articles, before RfCs and MoS said to stop doing this, that has been obsoleted. The templates have all been comparatively recently updated to reflect the guideline shift, and various editors spend some time here and there converting misused pull quote templates to the block quote template. It's a low-priority cleanup effort, but it should absolutely not be imagined that it's running in the opposite direction, with people converting block quote templates to pull quote ones; that would be WP:DE / WP:POINT, just like going around and changing all instances of "UK" to read "U.K." Also, we do actually "do" pull quotes, just rarely. In my pull-quote-template cleanup runs, I find about one genuine pull quote per roughly 125 articles abusing the pull quote templates. An argument could be made for eliminating pull quotes entirely from WP (or, rather, from mainspace), as an inappropriate style that belongs in journalism and marketing, and I would support such a move, but it has not been successfully proposed to date.
PS: These templates are also occasionally [mis?]used for another very journalistic style, the callout, most commonly to present some famous line from a work of fiction; it's dubious whether these should exist in WP, either. I'm not sure if anyone cares whether the pull quote templates are used for this. It's not a major visual and encyclopedic-purpose disruption problem like the grossly inappropriate misuse of PQ templates to draw WP:UNDUE attention to trivial commentary at articles like Dr. No (novel); this is a rampant problem affecting thousands of articles, and is especially problematic when the material is PoV not trivial, as is often the case at politics-related articles, the ones that are most often plastered with these things and take the longest time to clean up in this regard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Any time someone says "text wall" in a discussion like this, it generally means "I'm playing sour grapes, because I have no rebuttal." You're free to open an RfC at WT:MOS about changing MOS:BQ to favor putting block and even short quotations into decorative boxes. It will fail.
Much more productively, we should probably propose some more standardized and less problematic approach to subtly differentiating block quotes from the regular prose, more effectively than just the current indentation (which is standard publishing practice all over the world, but may not be sufficient for mobile presentation). Several style guides recommend also a minor font-size reduction or other font change (serif to sans or vice versa). Another approach (not necessarily mutually exclusive) might be a very slight background color change, one that would not cause WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems. ( Spanish Wikipedia takes this combined approach.) But an attitude of "to hell with MoS, I'm never going to follow it", as if WP:IAR read "Ingnore any rule you don't like, just because you don't like it", is not a useful approach nor one accepted by the community. Nor is abuse of templates and layout styles that exist for a specific purpose, to do something completely different in nature but identical in appearance.
The abuse of pull quote formatting in this article in particular was not only against MOS, for no actual reason, but introduced numerous other problems, including the following, formatted as a list since paragraphs bug you so much:
I could go on, but providing a detailed and complete argument apparently offends you and you'll just say I'm "text walling" again and provide more irrelevant off-site links. [The blog you pointed to is interesting (I do have call to write functional specifications for work), but Wikipedia is not a functional spec, it did not address block quotes, and very little of it, other than plain English, and revision, are pertinent to WP writing.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a lovely sunset outside your window.... please look at it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article had an infobox from 5 June 2006 to 15 Jun 2016. I miss it. Is this really a matter between a GA reviewer who doesn't like it and recommends removal, and principle editors who don't like it, or the community also? - You can shorten it if it seems bloated, and/or collapse it as the Sinatra compromise. We have better things to do than this again. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
|
Yes, User:Collect claims to have promoted it to GA and got the half million award for doing so. Even SchroCat I'm sure wouldn't claim to have authored this and he has five times the number of edits, which were actually constructive ones..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you weren't shamed because your admin friend John ensured that that was censored out, rather than doing the honest thing and at least asking you why you're claiming it. I would normally have restored it but I know John would probably block me if I did, such is the neutrality of adminstrators on here. " I would rather remove the excess marble to produce a statue, than to fill an article with 100,000 characters of fluff, paraphrase, and quotation.", yes, me too, just as well this article isn't that then isn' it? Let's move on anyway, thankyou Collect for helping me promote Cary Grant to GA status, your help was priceless ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Are they tasks of making false statements edit warring and disruption? I don't see them in the essay but here's the diffs for your actions. We hope ( talk) 16:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of his edits were reverted anyway because he removed valid content at the same time!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"In his obituary, The Daily Telegraph called him "a much-feared and notoriously bitchy celebrity biographer whose works fell squarely in the “unauthorised” category." and "In his unashamedly self-promoting memoir, In and Out of Hollywood (2009), Higham presented himself as a sort of Chandleresque figure, dedicated to sniffing out other people’s darkest secrets."I'm nore sure content really is your thing – no wonder you try and claim other peopl's credit for your own! – SchroCat ( talk) 15:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Tendentious baiting– SchroCat ( talk) 08:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If any thread on this page should be hatted, it's this one, per WP:OWN and WP:VESTED. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Why is his age of death not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.6.162 ( talk) 12:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The marriage and sexuality section seems heavy on gossip and light on evidence. Grant's daughter and two of his wives denied homosexuality or bisexuality. That seems to trump claims by authors trying to hawk a book by attaching themselves to the subject, yet the rumors appear first as if they were fact. I'm going to try editing the section to rely more on those who knew Mr. Grant without dispute over those who claimed to have known him. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I trimmed the section for balance, while keeping all of its source citations. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
fixed up poor phrasing in the intro section - it's highly debatable that grant was known more for comedy than drama, makes more sense to simply say that he was known for both. also deleted this unreferenced/possibly completely erroneous claim slapped into the middle of the Academy Awards paragraph in the intro section ("...due to the fact that he was not signed to any specific studio in an era when the studios controlled the identities of the recipients"). whether it's true or not, it's not significant enough to be added to that section i wouldn't think (the only info really needed in the intro is that he didn't receive the award, not theories as to why.) it also made the the first half of that paragraph a particularly sloppy/lengthy run-on sentence.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.142.97 ( talk) 05:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Footnote #21 is Hadleigh 2003, p. 238, but there isn't a work by "Hadleigh" listed in the references. Does anyone know what book this is supposedly referring to or should this be removed? Jtyroler ( talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Should anything about Grant's work on radio be included? He starred in "Mr. and Mrs. Blandings" in 1951. He was in two classic episodes of "Suspense", "The Black Curtain" (1943) and "On a Country Road" (1950), plus radio versions of some of his films, including "Suspicion" on Academy Award Theater and "The Bishop's Wife" on Lux Radio Theater that I'm aware of. There are probably others. Jtyroler ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grant, Cary (Suspicion) 01 Crisco edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 17, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Beyond a statement about his screen persona that Grant supposedly wrote, which is quoted from a secondary source, there's nothing about Grant having been a writer, yet there are three "writer" categories on the article. Why is that? – Salamurai ( talk) 01:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago a few editors used two separate rationales for completely removing the simple fact that Cary Grant was an American in the lead paragraph.
The first editor claimed the fact that he didn't fit the definition of "English-American" based on the Wikipedia article English American. Presumably because he was born in England. Yet somehow completely ignoring the section on "Expatiates" or people who move to the US from England to become citizens. So yes if you want to use the article for your criteria, he most defiantly fits the definition.
Both editors expressed concern that since he became notable before actually becoming an official US citizen, that WP:OPENPARA is criteria enough to exclude his American citizenship from the lead. Somehow both editors completely overlooked the fact that being a resident of the United States is also criteria for inclusion:
In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident.-- JOJ Hutton 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Since at least 21 April 2011, the lead has read "English actor". Discussion on this talk page under the section Talk:Cary Grant#New section on citizenship, in line with discussion on other subject who changed their nationality, concluded that a hyphenated term, such as British-American or English-American is misleading, implying that the subject was born in the US and thus depreciating their birth citizenship. Grant was born English to two English parents in England: he was certainly not "English-American" in its most commonly understood sense. Hyphenated terms are ambiguous. To emphasize that he became an American, the qualifying phrase "who later gained American citizenship" was added to the lead sentence.
Thus it stood until 24 March 2013, when Jojhutton changed it. He was reverted by an editor involved in the original discussion. He began to edit war over it, and was repeated reverted by editors involved in the original consensus. He has not sought nor gained a new consensus, and continues to occasionally change it arbitrarily, usually without an edit comment stating what he is doing. He has been asked to show consensus for his change or to start an RfC. Continuing to change the article to an ambiguous term previously rejected by consensus is disruptive editing and should be reverted on sight, and probably reported.
To make this clear: Grant was a British citizen for 84 years, an American citizen for only 44. Regardless of what the US citizenship oath was at the time, he retained his British citizenship under British law and died a dual citizen. Yworo ( talk) 04:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The wording "Cary Grant was an English actor who later took American citizenship" was proposed by User:Sue De Nimes on July 17, 2011. There were no objections to this wording at the time and it was implemented as the consensus version of the article. No further discussion occurred until 24 March 2013. Here is a sampling of the history of that wording and who changed it when without discussion or gaining consensus.
This non-consensual change went unnoticed until User:Sue De Nimes corrected it on July 21, 2012
Again, this non-consensual change went unnoticed with some minor back and forth wording changes until April 6, 2013, when I noticed the change from the previous consensus version without any new consensus having been formed on the talk page:
Since that date User:Jojhutton has repeatedly restored his preferred wording, without establishing any new consensus to override the July 2011 consensus, while falsely claiming that he is restoring the "consensus" or "original" wording. This is simply a false assertion, as I have just demonstrated. This may of course be unintentional based on an incomplete knowledge of the consensus formed after long discussion and the actual history of the changes from it. Yworo ( talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the ambiguous hyphenated term, English-American, be used to describe the subject? On other subject's biographies, such as that of Charlize Theron, it has been concluded that the hyphenated term occludes and depreciates the subject's birth nationality. Grant is not a person of English ethnicity born in the US as one interpretation of the term indicates. In addition, WP:OPENPARA specifies that the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable is what should be used in the lead sentence. Grant clearly became notable before he was naturalized as an American citizen. Consensus above (leaving out the non-policy adhering suggestions) was to make the lead sentence "... was an English film and stage actor who became an American citizen in 1942" in order to be completely accurate about the subject's nationalities. Yworo ( talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would dispute the statement that Grant made an "overtly partisan appearance in introducing his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention". The fact that he "spoke of "your" party rather than "ours" in his remarks" means that he was not endorsing the party at all. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I would dispute the statement that Grant made an "overtly partisan appearance in introducing his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention". The fact that he "spoke of "your" party rather than "ours" in his remarks" means that he was not endorsing the party at all. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The contention was that he was "overtly partisan." Noting that he voted for Nixon and Reagan has no relevancy at all relating to that. (
Sellpink (
talk)
12:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC))
Some years ago, I either read or heard in a documentary or on Turner Classic Movies (somewhere!) that when Cary Grant had rheumatic fever, he was cared for by his close friend, one of the "Brewster sisters". Since I cannot recall which actress, it would either be Jean Adair or Josephine Hull. This information struck me, and stuck with me, due to the rheumatic fever in my own family.
If true, it's not only a sweet detail, but speaks directly to Grant's health both during the purported bout of RF and the probable sequelae of a serious life-long condition called "rheumatic heart disease". People with RHD are much more likely to have strokes than the general population due to clot formation on damaged heart valves or the higher incidence of atrial fibrillation. There are other serious effects of the condition, too. Does anyone owning Grant biographies have any information on Grant and RF?
(Unfortunately, the WP article on rheumatic fever has a section on rheumatic heart disease that delves deeply, and heavily laced with jargon, into changes that occur in heart cells and lacks simple, plain information on the disease's consequences. For more information, see this patient information article from Circulation, a journal of the American Heart Association, for a clear explanation of RHD:
Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Jack Breeze ( talk) 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Second hand books are fine, one of the new £12 ones you listed is actually 0.01 used. That's fine, can you re check?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool Ssven.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Had to remove this due to problems with Nelson 2007 vs 2012. Best once somebody gets the book to verfiy it and this can be elaborated on and restored.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
His widow Barbara Harris described Grant as "probably more Republican than anything else, but he was more interested in the issues. So could go either way". He did not think film stars should make political declarations: [1] "I'm opposed to actors taking sides in public and spouting spontaneously about love, religion or politics. ... I'm a mass of inconsistencies when it comes to politics." [2]
Grant maintained friendships with colleagues of varying political positions, and his few political activities seemed to be shaped by personal friendships. Grant condemned McCarthyism in 1953, and when his friend Charlie Chaplin was blacklisted, Grant said that Chaplin's artistic value outweighed political concerns. [2] He was also a friend of the Kennedy brothers and had close ties with the Mankiewicz family, including Robert Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz, and hosted one of Robert Kennedy's first political fundraisers at his home. Grant made a rare statement on public issues after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, calling for gun control. [3] In 1976, after his retirement from films, Grant introduced his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention. [1]
I'm curious as to why the 1941 picture of Cary Grant was changed to a screencap of North by Northwest. The previous one seems better to me (it's even a featured picture), unless there is some sort of copyright dispute involved. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes you're right, and it does capture the ironic sense of humour. I just wanted to see how I could change the look of the article in time being!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I need some motivation to start working on this. Any objection to me restoring the colour image of him during the writing phase to make the page look more appealing to me? We'll restore the black and white one when completed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This looks plagiarised from wikipedia. I've used it as a source in several places but it will have to be replaced I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This statement is sourced (and I've looked it up in the source; it's there), but it can't possibly be correct. There was no State of Israel until May 1948. The authors of that biography must have either got the chronology wrong, or maybe the donation was to a pre-state Zionist organisation. (The extract from the source comes up for me here.) Do any other sources mention this? Also, the article states in the body that Grant thought his father was partially Jewish, then in the footnote it says he donated money to the State of Israel in the name of his dead mother. Anyone able to clarify on either of these points? — Cliftonian (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:DATERET was written so that there wouldn't be edit warring over dates, yet Ssven has insisted that this article conform to his preferred date format. This article has had the MDY date format for nearly 14 years now. Please drop the stick and just move on. JOJ Hutton 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a very obscure book. I don't know what's in the book exactly, but to suggest that Cary Grant's father was not his biological father is a pretty tawdry and exceptional claim, and it would definitely require much more extensive sourcing. Where else is this claim made? This falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Other issues: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 19:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, at first I thought it was from the book I had. I didn't write that. It depends if that book is considered a reliable source or not. You could write it as xxx argues or claims that and it wouldn't be problematic. Perhaps I can get a copy of the book later in the year and see. I'll come back to writing this in a few weeks but I'm going to busy over the next month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cary Grant/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Needs refs ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd thought that there was something covering this previously but can't seem to find it. It's pretty important to mention I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ssven2: Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll be trimming the homosexuality section anyway so it reads better. I agree that it's not well constructed. Personally I don't think Grant was gay at all, I think he mainly liked women though from what I've seen, but probably had a few affairs with men too, a lot of the Hollywood stars did. The LSD stuff is very well documented, but I'm reluctant to rely on Higham and Moseley for that. We'll see how it goes. I'm on to the McCann book now.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the trim, but I do think we need to mention the Porter claim as a few authors have mentioned him attenting places while in New York and I think some minor detail on him living with Scott is necessary given that he was a major part of his life. Can you try to find the page number for the Parsons claim and format as sfn? I can't find any other source ion a google search which mentions he sued her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the section on Grant's "Sexuality" contain:
William McBrien, in his biography Cole Porter, claim that Porter and Grant frequented the same upscale house of male prostitution in Harlem, run by Clint Moore and popular with celebrities, [1] Grant lived with actor Randolph Scott off and on for 12 years, [2] which led to rumors. The two had first met early on in Grant's career in 1932 at the Paramount studio when Scott was filming Sky Bride at the same time as Grant was shooting Sinners in the Sun. [3] They moved in with each other soon afterwards, and according to Higham and Moseley were pressured by the studio to be photographed on dates with Sari Maritza and Vivian Gaye to diminish rumors of homosexuality. [4]
-- Collect ( talk) 12:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Several authors, including Higham and Moseley, [5] have implied that Grant was homosexual, [6] while others including Hedda Hopper, [7] and screenwriter Arthur Laurents claimed that Grant was bisexual. [8] Although biographer Robert Nott writes that there was never any evidence that Grant was or had been gay, and that such rumors were based on gossip. [9] When Chevy Chase joked on television in 1980 that Grant was a "homo. What a gal!", [10] Grant sued him for slander, and he was forced to retract his words. [11] Similarly, when gossip columnist Louella Parsons suggested he was gay, he sued her for libel. [12]
Grant had roomed with his actor friend Randolph Scott in between his marriages, which led to rumors. However, Virginia Cherrill, Grant's first wife, said that Grant and Scott were only platonic friends. [13] Grant's daughter Jennifer Grant stated that her father was not gay, although he "liked being called gay". [14] [15] He once used the term during a scene in the comedy Bringing Up Baby. [16] In 2012, Dyan Cannon, his wife of four years, said that Grant was not gay: "[He] was all man in the bedroom. That part of our life was very fulfilling. There were no problems. There's rumors about everyone in Hollywood." [17]
References
No, I didn't ask you to rescind your close, but you know it should have been closed as moot. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is very heavily sourced to [2] (Higham, Charles; Moseley, Roy (1990). Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart. Avon Books. ISBN 978-0-380-71009-6. per Wikipedia biography) :" Mr. Higham is the author of several celebrity biographies specializing in the revelation of unflattering details (the Duchess of Windsor was a prostitute in China; Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy). He and Mr. Moseley, who has written books about Merle Oberon and Rex Harrison, set out to reveal how unpretty was Grant's life. "
With such a "glowing" review, I ask whether the biography of Cary Grant should rely so heavily on a book the NYT would likely have burned.
People magazine said [3]
The NYT review [4] noted:
A review that says the book is not convincing, is "lurid" and is more "innuendo" than "biography" would seem to indicate a somewhat less-than-reliable source.
Re: Higham, the Los Angeles Times [5] said:
OK - a book not regarded as genuine "biography" by any major reviewers, which has an author who appears to be a tad fanciful in his handling of the truth, etc., which links Cary Grant to the Manson murders, is a reliable source? Collect ( talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The sad thing on this is that you think I wouldn't have known this or haven't the ability to judge sources. I have 300 odd articles of FA or GA quality, and am more experienced writing here than both of you. Higham was the first book I received and the first book I went through, and I didn't use it to claim anything which was obviously false. If it's a stronger claim I would only ever say "Higham and Moseley claim" anyway. Most of the material I checked with other sources and it checks out. Now if you would all kindly fuck off and allow me to write this it'll get balanced out with the other sources eventually anyway. It's pretty insulting to me that you think I don't know what I'm doing, much like it was with Rationalobserver criticism of the Sinatra article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't the best book to start with but the first which arrived so I started with that. I have the Wansell and McCann books still to go through and potentially more books, probably half a dozen. I extracted what I thought was accurate or useful from the first book and will do the same with the others I go through. That's how I write articles. I'm barely 1/6 through writing this properly. To turn up so prematurely and start slagging it and me off and not allowing it to be written and balanced out is pretty unfair. We're all volunteers here and I'm making an effort to get an important article into shape. Your condescending attitude and picking the most extreme claims as examples of the entire book being a lie says it all. Now are you going to let me write this properly or are you going to sit on your throne dictating and lording it over the sourcing? Clear off please, and allow this to get written with a better balance of sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Collect, you're removing material which I know is verifiable in other books, the McCann book says something similar about the pocket money and I had intended replacing the Higham source as I go along. To completely remove material and not give me a fair chance to develop and boost with other sourcing is disgusting and actually disruptive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The material mostly wasn't bad material though. You removed any mention of Randolph Scott for instance which is absolutely ridiculous as it's documented by dozens of authors and the top newspapers. I've just had to waste half an hour repairing the damage you did to the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you were lecturing me on what is needed to pass FA, that seemed strange because to my knowleddge you have no experience with FAC whereas I've contributed or reviewed well over 100 articles. You were right on there being a problem at FAC if the article relied primariy on Higham and Moseley, but if you allowed it to be written properly instead of moaning about it that would be sorted out soon enough.♦
Dr. Blofeld
19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to tell from the above discussion exactly which topics or statement in the article would benefit from have multiple sources to avoid any implied bias and non-neutral issues. To avoid edit conflicts, maybe any concerned editors can just note below any commentary that could be contentious or less credible due to its single source, such as Higham & Moseley's book. -- Light show ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the key facts in the bio given in the first sentence of the lead, is his nationality per his notability. This was edited as American per MOS but was reverted w/o a rationale.
As part of that revert, the alt description of the photo was changed to a meaningless description. And the clearer cropped image was also deleted w/o explanation. -- Light show ( talk) 18:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
He was English. "He became an American citizen in 1942" covers that. I doubt Grant himself would have ever called himself a real American. If I hear a single further complaint from you Light show on this I'll go further than requesting an interaction ban from commenting on articles myself, SchroCat and Cassianto write, I'll provide enough evidence to get you banned from the site. Your vendetta has gone on way too long now. You know what happened with Kubrick and Sellers. If you don't want to be banned get on with something else and belt up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Per the lead's last paragraph, Grant was awarded an Honorary Oscar by Frank Sinatra at the 42nd Academy Awards in 1970. This is a major award, and possibly his most valued. Yet the source for it was deleted without explanation. -- Light show ( talk) 20:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The lede does not need sourcing. The body is sourced now with detail on Frank Sinatra's speech anyway with a reliable, non-copyrighted source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"Personally I don't think Grant was gay at all, I think he mainly liked women...", commented Dr. Blofeld earlier. Yet, besides doubling the size of the ambiguous "Sexuality" sexion, which relies on rumors and denials of the rumors by those who knew him best, we now have a photo for innuendo. Why is that photo put in a "Sexuality" section? In fact, why is there a sexuality section at all? IMO, it implies that editors may have an obsession with his bedroom life. I suggest moving the photo, a bad one anyway, to a neutral location, and reducing the 500-word tabloidish Sexuality commentary. -- Light show ( talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose we remove any commentary that relies on gossip or rumors since they are not from reliable sources per guidelines, ie. soap, including "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." And although such gossip about living persons can be defamatory, it does not mean that WP can feel free to add the same rumors just because they're dead and can't complain. The current BLP guideline: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Any support? -- Light show ( talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no assumption made about the sexual orientation of either man re: the photo. The two men shared a home and were starred in many films together.
The photo was taken for publicity and with the consent of both persons to photograph them at home. Those are the facts--they shared a home together, were friends and worked together in many films. The only one making the connection to the photo and alleged homosexuality is you by the removal of it.
Am guessing that any and all posters and lobby cards here-PD or non-free-picturing these two men together ought to be removed so that no one assumes either was gay. We hope ( talk) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be more suitable to use for the section then? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Light show Last warning, I see one more conflicting edit or comment from you and you'll be up at ANI with ban request from wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I am aware that Light Snow edits this article so i will not try to fix the quote problems (hes has an ownweship mproblem)... but think others should take a look as per MOS:Quote. A famous person like this should not have such a bad article. Think its time to get some help here as the quotes are out of control. -- Moxy ( talk) 00:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I've given it a read and trimmed/paraphrased or removed a fair number of quotes, but only those which affected the readability. If you actually take the time to fully read it I think it reads well and is really informative, a reasonable balance. Multiple quote boxes are perfectly acceptable in articles and frequently appear in articles promoted to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Will begin soon.
JAG
UAR
13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Those were all of the minor prose 'issues' I could bring up from my first read-through. I'm exhausted. Brilliant article. It is comprehensive, well written, and enjoyable to read. No doubt it's future FA material. I would strongly recommend removing the infobox to maximise readability. JAG UAR 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said to Sven I think 12,000 odd words and 70kb of readable prose is what we should be aiming for, so it still will need a trim in parts but as Sven says it's already had a good trim today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is now at 165K in gross length, placing it in the top 2500 of the longest articles on Wikipedia. (or in the top .05% of articles in length) Wikipedia:Article size suggests a split at the 100K mark.
The Higham problematic book is used as a cite 54 times, rather a great many more than I think reasonable.
The "see also" links to a Wikipedia book which consists of this article, and articles already linked to within this article. Self-referentialism gone amok.
The article has 37 image boxes - of which 8 are very extended quotes - basically of copyrighted material, which may exceed Wikipedia guidelines for such quoting of copyright material.
Higham was frowned on in the New York Times - but we still use it for "Women would not feel threatened or overridden by his personality, and yet at the same time they would warm to his apparently unequivocal masculinity", Higham and Moseley believe that the real reason was that he stole a valise full of paints, which is self-referenced for good humor in The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947). The source does not make that claim as such - it says that the "paints" line was used in a movie, but not that they thought it was the "real reason" at all. Higham is used for the bit ""shed his callow, awkward manner, his strutting, bowlegged, cockney walk and his excessive mugging; he looked like a man-about-town and at the same time he displayed the necessary roughness of an Australian type."" which is clearly opinion and not a statement of fact, from a source whose opinions were attacked by such places as the NYT book reviewer.
"Several authors, including Higham and Moseley in their book,[366] have implied that Grant was homosexual." 366 is their book, 367 is Kahaney and Liu. Lo - the claim is assigned to a New Yorker book review - of the Graham McCann book. It would have been more sensible to say "three" and not "several" and cite McCann directly rather than imply Kahaney and Liu were the ones posting that opinion.
We devote 20 lines to implying Grant was gay - when all the main sources say it was absolutely just rumour at most. We use a photo of Randolph Scott and Grant - from a Modern Screen article promoting seafood. When Grant was alive, he won lawsuits (defamation) over this rumour, and now that he is dead we can basically imply he was gay anyway.
Another long section on LSD - which appears not to have been that big a deal, but is now overemphasized in this biography, and using an overlong quote as well.
As for proper length of quotes: WP:MOSQUOTE Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editor's own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement. Some of the "quotes" used are even over a hundred words long. This is not "brief" in my opinion. Looking at the boxed quotes: 65 words, 35, 78, 92, 71, 71, 60, and 96 words. Not exactly the permitted "brief quote" I fear.
And more if needed but the initial and main problems are:
It contains copyright infringements. explicit ones, also excessive length of quotes, also misattribution of claims
the prose is clear and concise not.
all in-line citations are from reliable sources as one main source used is contested as being reliable. (NYT review: "The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism", People review: "In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo", with regard to Higham, the LAT has "At the conclusion of the account of his investigation, Donati writes: 'Charles Higham describes himself as a serious writer and a scholar; yet, in the academic realm the worst sin is falsifying primary-source material to prove one's thesis. Deceitful, pseudoscholarship degrades information and distorts the truth'")
I rather think this covers the current state of affairs. Collect ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's 78kb readable prose Collect. We're aiming for about 70, same as Laurence Olivier. I suggest you read Michael Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Elvis Presley etc. And yes, given that he's considered the greatest film actor in history by many and an icon, you would expect it to be longer than your average article, so being in the top 2500 sounds about right. We don't use many long quotes, and the Higham book is not used to make claims for anything controversial. Appropriate weight is given to the sexuality discussion because most biographies devote significant weight on it. It's perfectly balanced with counter claims. We cover what is covered in biographies, and this is mentioned in practically every one. We do not omit or censor material because of the POV of the "concerned" editor. Bore off and do something useful with your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"After a role as a pilot opposite Jean Arthur and Rita Hayworth in Howard Hawks's Only Angels Have Wings, which was praised for its aerial photography.[153] He finished the year playing a wealthy landowner exploited by Carole Lombard in In Name Only, a sentimental melodrama involving a love triangle."
"his last film of the year was the romantic comedy The Philadelphia Story, where he played the ex-husband of Hepburn's character."A film isn't a place, so "where" isn't appropriate.
"... feeling isolated and discontent"How can you feel discontent?
"... not the actions of a man who had irrevocable turned his back on the film industry. Do they really say "irrevocable rather than "irrecovably"?
" ... so that 1939, he was "already an astute operator with various commercial interests"Seems to be a word missing there.
"When the company divided in 1980 into MGM Films and MGM Grand Hotels, he continued to sit on the board of both."He couldn't have continued to sit on the board of both as neither company existed until the split.
Fine, give it a "proper GA review" then, I'm sure the article will only improve further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As Eric seems to think I'm dishonest or lazy and don't have the best intentions of the quality of the article at heart, I invite an additional full review by somebody neutral here.... Hell I invite two or three GA reviews if it'll help this article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing would be to open a peer review once you've finished Ritchie. I'd have done that anyway, though I'm sure it will be gatecrashed by Collect and wanting the HIgham material completely removed...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Higham book contains a lot of intricate details like that which are obviously not invented, and they're often not replaceable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and I think all my concerns have been addressed. There are a few other copyedits I wanted to look at, but I think somebody else will probably get to them. I think consensus here and on the parallel conversation at WT:GACUP that the GA criteria has now been met. As the old saying goes, if anyone can improve it further, please do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It had been met anyway, and everybody knows it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Grant was married five times, three of which were elopements..... Needs fixing. Yes, I could have done it myself, but many angels fear to tread in GAs. Moriori ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Trying to lend a hand but I do not have a copy of the books and with some of them, the only full view source is an eBook, with no page numbers. I can locate the information in other books online with page numbers, so it will mean adding some book sources and making some changes to sources because of that. We hope ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:LASTNAME subsequent use: the subsequent references to "Archie Leach" should be as "Leach" and not "Archie", just as references after "Cary Grant" should be to "Grant" and not to "Cary." He was not widely called "Archie" in the press as a rule. Collect ( talk) 12:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There is some confusion over the use of the names in the early section, swapping between. Leach and Grant. Could we call him Grant throughout, but make it clear that he performed under his birth name (a practice followed by the John Le Mesurier article). Any counter thoughts to this? – SchroCat ( talk) 08:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've also noticed an inconsistency in the spelling of Theat er/re, when not used as a noun. As the rest is in US spelling, I think this probably should be too. – SchroCat ( talk) 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it should be all US spelling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This is just a friendly suggestion, but maybe you should open a peer review? It seems that a lot of editors have suggestions and opinions on the article, with a peer review the Talk page won't become too bloated with a gazillion different sections. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 09:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Yes, you should probably remove most of the GA additional comments to PR. I only started it to demonstrate to Eric that I am certainly open to a thorough review and further constructive comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Opinion SchroCat, Ritchie333, TrueHeartSusie3, Ssven2 etc on merging personal life into main body? I think the prose might perk up a little with some biographical variation from just focusing on the films. I think it'll be better for it if we merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I know Collect is objectionable to any mention of Grant being gay but I'd be more alarmed by the fact that this article has an LGBT studies project tag above even WP Bristol. Is this acceptable given that he wasn't confirmed gay or bisexual? I'd be tempted to remove it, though as there is a large amount of LGBT related material written about him you could probably argue it qualifies under LGBT studies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Folks, I know this is an issue, and I also know it was a demand of the original GA reviewer, but the oversized photo of Grant and no infobox looks terrible; for actors, we do need the biographical informational summary that infoboxes contain, as well as the wikidata parameters. We can go into the eternal ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debate, but it is appropriate to include them on popular culture biographies such as film actors. At the very least, a collapsable box or at the very, very least, make the picture the default size, as it is, it takes up half the screen on my browser and squishes the lead text in a way that looks quite odd. Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I see
Checkingfax has added access dates to Google book refs. As you've been told very recently, and as is specifically stated in the {{
cite book}} documentation, these should not be added. These should be removed, preferably by the editor who added them.
On a second more general note, a number of the book sources have a published date, which is too specific: it should be a publishing year only. –
SchroCat (
talk)
08:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
unless I am blind, which I am.{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
SchroCat is right - Google Books is convenient for accessing a book source, but convenience is all you have. The ISBN is sufficient to be able to locate the book; if you've got a full British Library pass, you should be able to get any book and verify the text, for mere mortals an inter-library loan will have to suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice the quotes had been de-boxed, and was about to restore them, but edit conflicted. Could we please discuss the issue here before any more reverting? The argument to remove them has simply been " WP:MOS" - the MOS is a big place and I am certain parts of it contradict each other; however, my counter-argument for retaining boxes is simply that it looks better when browsing on my iPhone in landscape mode. Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
quote box}}
documentation puts the MoS in a nutshell and states that they are only for
pull quotes. I carefully crosschecked the article and none of the quote boxes are being used for pull quotes. When reading an article it is actually very distracting for us on desktop computers to have to jump around to quote boxes then try to figure out where they go in context. So, there are two solutions:
{{
quote}}
template. Or:{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Reping
Ritchie333 {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, we have quite a number of guidelines all consistently against excessive style markup and other decoration for purely subjective aesthetic purposes; this is a clear community consensus in general, and need not, per WP:BURO, WP:GAME, WP:CREEP, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc., be nit-picked down to specifically addressing every conceivable form of it. (Yet, again, we already have MOS:BQ saying not to abuse these templates this way.) The template documentation is not out of date; the comment above is getting the history completely backward. It's the historical deployment of pull-quote templates in many articles, before RfCs and MoS said to stop doing this, that has been obsoleted. The templates have all been comparatively recently updated to reflect the guideline shift, and various editors spend some time here and there converting misused pull quote templates to the block quote template. It's a low-priority cleanup effort, but it should absolutely not be imagined that it's running in the opposite direction, with people converting block quote templates to pull quote ones; that would be WP:DE / WP:POINT, just like going around and changing all instances of "UK" to read "U.K." Also, we do actually "do" pull quotes, just rarely. In my pull-quote-template cleanup runs, I find about one genuine pull quote per roughly 125 articles abusing the pull quote templates. An argument could be made for eliminating pull quotes entirely from WP (or, rather, from mainspace), as an inappropriate style that belongs in journalism and marketing, and I would support such a move, but it has not been successfully proposed to date.
PS: These templates are also occasionally [mis?]used for another very journalistic style, the callout, most commonly to present some famous line from a work of fiction; it's dubious whether these should exist in WP, either. I'm not sure if anyone cares whether the pull quote templates are used for this. It's not a major visual and encyclopedic-purpose disruption problem like the grossly inappropriate misuse of PQ templates to draw WP:UNDUE attention to trivial commentary at articles like Dr. No (novel); this is a rampant problem affecting thousands of articles, and is especially problematic when the material is PoV not trivial, as is often the case at politics-related articles, the ones that are most often plastered with these things and take the longest time to clean up in this regard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Any time someone says "text wall" in a discussion like this, it generally means "I'm playing sour grapes, because I have no rebuttal." You're free to open an RfC at WT:MOS about changing MOS:BQ to favor putting block and even short quotations into decorative boxes. It will fail.
Much more productively, we should probably propose some more standardized and less problematic approach to subtly differentiating block quotes from the regular prose, more effectively than just the current indentation (which is standard publishing practice all over the world, but may not be sufficient for mobile presentation). Several style guides recommend also a minor font-size reduction or other font change (serif to sans or vice versa). Another approach (not necessarily mutually exclusive) might be a very slight background color change, one that would not cause WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems. ( Spanish Wikipedia takes this combined approach.) But an attitude of "to hell with MoS, I'm never going to follow it", as if WP:IAR read "Ingnore any rule you don't like, just because you don't like it", is not a useful approach nor one accepted by the community. Nor is abuse of templates and layout styles that exist for a specific purpose, to do something completely different in nature but identical in appearance.
The abuse of pull quote formatting in this article in particular was not only against MOS, for no actual reason, but introduced numerous other problems, including the following, formatted as a list since paragraphs bug you so much:
I could go on, but providing a detailed and complete argument apparently offends you and you'll just say I'm "text walling" again and provide more irrelevant off-site links. [The blog you pointed to is interesting (I do have call to write functional specifications for work), but Wikipedia is not a functional spec, it did not address block quotes, and very little of it, other than plain English, and revision, are pertinent to WP writing.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a lovely sunset outside your window.... please look at it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article had an infobox from 5 June 2006 to 15 Jun 2016. I miss it. Is this really a matter between a GA reviewer who doesn't like it and recommends removal, and principle editors who don't like it, or the community also? - You can shorten it if it seems bloated, and/or collapse it as the Sinatra compromise. We have better things to do than this again. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
|
Yes, User:Collect claims to have promoted it to GA and got the half million award for doing so. Even SchroCat I'm sure wouldn't claim to have authored this and he has five times the number of edits, which were actually constructive ones..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you weren't shamed because your admin friend John ensured that that was censored out, rather than doing the honest thing and at least asking you why you're claiming it. I would normally have restored it but I know John would probably block me if I did, such is the neutrality of adminstrators on here. " I would rather remove the excess marble to produce a statue, than to fill an article with 100,000 characters of fluff, paraphrase, and quotation.", yes, me too, just as well this article isn't that then isn' it? Let's move on anyway, thankyou Collect for helping me promote Cary Grant to GA status, your help was priceless ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Are they tasks of making false statements edit warring and disruption? I don't see them in the essay but here's the diffs for your actions. We hope ( talk) 16:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of his edits were reverted anyway because he removed valid content at the same time!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"In his obituary, The Daily Telegraph called him "a much-feared and notoriously bitchy celebrity biographer whose works fell squarely in the “unauthorised” category." and "In his unashamedly self-promoting memoir, In and Out of Hollywood (2009), Higham presented himself as a sort of Chandleresque figure, dedicated to sniffing out other people’s darkest secrets."I'm nore sure content really is your thing – no wonder you try and claim other peopl's credit for your own! – SchroCat ( talk) 15:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Tendentious baiting– SchroCat ( talk) 08:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If any thread on this page should be hatted, it's this one, per WP:OWN and WP:VESTED. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Why is his age of death not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.6.162 ( talk) 12:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)