Talk:Cary Grant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rebbing (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 4 July 2016 (→‎RfC on Gay allegations: Closed: consensus is to remove.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

RfC on Gay allegations

There is consensus that the challenged paragraph should not be included, either because it constitutes
(non-admin closure) Rebbing 15:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

Comments

  • The prior "Sexuality" section, to which the entire section above has been added, consisted of

Several authors, including Higham and Moseley,

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]

Which I think was quite full weight for this fluff (actually, possibly excessive, in fact). I find the additions, including an implication of homosexuality primarily asserted by "Higham and Moseley" (not separate sources - the source was written by the two) iterated in the single paragraph.
The addition of an implication that anyone who goes to a "house of male prostitution" is therefore gay is pure
WP:WEIGHT of the allegations, which are given a perfunctory denial in comparison, makes the entire biography into a sinking Titanic
. IMO.
I therefore suggest the added material be removed, and possibly the entire section be reduced to the weight that rumours actually merit in biographies, and the weight that gossip merits in biographies, and the weight that "any person who associates with a gay person therefore might be gay"-type inferences merit in biographies (noting we already use the famed Daily Mail in this section.) Other opinions sought. Collect (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. In fact the innuendos created by the added
    advocacy cites to support gossip isn't much better. Pending some guidelines that now allow WP to become a tabloid, they should be trimmed. --Light show (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ McBrien 2000, p. 129.
  2. ^ "Paper Trail: Great American Couple". The Advocate. January 5, 2009. Retrieved June 8, 2012.
  3. ^ Higham & Moseley 1990, p. 57.
  4. ^ Higham & Moseley 1990, p. 59.
  5. ^ Higham & Moseley 1990, p. 25.
  6. ^ Kahaney & Liu 2001, p. 160.
  7. ^ Mann 2001, p. 154.
  8. ^ Laurents 2001, p. 131.
  9. ^ Nott, Robert. The Films of Randolph Scott, McFarland (2004) p. 12
  10. ^ Higham & Moseley 1990, p. 358.
  11. ^ Seymour 2009, pp. 114–5.
  12. ^ Connolly, Kieron. Dark History of Hollywood, Amber Books (2014) ebook
  13. ^ Louvish, Simon (May 9, 2009). "Bright Spark of the Silver Screen". The Guardian. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
  14. ^ Grant, Jennifer (April 28, 2011). "'My Father Liked Being Called Gay,' Admits Cary Grant's Daughter in New Memoir". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
  15. ^ Grant 2011.
  16. ^ Cary Grant in a scene from Bringing Up Baby.
  17. ^ "Dyan Cannon: 'Cary Grant Was Not Gay'". Starpulse.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
The discussion above 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.

Higham/Moseley Reviews

This article is very heavily sourced to [1] (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. "

" But the primary focus of the book is to prove Grant's bisexuality, which had been rumored since his early Hollywood days, when he lived for years with one of his alleged lovers, the actor Randolph Scott - but which Grant always denied. Grant also had an affair with Howard Hughes, the authors assert with nothing but hearsay to back the claim. 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. Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart is a compilation of blind items and thirdhand pronouncements, among them, It was common gossip in Hollywood that they [ Howard Hughes and Randolph Scott ] had been lovers. The reporting is not just nasty, it is irresponsible. Grant was arrested for performing a sex act with a man in a public restroom during World War II, they blithely report, with unnamed sources confirming the incident."
"When they are not slinging innuendo, the authors assume the pious tone of men performing a public service, as if Grant, by living his life privately, had pulled a fast one on us. The honest biographer cannot shirk the painful truth, even at the risk of being called deliberately sensationalist, they crow. Then with oily mock generosity they add, Cary Grant, despite his many very human failings, did his best to be a good and decent man. Let others argue if they will. A wily duo, Mr. Higham and Mr. Moseley supply all the information we need to despise Grant and then scold anyone fool enough to do so. "

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[2]

The NYT review[3] noted:

"What is it about Cary Grant biographies that seems to require two authors? Here's a better question. What is it about Grant that he should be subjected to smarmy treatment? Those who love Grant would be advised to skip this book too. It is that rare work that is at once tedious and offensive."
" 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. Even if what they write is true—and the evidence they offer is hardly convincing—the question remains: Why would Grant's admirers want to subject themselves to this kind of disillusionment? "

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[4] said:

"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.""
"Higham stands firmly by his conclusions about Flynn. And Higham--author of a number of best-selling biographies including most recently "The Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life," which also contains material about the duchess' Nazi connections--said that his most important work consists of "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Both depict assistance and support of--and dealings with--the Nazis by prominent people and businesses."
" For instance: "According to theater historian Milton Goldman, it was widely rumored that Archie (Grant's real first name) was a gigolo in New York, servicing a wealthy woman. However, there is no evidence to support this." A few pages later Higham and Moseley write, "There is no record of his having any love affairs with women at this time.""
"In the interview, Higham said that the episode regarding Grant and his location on the night of the Manson murders is "poorly documented" and is based on a conversation with now dead producer William Belasco. In the book, the incident is described as "the most mysterious and puzzling act of his (Grant's) entire career, still unsolved and baffling to the biographer.""

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)[reply]

  • I agree this is a serious problem, in that the source is unreliable and the claims are negative. I suggest removing anything sourced to that that is the least bit negative or questionable or gossipy/irrelevant. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And I only am up to 2. Sorry - using a bad source is not a great idea when it makes up half an article or more.
WP:RS is clear on this - if a source is known to have major problems, then we should not use it. And your "fuck off" comment does not make me think highly of your position. (Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ) And I do not give a flying fuck about your "Sinatra article" and have not the slightest fucking idea why you bring it up here. Collect (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

When it comes to articles, using bad sources at the start does not impress me. Find the best fucking source you can before telling any editor to fuck off from your very own private garden, please. And bad material should not be put into any article in the first place - accusing me of prematurely objecting to rumours and innuendoes does not actually impress me. I do not take 400+ small sequential edits to work on a single article (you assert you are 1/6 done at the 340 edit level - leading to as many as 2000 edits?), as a rule. And removing bad material is actually what Wikipedia needs. Collect (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, it could never have met FA with the poor sourcing, and may reach that status with actual reliable sources. Improving an article is not damaging it. Thank you. Collect (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For which of course you have tremendous experience of.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd comment - I do have experience with magazine editing etc. and only have 2 "GA"s on Wikipedia, so I should have said that a GA with such poor sourcing would be an embarrassment. Thank you for correcting me. Collect (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Consider then the
RMS Titanic which was mainly made of good steel, and only a little bad steel. A very fine ship indeed. Sunk by ice, but the steel did crack. Collect (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not trying to "fight" - I just fear that any casual attitude towards a source which has been specifically derided as false by strong reliable sources dealing with the precise topic at hand should be avoided and we ought not say "well the people attacking the source did not say 'this' claim was false" where it is much simpler to discard the poor source where large numbers of better sources exist on the same precise topic. Other works by Higham are likely fine and dandy - it is just the one single book here which has been so specifically attacked by multiple reviewers than one wonders the value of retaining it as a main source for any article. Collect (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't intend to "fight" but you are coming across as a little tedious when I'm trying my best to get on with writing it and reducing use of the Higham source where possible. As I've said, I agree with you that the Higham book has received criticism from several reputable papers for exploiting the "Cary da gay" argument and has a few questionable claims like the Manson car one and Flynn the Nazi. It is genuinely otherwise a very well written biography and I've proved with over 30 examples changed that it was accurate. Can it be 100% trusted as a source? Difficult when there's some strong, disputed claims, but I think they were added to sell books. The book does seem to be largely accurate and contains a lot of details, particularly on his earlier career which I strongly doubt were made up. I've replaced a lot of them and have proved that actually they got their facts right, or at least that's what others have written. Higham has also received criticism himself for exploitating certain things like homosexuality and Nazism in Hollywood, but he was also the recipient of the Prix des Créateurs in 1978 and of the Académie Française and the Poetry Society of London Prize, and they don't give those out to shoddy tabloid writers. Such a source should only ever be used in moderation. certainly not as the main source for an article, but if you care to be patient within a few weeks the balance of sources and content will be much improved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects needing multiple sources

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)[reply
]

American or English?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was recently reminded. --Light show (talk)!!
In this case I tried to be reasonable and agree with you on the sexuality section being poorly written and needing cutting. But you then soon turned it into a "ganging up" scenario with emboldening your "agree", as if I didn't largely agree with the changes anyway. If you always remained constructive and seemed to genuinely want to improve articles I'd treat you with a lot more respect. But you've proved time and time again you can't do that and seem to have a vendetta and attack the work of people you perceive to have done you an injustice. Either you put an end to this vendetta you have and get over it or the time is really going to come when you'll get a full ban from the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting that I'm not offended by PAs. I made that pretty clear a few years ago, when I wrote that the personal attacks from your team "have become so expected that I usually ignore them." I'm only concerned with seeing that biographies are not undermined, which is enough to get one banned from articles. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt by Light show to hinder actual progress of the encyclopedia? How original.
Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Great, now you're showing off your ABF
hounding skill. --Light show (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You mean, as opposed to what you just did? I must be a shark! :P
Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
But it's still a bit misleading per WP
guidelines, which say that his bio nationality would be the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. His debut film was in the U.S., so I would think that "British-born American actor" would less imply he was also a film actor in the U.K. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey I agree, but wording it that way is somehow not making everyone happy. Hopefully this will be a good compromise and the matter can be put to rest. JOJ Hutton 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a stab. The first sentence should tell the reader the subject's nationality/profession/reason for notability. --Malerooster (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed yet removed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Status of trailer screenshots

OK

Not OK

A massive Sexion

"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)[reply
]

Why not carp about this while you're at it? We hope (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it's ok to have a section for Scott called "Rumors about sexual orientation", solely based on "unsubstantiated gossip", with denials by his son, among others? Maybe we can gather all these similar sections and publish them in a "Gossipedia" sold at liquor store checkouts. We could even add James Dean's "debated sexuality" gossip to increase sales. The only serious question is whether it should be a weekly or a monthly. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go to sleep, Uncle Miltie We hope (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, that would be worthy of an issue's article as it's also based on rumors. Plus it has a very reliable source since Howard Stern discussed it. All we'd need is for you to find some family-suitable photo, or at least an illustration. My fear is that we run out of dead American stars to smear. --Light show (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Join local debate and little theater groups where your arguments and emoting might be welcome. We hope (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Scott's son denies it, here, its Grant himself who denies it! His daughter denies it too. Grant predicted that all of these (debate about his sexuality, including whatever that's happening on this talk page) would happen. Really something, isn't it?  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't care at all about his sexuality, only his right to privacy. I care about WP bios getting trashed by permitting pure gossip as commentary and even photos to support innuendo. Scott's section even lacks a source for a key statement: "This has led to unsubstantiated gossip that the two were a homosexual couple." Another pillar being abused, thereby, since "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources." James Dean's sexuality section is almost half the size of his Career section! And it's likewise all based on gossip and rumor. I support Ewan McGregor's take on the overall problem. It's also a bit annoying to see primarily deceased American stars' bios getting smeared by tabloidism. --Light show (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply
]

If anyone would object, then, as implied by the silence, can you give a basis per guidelines which overrides the guidelines just noted? --Light show (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I posted a question about "Rumor-based" sections, and replies can be seen or added to there.--Light show (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Grant and Scott

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.

  • This is where the photo came from; the film magazine featured recipes by various film stars on a regular basis through their "Modern Hostess" column.

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)[reply]

Oppose use in clear juxtaposition to the "they were gay lovers" rumours. If the photo were in a section other than "Sexuality" you might assert it has nothing to do with the claims, but the section is "Sexuality" and the photo damn sure is related to the rumours peddled in that section. Collect (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think you need to make the same objections at Randolph_Scott#Personal_life where the subject is also discussed. We hope (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor There are many problems on Wikipedia, it is not up to me to fix them all. It is not up to me to do all the litter collection of Wikipedia - when I find a piece of litter to deal with, that is sufficient. Collect (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kannitverstan So it's perfectly all right to have the material at Scott's article, but not here because you're watching this article and not Scott's? We hope (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother ojecting? That photo doesn't even need one since by it's own description, as a posed "publicity still" for the film My Favorite Wife, implies it's use in a sexuality section is prima facie deceptive. --Light show (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest using this photo instead, which at least implies sexuality, as opposed to happy dining. And isn't that the film where she asks him, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?" Can't recall. --Light show (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely ridiculous. He lived with Randolph Scott for twelve years and was his closest friend. The photo is perfectly encyclopedic. I'm staritng to suspect that Collect has perosnal issues with homosexuality. I noticed he was outspoken with Gary Cooper too. Perhaps it's time you were topic banned from commentary on homosexual subjects Collect?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - no "perosnal issues with homosexuality" just a belief that Wikipedia policies tell us to avoid promoting rumours which appear to have poor foundations. And I am a strong backer of actual LGBTQ issues -- Scott and Grant in a picture is not one of them. Collect (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this would be more suitable to use for the section then? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - we have to stick to non-copyright photos. Look at Commons. The current photo is listed as "copyright not renewed" which is insufficient as far as I can tell if the photographer lived afterwards (the loss of copyright is clear for text, not for images). Collect (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
US pre-1978 copyright law doesn't deal with life of the photographer. File:Marilyn Monroe in 1952.jpg This is copyright not renewed, with plenty of people working with it and it passed FAC. The Daily News/Sunday News did not renew the copyright. Neither did Dell for Modern Screen. The issue is part of this bundle which came from back files at the US copyright office. "Library of Congress has determined that this item is not in copyright." We hope (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quote farm

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)[reply
]

Only a few edits added by me, mostly for adding sources. I didn't wear any overalls for this one. Other farm hands took control. --Light show (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, you poxy idiot, if you'd waited just a few hours I've finished the research on this now and will go through and trim and finish it before nominating for GA. That include dialling down on some of the quotes. Thanks for the vote of confidence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Cary Grant/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Will begin soon. JAGUAR  13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Lead

  • "and became known for his transatlantic accent, his light-hearted approach to acting and comic timing" - remove repetition of "his"
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grant became attracted to the theatre at a very young age" - I would recommend losing "the", so it's not like he was attracted to just one theatre, but rather the theatre arts etc
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these films are frequently cited as among the all-time great comedy films.[1]" -
    WP:LEADCITE
    . Do you think it's alright for this citation to be in the lead or can you move this to the body? I don't mind, either way
Yes, because in the body some of the films are not claimed to be the best (to avoid bloating it) when they were, so without it it would be OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Ingrid Bergman, That Touch of Mink (1962) with Doris Day and Charade (1963) with Audrey Hepburn" - Oxford comma needed in between "Day" and "and"
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suave actor who didn't take himself too seriously" - did not
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the ability to play with his own dignity in comedies without losing it" - bit informal, what does this mean? Without mismanaging it?
 Done Changed to "without losing control of it".  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led to press rumors" - rumours. Should we proceed with using British English in this article? I think it makes sense because he's an English actor despite being an American citizen. I'll continue to note down any mispellings I find but feel free to ignore Nevermind
  • I strongly recommend removing the infobox. It's a bit bloated and redundant. The lead would look much better without the text being squashed

Body

  • "while his mother, who also worked at the factory as a seamstress, was from a family of shipwrights" - how about while his mother (who also worked at the factory as a seamstress) was from a family of shipwrights, feel free to ignore
  • "McCann mentions that Maureen Donaldson, a lover of Grant's in the 1970s" - Grant
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Grant later attributed her behavior towards him" - behaviour
  • "As a child, Archie enjoyed playing in thhe strawberry fields behind his house" - typo
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " One two-week stint at the Wintergarten in Berlin" - One two-week stints at the Wintergarten theatre in Berlin
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 5, 1911, Archie sailed to New York on the Lusitania with the Pender Troupe" - write it out as RMS Lusitania
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his father barely scraping together enough money to pay for his uniform" - informal sentence, try his father barely affording to pay for his uniform
 Done As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archie became a part of the vaudeville world" - world? Is this a similar metaphor to "the vaudeville culture"?
Doc, I'm gonna need your help on this.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common expression.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and toured with Parker and Rand" - who is Parker and Rand? A company or two people? Needs clarification
I think it was a touring company but couldn't find anything further so removed the names.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and Los Angeles by later October" - try by October that year
  • "After a tour of the mid West in 1924" - not sure if west needs to be capitalised. You could just say Midwestern United States or American Midwest
  • " with several of the other members when the rest of the troupe returned to England [53] Archie " - missing full stop and extra space
  • "as a soldier named Cary Lockwood in post-World I France." - post-World War I
  • "and it went uncredited, after seeing him on screen, Robinson instantly" - this is the first mention of Robinson, so his full name Casey Robinson should be written out here
  • "Through Casey Robinson, Archie met" - likewise, remove 'Casey' in this sentence
  • "Schulberg signed a contract with the 27-year-old Archie" - no need for the hyphen in 'old' (these points are becoming increasingly minor LOL) -yes you hyphen that too, see this
  • "shot in England by the independent studio, Garrett Klement Pictures" - no need for comma
  • "and encouraged him to improvize his lines" - improvise (this is American spelling too)
  • "he finished the year playing a wealthy landowner" - capital letter needed
  • "Morecambe and Sterling noted that a The Hollywood Reporter reviewer wrote" - noted that a reviewer from The Hollywood Reporter wrote
  • "He was photographed visiting wounded Marines in hospitals" - no need for capital
  • " to infiltrate a Nazi organisation in Brazil" - organization (we're going for US spelling now)
  • "and was not box office success" - missing "a"
  • "remarking that the actor "was never more at home than in this role of the advertising-man-on-the-lam." and handles his role" - no full stop needed
  • "One scene required Grant to strip down to shorts and shoes and participate in an Olympic marathon" - I don't see how this sentence is relevant
I though it quite an unusual scene for Grant to have been competing in a marathon in shorts and shoes, worth mentioning to understand his role in the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He confessed to being attracted to women who were "secure" with themselves" - I would lose the quote here
  • "Grant was hospitalised for 17 days with three broken ribs and bruising" - hospitalized
  • "Though his close friend Roderick Mann recalled that he'd met up with Grant" - he had
  • The four last links in the External links section are all dead
 Done All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

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. JAGUAR  14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is the article excessively long, or containing too many lengthy quotes? Is the use of a discredited source (see article talk page) in any way an impediment here? Collect (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't contain that many lengthy quotes, except the ones in the boxes which I think are inciteful and boost the article. Most of them are paraphrased and shortened and are encyclopedic. The source is not discredited entirely, just the controversial content on homosexuality and Nazism. We don't rely much on the Higham source anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: There isn't any specific length limit for GA I believe, is there? Its already trimmed by 13-14 kbs and now stands at 78 kbs of "readable prose".  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks for the review, Jaguar. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done you two! By all means, let's promote this. JAGUAR  15:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

problems

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The photo "promoting seafood" is from a regular recipe feature of the magazine. This is a page "promoting" laundry soap. This information had to be added to the file
File:Randolph Scott Cary Grant dinner at home.jpg because of disruptive editing
by the complaining editor. If you examine the file, nowhere was a claim regarding 12 years made by anyone other than the disruptive editor-a false claim.
The frenzy began after he hoped to be rid of the file but was unfamiliar with US copyright before 1978. Similar material is at the Randolph Scott article, but when advised of it, he contended it was not his problem and no reply to my direct question. Apparently there's selectivity-the ones he's watching; if it's objectionable here, it should be objectionable there as well unless this is agenda-driven for whatever reason. We hope (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe this article meets the GA criteria, and I propose to delist it. A few examples:
  • "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.
  • There is far too much detail about individual films, making the article too dense.
I agree that it could use a trim still, which I've gradually doing...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that this article needs a proper GA review, not one done hurriedly in a few hours. Eric Corbett 16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sure Dr. Blofeld will do what he can to address any of these issues. I would probably view some of Collect's concerns void. JAGUAR  16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd probably be wrong. Eric Corbett 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article did need a trim but I disagree that a stark minimum is an improvement, but I'm coming from a film buff perspective where information about a lot of the films, some detail on production and characters he played make the article more interesting to read. If you strip away some of the details the article becomes less comprehensive, less informative, and in all honesty boring. You take away all the details as Eric wants nd you're basically left with "In 1944 Grant starred in xx. It was a commercial failure. In 1946 Grant starred in xxx. It did well. Boring isn't it? I'd rather have an article which respects his film career and conveys decent information about it, but he does have a point that the general reader who isn't a film or Grant fan might not want to read much detail in an overview, and of course we have to think of the general reader on there. I think the Rod Steiger article is a good example of how it should be done, that has reasonably decent detail while being concise at the same time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got onto looking at the late 30s - 40s bit of the biography now and going through all the films is a bit of a slog, but I can't honestly think of any better way of doing it than how Blofeld has done it here. I think it's a general problem with biographies, once you've got past the early life and onto the main career, it's hard to get something that isn't "in 'x' he did 'a', in 'y' he did 'b', in 'z' he did 'c', oh my word I'm so excited I might just fall over....." Possibly throw in the odd bit of personal information or something outside of the filming career is possible, like being ill in I Was a Male War Bride. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, but that was the strongest part of his career that 1937-1941 period, so many prominent films now, you need to place weight and more detail on that, but I'll see if I can condense it a bit later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review

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)[reply]

I've expressed concerns about the prominence of the homosexuality and LSD sections, but they've been trimmed down so I think that issue's been resolved. I'm going through copyediting the article now and if I spot anything else I'll drop it here. Also paging @Cassianto:, @SchroCat:, @97198:, @Montanabw: as we might as well get everyone to help (many hands make light work and all that). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that given the weight placed on them in multiple reputable biographies, there's even chapters devoted to them, that a smallish sub section wouldn't have been that unreasonable, but I think it reads better trimmed down without sections. Of course we could create an entire article on Randolph Scott and Cary Grant ;-), and I reckon you could find enough material to make an article stick!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Maybe not completely removed. If the explanation or fact stated from the Higham book is the same as one from McCann or Wansell, you can substitute Higham with either one of them. For instance, the line "and would reduce pocket money for minor mishaps, whether it was marking the table cloth or misplacing a cushion" has reference from both Higham's & McCann's book. if McCann mentions it completely, the Higham reference can be removed there. Likewise for other Higham references. Your call, Doc.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Obviously not invented"? Sorry - that would have us using Parson Weems for everything we assert is "obviously not invented" about George Washington. Once a source is discredited in substantial part, it is discredited in full. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your best option is to go to
WP:RSN and thrash it out there. In a similar manner, I can't abide people citing the Daily Mail in biographies (and indeed, I removed one from this very article only yesterday) but you if you look in the RSN archives you'll find that there is a distinct lack of consensus for that, with arguments on all sides. In the meantime, I would say if there is a consensus that what is left cited to Higham is not controversial and does not have any serious likelihood of being factually wrong, it should stand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Checking the many discussions about the Daily Mail at RS/N and BLP/N, you will find a strong consensus that it is ill-used for "celebrity gossip" and ill-used for "sensational headlines" but is generally accurate in relaying press releases and statements of fact about sport and politics, though one must note where opinion columns are used that opinions should always be used and cited as such. Meanwhile examine Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_208#Cary_Grant and note that this has been asked there. Collect (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and I did see it was asked there, but I didn't see any firm agreement one way or the other; there were claims of it being used for 2/3 of the cites in the article but I don't believe that's the case now. I have trimmed out a few Higham opinions, but for all the criticism of the book, I don't believe inaccuracy of reporting dates of performances is part of that. As for the Mail, that's something we'll just have to agree to disagree over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little unfair, Jaguar, not to mention immature. CassiantoTalk 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Cassianto, I think this place is driving me insane. You're right. I need to take some time off. JAGUAR  14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding per a ping) I'm probably best here at resolving differences of opinion more than copyediting. As far as length goes, it's not over the top for a comprehensive biography on a major film legend. As of right now, the LGBT material is not at all excessive, it may have been over-trimmed, I don't think there is a problem including it, I lean with Blofeld that there is enough smoke to make it a case of whitewashing not to examine the question. Perhaps an entire subsection is a bit much, but as of now it sounds like there was simply no evidence at all other than gossip. The idea of a spinoff article might be worth considering, but if so, then a {{see also}} should be incorporated here. The LSD material is probably OK as is, he wasn't Timothy Leary or anything... (LOL). I'm frustrated that the GAN reviewer demanded removal of the infobox, which I feel is inappropriate for a film actor article, though that is a totally separate discussion. Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply
]

It had been met anyway, and everybody knows it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs fix

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)[reply]

I shouldn't worry about that. This GAN has seen more treading than
Timberlands. CassiantoTalk 23:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources

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)[reply]

Use of "Archie"

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)[reply
]

Indeed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leach or Grant

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)[reply]

I would also use "Grant" throughout. In fact last night, I started to adjust this in the early sections. I don't understand why we would be referring to him by using his birth name at all. CassiantoTalk 08:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to call him "Grant" throughout the article as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I thought the convention was to use birth name until the subject becomes the title of the article. He wasn't known as Grant when he was in vaudeville. That was why, and I've seen this frequently done in articles where there is a later name change, so assumed this was convention. I agree it would be easier to just call him Grant throughout.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I think you're supposed to use the name that's the article title (see also Wikipedia:Article titles). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
But he's the only one who changed his name--we now have a "Grandmother Grant", where we previously had a "Grandmother Leach"-the mother of Grant's father. We hope (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it a bit - we don't need to know which grandmother (or the address either). - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theat er/re

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)[reply]

Yes, it should be all US spelling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review?

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[reply]

I agree that would be a good move, but can I finish my copy edit before it opens? I'd like to finish that before looking at the article with a fresh pair of eyes for a PR. – SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So is there an official GAR out there or just some general complaining? (I'd say a PR is in order) Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, but there might well be soon. PR is of course moribund. Eric Corbett 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge personal life

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)[reply]

I've done both in my time, but prefer to have the personal life within the main chronology: people's lives are not so easily pigeon-holed, particularly as many of his relationships were were with other thespians. It does break up what may feel like a list of films/actors/reviews in the prose, particularly if he appeared in a film with someone he later had a relationship with. Idea be tempted to include his business work in with the main chronology too: it's all part of an overall picture of shifts of focus within a lifetime. – SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The business work would be more suited to later life section I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pondering this, but I think I would support the merge. It breaks up the list of films and makes things a bit more readable, and it buries the gay rumours (or what's left of them) into the main narrative so they don't leap out like
Daffyd Thomas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WikiProject LGBT Studies

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)[reply]

I'd say the question falls within the scope of the project, but I don't see why there would be a problem rearranging the order of the project links. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any project may set whatever standards it wishes .. but using "objectionable" to refer to any editor where the meaning in English is extremely unfortunate, should be quite avoided. What is, moreover, clear is that no sexuality categories ought be applied. Captain Kirk has been the subject of many LGBT sources as well. Care to try adding it? Collect (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That third rail

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)[reply]

Having been involved in several discussions on the bloody things recently, I really don't want to get involved in another, but I will just say the WikiData line is a straw man: the information already exists (it can be seen here, containing all the pointless factoids that don't actually tell us anything important). There may be other arguments for inclusion, but WD isn't one of them, I'm afraid. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also slightly unclear on the size issue for this image. The coding doesn't force a size onto it, and the MoS-suggested "thumb" parameter is the one that is in use, so it should appear no larger or smaller than many other images on the page (and across the encyclopaedia generally). Do you have a size preference set, Montana? I think I see that the image size was changed in the interim. It should be an acceptable size now. – SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Access dates for Google Books

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)[reply]

Hi,
linkrot. I do not insist that you insert them and likewise there is no need for you to insist that anybody remove them once in place. The bolded words (your emphasis) do not appear in the documentation for {{cite book
}} unless I am blind, which I am.
Where is the MoS on book publishing dates? Does it limit us to year only? I have seen many instances of full dates and never gave it a second thought. Cheers! {{u|
Talk} 08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As you've been told, Linkrot has nothing to do with books. The published work - identified by the unique ISBN - is what matters. it doesn't matter when the page was accessed, because it's still the same book. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I've removed the access dates to Google book refs. For the publishing year, that's yours and Doc's call.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi,
Talk} 09:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, time for you to depersonalise this. As your recent trip to ANI and subsequent discussions on
WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to be a big problem here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) There are valid arguments for putting them in, and valid arguments for not putting them in. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter too much, so if people like them in, put them in, if people don't like them in, accept it and move on to something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What matters more than access date is the URL, as if that is the source used, others need to be able to see that version. It is asking too much to ask five FAC reviewers to all get the hardcopy through ILL. The accessdate parameter probably isn't necessary, but I have seen some google books have changes in content visible. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote boxes

"Look at the use of that template, David!" "Quite agree Susan, I can't believe that combination of brackets and commas can be parsed."

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)[reply
]

I was the reverter on that point. The use of blockquote is a deliberate choice by most editor, based on the formatting of the page, and the break of the text around the box. Using the QUOTE template provides a sub-standard reader experience in many cases. It's not always the case, and the QUOTE form is often far superior, but to think the form verboten is something that does not help in providing good quality articles. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
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:
  1. Convert the quote boxes to blockquotes using the {{
    quote
    }}     template. Or:
  2. Incorporate the quote box content into the body of the article so the quote boxes are indeed pull quotes.
No big deal to go either way. Pick you flavor. Sounds like #2 would be win/win for the smartphone angle.
(
Talk} 09:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As other included the boxes not me (I only reverted against your edit) perhaps you should depersonalise the debate by not finger pointing. It certainly is not just me: there are numerous FAs and GAs and others that use the form in this way. As above, it provides a better reader experience, and the flexible guidelines of the MoS can be ignored from time to time when practical considerations are better than dogma. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Sorry. I do not like finger pointing. The fact that other articles do it has nothing to do with anything. You know that. Cheers! {{u|
Talk} 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If you don't like finger pointing, why have you done it in two threads here? Others inserted the boxes here, not me, and if I hadn't reverted you, Ritchie would have done (as he's said at the top of the thread). - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would be pretty cool if Cary and Kate actually commented in this discussion.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen pull quotes used on Wikipedia. Plenty of FA-class articles use quote boxes in the manner in which they are used here. Similarly to images, they make it easier for the reader to delve into the text, by highlighting important aspects of the subject; in biographies, they make it possible to inject the subject's opinions and thoughts or examples of analysis of the subject into the article without cluttering the main text. I looked at
User:Checkingfax's suggestions, and while made in good faith, they seem very odd to me. I've never seen blockquotes which are not part of the previous sentence of the non-blockquoted text (i.e. when a quote that's longer than three lines is included in the main body of text) used in an article. Checkingfax, can you please provide examples of FA-class articles where quotes are inserted in this manner? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply
]
Indeed, we don't "do" pull quotes at all, I ran into this issue on one of my FACs a couple years back. The template documentation is out of date and out of sync with what they are actually used for. Quote boxes versus blockquote inline is a matter of taste and purpose; a quote box is almost a graphic element, taking a quotation as a sampling all but discobnected from the narrative text, while blockquote is best used for substantive quotes within the context of the article body. That said, the quote boxes here probably need to have the background color lightened up to improve readability, it's an accessibility issue. Montanabw(talk) 05:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
]

oh good... Another tedious wall of text (stalking me now? Going out of your way to spread your disruptive poison?) as to the lie that the use on Dr No is "trivial commentary", you've been corrected on that already, so try not to be so dishonest in your bludgeoning of other people's opinions. – SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help feeling that that
wall of text above is supposed to be ironic. "Horizontal space is at a great premium and cannot very practically be indented away" - which is, in fact, exactly what you get when you read Wikipedia on an iPhone or Android-derived smartphone, which millions of people do daily. My favouring of quotation boxes has nothing to do with any point of view, but from usability and readability. I would recommend SMcCandlish reads "Painless Functional Specifications - Part 4: Tips", particularly the section containing "Avoid walls of text: entire pages with just text. People get scared and don't read them." A genuine "bombastic and PoV-pushing news style technique" is the front page of The Sun last Thursday. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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: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:

  • WP:UNDUE
    favoritism toward a particular biographer among several (one who is arguably getting too much attention throughout the article more generally).
  • Causing non sequiturs in the prose, such that anyone following the main text will be confused if they didn't also study the quote-box captions.
  • Injecting comments into confusing places without any context for them, other than be in some way related to the entire section in which they appeared; this is terrible information organization, and is a marketing "woot! look at this cute box! give us your attention, sheep!" tactic that does not belong in an encyclopedia.
  • Drawing unwarranted attention to trivia.
  • Treating short quotations as if block quotations.
  • Even omitting important contextual details that are right there in the same source.
  • Obviously, it confuses readers into thinking these are
    pull quotes
    when they are not. This is problematic because pull quote are used to draw reader attention to in-context version (often expanded) in the main prose, with supporting material. So, these boxes are misleading readers into content treasure hunts that lead nowhere.

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)[reply
]

Here's an idea: Can the quote box template be modified to give a more style-compatible rendering on the main version, and a background-instead-of-indent rendering on mobile? The text might still need to be better integrated to flow right. Or perhaps a subtle background and tiny indent on both? Probably it will be safer to add a box/background option and less indentation on the quote template, and reduce the mobile issue that way. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, I'm having trouble visualising what you mean by that. Could you do a mock up somewhere that we could all look at? Thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do templates or html/css. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing infobox

There is a lovely sunset outside your window.... please look at it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"We have better things to do than this again". Quite. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I say restore it and expand the infobox so it spans the entire right side of the article like the Winston Churchill article. That would look cool ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone who worked with the article certainly does have better things to do than to revisit this, but those who insist on IBs appear to have nothing better to do than to start the quest again. The manner in which "We have better things to do than this again." seems to imply that the reviewer, the principal editors and everyone else who assisted with the Grant article are out of line for not having one and need to be brought back into line like naughty kids.
Hi, Dr. Blofeld. OK, you made me look, you made me look, you made me look like a dirty crook: Winston Churchill has five-and-a-half screens of infobox, and sixty screens below the infobox, for a total or nearly sixty-six screens.
I am surprised that a GA reviewer's comments led to the removal of a long established infobox. Cheers! {{u|
Talk} 03:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We hope (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you not got anything else you could be doing, Gerda? CassiantoTalk 17:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cary Grant
Publicity photo of actor Cary Grant
Publicity photo of Cary Grant for Suspicion (1941)
Further information
Born
Archibald Alexander Leach

(1904-01-18)January 18, 1904
Cerebral hemorrhage
Other namesArchie Leach
EducationBishop Road Primary School
Fairfield Grammar School
OccupationActor
Years active1922–1966
Spouse(s)
​
​
(m. 1934; div. 1935)​

​
​
(m. 1942; div. 1945)​

​
​
(m. 1949; div. 1962)​

​
​
(m. 1965; div. 1968)​

Barbara Harris
​
​
(m. 1981)​
PartnerMaureen Donaldson (1973–1977)
ChildrenJennifer Grant
AwardsAcademy Honorary Award (1970) For his unique mastery of the art of screen acting with the respect and affection of his colleagues.
Kennedy Center Honors (1981)
  • There's a huge number of arguments in favor of an infobox. The diff for removal "(per GAN)" suggests it's needed to be removed for the GAN, but the GAN merely suggests there is a size issue. But if the infobox is collapsed I see no reason for this statement. Surely that's a sensible compromise? A collapsed infobox? I still can't see why people will object. Or is another RfC needed to convince people? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A visitor courtesy of Gerda's rather unsubtle canvassing. – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please restore the info box. There was no justification for completely removing it. JOJ Hutton 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. CassiantoTalk 20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't give a shit, frankly. So save your threats for someone who cares. CassiantoTalk 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given you've never edited the page, never commented on this talk page and are only here because of Gerda's canvassing, why do we have to follow your instructions? Can I suggest there could be other things for you to concentrate your mind on. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look would you like to stop the
    ad hominems and actually address my points? Why not have a collapsed infobox as a compromise? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I suggest you look up the article
    ad hominems to remind you. All the arguments have been made against my editing history, not my argument that has been completely ignored. Calling them "idiot boxes" is not a valid argument in my book. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oh dear, you weren't canvassed were you? Tut, tut, tut... CassiantoTalk 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I suggest you look it up and work out its not a noun and shouldn't be used as such. As to your "arguments", you have put forward a suggestion, but no reasons why we should be following your suggestion (which is why your prior non-involvement in anything relating to this article has been raised). As to the name "idiot box", I've not made any arguments, so I'm a little bemused by your comment. Do you want to read that sentance and try again? – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the observation that GAN suggesting that the infobox was too long is not grounds for wholesale deletion, and that removing it on that basis is disingenuous, even
    WP:POINTy. I also observe that most of our well-developed articles have them, and that we know for a fact that mobile readers make heavy use of them, and that a large number of desktop readers like them, as do many editors. We also ARBCOM admonitions not not editwar over them, and a reminder from ARBCOM that no wikiproject is empowered to demand that they be left off of "their" articles. All that said, that doesn't mean there's a consensus for or against having one on this particular article. I wuold bet a bazillion dollars that if an RfC were held on the matter at Village Pump that the consensus would be to include one here, because their presence on bios has become a de facto norm, but that an RfC on this article particular talk page would be likely come to the opposite conclusion because of a bloc vote by a cluster of individuals who don't like infoboxes. (Prediction based on observation of previous debates of this sort, where they were held, and what the outcomes where.) The likelihood that I'm correct on this guess suggests to me that the anti-infobox position is doomed, because there's already a clear site-wide consensus in favor of infoboxes, in part because a lot of opinions against them have changed over the last decade, as they've become increasingly functional (and as loci of dispute, like the |ethnicity= parameter, have been removed). But only time will tell, I guess; I'm just making a prediction based on a prediction here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Re: Main editors of the article

  • According to stats, these are the article's main editors. We hope (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I claim that my points were important to making it a good article - including the fact that it otherwise kept using poor sourcing, that some claims were not backed by actual sources, that it repeatedly violated MOS, etc. I do not make as many edits per article as some do (edit countitis) and my editing of Joseph Widney made clear in the past, it is not simply adding masses of badly sourced verbiage that improves an article, but improving articles can take many forms. The game-playing of attacking me and "shaming" me that has pervaded the thought processes of some editors because I deigned to think that a good article review taking under 2 hours which failed to note the over-reliance on a fabulist, and scores of MIS violations was a tad inadequate is indicative of an attitude on the part of some editors who think tag-teaming "shaming" is a sport which is a proud one to partake in. I have now been "shamed" more than 300%, which well ought be enough for such editors. 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. "Good articles" must serve the reader, and not serve egos. Collect (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • This is nothing more than serving your ego. If you claim to have made it better by trimming, so what: you didn't bring it to GA and you were only partly involved in the editing - certainly not enough to try and claim any credit. It's dishonest and your "rationale" only makes it worse that you don't see it. It reminds me of the way politicians try and wriggle out of things. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noted a bunch of problems, and pointing out such items as false claims about Grant coming through Ellis Island, the gross abuse of a poor source on Grant, the MOS violations, and (on another article) copyright violations from a source etc. all represent what I consider the proper functions of any real editor (WP:The task of an editor) Feel free to disagree, but the idiocy of a "shaming campaign" posted on multiple talk pages, and blaming me for unsourced claims which I was not the one to add in the first place on an article, is a tad outré at best. YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And claiming for something you have not done is not covered by "idiocy"? It's dishonest and shabby, but if you still refuse to remove the dishonesty and still try and justify the unjustifiable, then I am glad not to have come across you before and hope not to do so again. Pointing out errors is the basic stuff of what we should be doing: claiming credit for other people's work is intellectually dishonest, shabby and rather shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WooHoo - See WP:The task of an editor essay please. Editors are not just those who inflate articles with poor sources, and who ignore the MOS and the like. And who are willing to tolerate copyright violations even after they are pointed out. But, hell, I only have 44K edits. Collect (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of his edits were reverted anyway because he removed valid content at the same time!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WooHoo... An essay written by you? If you go to that length to justify being morally bankrupt, I would hate to see what you would do if it is something important. Mind you, from the person who gave the world the sentance "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)[reply]
Tendentious baiting– SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:VESTED.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you on a one man mission to piss as many people off as humanly possible? CassiantoTalk 08:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you on a mission to get blocked yet again for personal attacks?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death age

Why is his age of death not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.6.162 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is, 82, cited to Morecambe & Sterling p. 324 - did somebody recently add this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We knew that and found it easily, not even two weeks ago, but you told us to look at the sun ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep-read this and added it-feel free to revert if you like. We hope (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would anyone revert that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cary_Grant&oldid=728309902"