Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 1

I changed the British-born back to English-born, as I couldn't see the reason for it and there was no comment left here. Please feel free to discuss it here. Nevilley 07:33 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

"British-born American actor" i though was right because Grant was born in the United Kingdom - England is not an independent country by itself - if it were so your version would be correct - and the "American actor" part is because he is most famous for his American films - offhand i can't think of any British ones he did. PMelvilleAustin 08:38 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I don't dispute the American bit and if that was me that removed it, it was a mistake, sorry. I've put it back in. Though I note that we don't in the article have when he became American, which might have been interesting. Maybe someone can add it in. -- I don't follow the logic about English vs British: I don't see how it matters as a precise question of legal citizenship - it is a fact that he was born in England, and that would seem enough - we need to know in which country (in however vague a sense!) it was because "Bristol" will not do it for everyone, but "English" is well understood and I couldn't see the need to change it to the rather wider "British". I'm not (I hope) being nationalistic or silly here (not on purpose anyway) - I just think that it's a more precise yet still universally understood way of explaining his origin. In the same way, I'd think it was more useful to say that Sean Connery is Scottish than just that he is British. I hope this makes some kind of sense! :) Nevilley 15:12 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I've changed "American" to "United States|American". "American" is a just a disambiguation page so the link should go to the country. (I know this doesn't always happen, there are lots of links to nationalities, but I'm working on it!) -- sannse 15:23 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

yep, sorry, my bad (as they say!) :) Nevilley 15:45 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

s'OK :) BTW, He became an American citizen June 26th, 1942. I've not added it because I'm not sure of the best place for it to go. -- sannse 15:50 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've stuck it in what I hope is a reasonable place, at the end of the para with lots of other life events and dates and things. Nevilley 16:08 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have added him to Category:Natives of Bristol. Though tenuous, there is a statue to him there, and I think it is relevant to that category, though am happy to hear otherwise. User:Pseudosocrates 18:31, 24 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In another article I worked on I put: "British-American to describe someone who had very strong ties to both, born in the U.K. but mainly lived in America. WikiDon 06:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Anglo-American", simply because it sounds better. User:Johnhpaulin 12:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound better, but I'm not sure that it is better. "Anglo-American" can refer to any white or English-speaking American, regardless of whether they have English or British bloodlines. Merriam-Webster's definition of the term is "a North American whose native language is English; especially : an inhabitant of the U.S. of English origin or descent." I'm reverting the word back to the more accurate English-American. | Keithlaw 21:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing you did when I first saw the change. But if you click on the link the Anglo and read it, it does work. I think we in the U.S. have taken the word Anglo and changed it to mean any white-European. Maybe British-American is better than English-American? English does define a person to be from England, but maybe it confuses people who think of it as someone who speaks English? WikiDon 21:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo entry here seems ambiguous to me; at best, you can say that there are substantial regional differences in the way "Anglo-American" is used, which I think is still a point for avoiding it. For example, the Anglo entry says that referring to white non-Hispanics as "Anglos" is comparable to calling all Latinos "Mexicans," but if "Anglo" is interpreted as a diminutive of "Anglophone" (which it is in some places), then that analogy doesn't hold true. Back to our man Cary G, I would say that either British-American or English-American is preferable to Anglo-American. I only chose "English-American" because that was how the article stood before the last edit - no other reason. | Keithlaw 21:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant may have taken American citizenship, but so did Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Hopkins. As I am writing this, Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) is becoming an American citizen. Technically, he will have dual nationality. But Grant traded very much on his Britishness in his films. The English-American should be changed to English or British. British would be his nationality, since the country is the United Kingdom - it's the difference between calling George W. Bush and American or a Texan. British is the more common American way to describe someone from UK, partly I suspect as it is less offensive to them. I'll wait for objections, but if there are none, I'll change it to bring it more in line with other Wikipedia profiles. User:Scott197827 10/13/05 8:34 PM

The difference is that Cary Grant became American before 1949 (he naturalised in 2002) while Hitchcock and Hopkins did so later on. As a result he automatically lost his British nationality upon US naturalisation while they did not. JAJ 15:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to BRITISH-American. As to him "trading on his Britishness", the answer is "NO". From the point that he became a legitimite big-time STAR, with 1940's His Girl Friday, he rarely played an Englishman again, four out of the next 38 film roles. In addition, in his private life, he had no intrest in living in the U.K.

• His Girl Friday - American
• My Favorite Wife - American
• The Howards of Virginia - American
• The Philadelphia Story - American
• Penny Serenade - American
• Suspicion - British
• The Talk of the Town - American
• Once Upon a Honeymoon - Irish-American
• Mr. Lucky - Greek-American
• Destination Tokyo - American
• Once Upon a Time – Irish-American
• None But the Lonely Heart – British
• Arsenic and Old Lace - American
• Night and Day - American
• Notorious - American
• The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer - American
• The Bishop's Wife - American
• Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House - American
• Every Girl Should Be Married - American
• I Was a Male War Bride - American
• Crisis - American
• People Will Talk - American
• Room for One More - American
• Monkey Business
  - American
• Dream Wife - American
• To Catch a Thief - American
• An Affair to Remember - American
• The Pride and the Passion - British
• Kiss Them for Me - American
• Indiscreet - American
• Houseboat - American
• North by Northwest - American
• Operation Petticoat - American
• The Grass Is Greener - British
• That Touch of Mink - American
• Charade - American
• Father Goose
  - American
• Walk, Don't Run - American

WikiDon 04:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point, and well backed up. Under the circumstances, I think British-American is a fair description. User:Scott197827 10/16/05

In Walk Don't Run, Grant actually played an Englishman named Sir William Rutland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.240.152 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. British-American means someone born in America of British origins. (Ted Kennedy, for example, is described as Irish-American. That means American-born of Irish extraction, not Irish born but lived in the US.) Grant was born in Britain, of British origins, so he was 100% British. Just because you work in a country doesn't make you from that country. If it did, then Pierce Brosnan would be American, not Irish (he makes it clear he is 100% Irish) Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother would have been English, not Scottish (she called herself Scottish because she was born there), Pope Benedict XVI would be Italian, not German because he has spent 60% of his life in different phases living in Italy, Michael Jackson would now be from the middle east, not the US, diplomats worldwide who are permanently based in the UN in New York would all be American. American diplomats based permanently in the UN in Geneva would all be Swiss. It is a nonsensical argument. Take the example of John Lennon. If he was still alive now, and still living in New York he would have recorded more music in the US than in the UK. Would that now mean we would describe him as American?

Where you are from and where you work are two unrelated things. The facts are simple. Grant was British. He worked most of his career in the US film business. That is accurate. Anything else isn't. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in Walk Don't Run Grant played a British-American named Sir William Rutland. Sir William's mother, he says, was American. --Greybean (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both his 1904 birth certificate and his 1920 passenger list to the US report his name as Archibald Alec Leach. Questors 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, changed. Kraxler 14:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the very first paragraph of Cary Grant's abandoned autobiography, (which is available for viewing at www.archieleach.com), he mentions himself that his middle name is/was Alexander. I have not updated the site, as I have yet to obtain proof that it was actually written by Cary, though have no reason to assume it wasn't. Advise please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.240.152 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From his autobiography ch 4.

My, how unclever of me not to have taken cheerful advantage of every opportunity to learn, to acquire skills of any kind, when I had the chance. Instead I cut class after class. One afternoon another boy of equal curiosity and I decided to sneak over to the girls' side of the school to investigate the inside of the girls' lavatories -- known to polite Americans as rest rooms. No one was around. I kept watch at the end of the corridor while he went in to see what it looked like in there. And then just as it came my turn to explore the inner sanctum, I was suddenly, out of nowhere, shrilly nabbed by a powerful female who must have been the hockey teacher at least. Anyway, that did it. My fellow culprit dashed to freedom, and in no time at all I was on the carpet in the study of Augustus "Gussie" Smith, the headmaster. I'd been a frequent visitor there and evidently that was the last straw.

The following morning when the school filed in for morning prayer in the assembly-hall my name was called and I was marched up the steps onto the dais and taken to stand next to Gussie Smith, where, with a quivering lip that I did my best to control, I hazily heard such words as "inattentive ... irresponsible and incorrigible ... discredit to the school," and so forth, and through a trance-like mixture of emotions realized I was being publicly expelled in front of the assembled school.

I quote this to justify my reversion of censorship. Paul Beardsell 01:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In autobiographies people tend to whitewash some not so nice incidents in their lifes. The real reason for his being expelled from Fairfield is said (as researched by biographers Higham and Moseley) to have been either a theft, or having been on the girl's side of the schoolyard, not in the "restroom". Since this point is disputed I deleted it. Kraxler 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that "some biographers including Marc Eliot" believe Grant and Scott and a romantic relationship. Are there any biographers other that Eliot who claim this. I know there were tabloid rumors, but if Eliot is the only biographer to say this "some biagrapher including Marc Eliot" should be changed to "one biograhper Marc Eliot". Also I'm wondering how reliable Eliot is. I looked at the reviews for his biography on the Eagles on Amazon and many of the posters there slammed him for inaccuracies in that book.--Heathcliff 02:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-inserted the little bit about Cary Grant and Randolph Scott's preported relationship. Idle gossip or not, since no one here actually knew either of the two men, it's really rather hard to come to a definative conclusion. However, I have read several other bio's including Marc Eliot's, that furnish some evidence as to the relationship, not to mention the rumors had been circulating for about forty years before Eliot's book. Don't presume to whitewash someone else's life just because you don't agree with it. 63.229.217.132 04:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the story I had read before:

• • ‘Grant became a member of a Vaudeville troupe at around age 13. He traveled, ate, drank, slept, etc with his fellow troupe members. During this time, age 13-15, he was introduced to sex with fellow male members of the troupe. Being the age that he was, he was extremely impressionable, and as such went along with what ever they said and did. This introduction to sex with men carried with him to Hollywood, but by the time he was about 23, he decided that he was heterosexual, and from that point on did not have sex with a male again.’

WikiDon 06:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia. Usually (facts) are stated and supported with evidence in an encyclopedia, not rumor. Users that "re-insert" things that have been edited and chastise others for attempting to whitewash Cary Grants life should back up and attempt to be objective. Idle gossip hardly qualifies as fact and shouldn't be "re-inserted" on a page dedicated to factual data to push the editors lifestyle. Rumors should be moved to the discussion page, where they belong. Another point: Was the story used to make your point submitted with permission?

From my understanding, Wikipedia allows rumors as long as they come from a published source, which is bunk, but there you have it. They don't care. Boze Hadleigh, for instance, claims he interviewed Cary Grant and that Cary Grant made a pass at him. Of course, he published this after Grant was dead and of course, as typical of Boze, he had no tape recorder. Also, everyone in his book whatever it was sounded alike. Anyway, I was assigned to interview Cary Grant for a magazine involving an award he was getting at a big dinner. I spoke to his wife at some length but I got NOTHING out of Cary Grant. NOTHING. He did not like to talk to reporters and he never said anything you could even quote. Given Boze Hadleigh's reputation, a known gay writer who writes about lesbians and gays, true or not, how is it possible that Grant talked to him - and then made a pass? Give me a break! He was very quick to sue Chevy Chase, if you recall.

Cary Grant may indeed have been gay or bisexual. He never liked being labeled as gay. And he was very comfortable doing bits with women's clothing in films and saying things like the ad-lib quoted above. Even today in Hollywood, a gay actor often will refuse to do things like that or play a gay character. Hopefully that is changing somewhat. People should be allowed to live as they really are and not have to hide anything. As far as Randolph Scott, this was apparently a huge joke between them, and on the recent Cary Grant documentary, they showed a photo of Scott autographed "To my wife" as a bow to the rumors. Could be true, might not be true. There were many strange roommate situations in Hollywood especially back then. No way to know. But if it's in a book - it's okay by Wikipedia.Chandler75 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this point in the discussion below: published <> reliable. Unfortunately, too many Wikipedians believe that anything that has been printed in a book or a newspaper must be true. It is a recipe for POV-pushing. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors about Cary Grant's bisexuality surrounded him continuously from the time he arrived in the US and roomed with Orry-Kelly. It is not possible to write a serious biography of the man without including this information. Writers like Hadleigh and Higham are dismissed out of hand for "trying to prove everyone in Hollywood was gay", when in fact their books focus on a very small number of people, most of whom were unquestionably homosexual or bisexual. I'd be interested to know exactly what standard must be applied in Wikipedia biographies -- how does one define a "reliable" source?209.78.192.27 21:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cleese's character in "A Fish Called Wanda", a very buttoned-down man who feels insecure in his marriage and secretly desires to break free and live an exciting life, was called Archie Leach... am I alone in suspecting a link? (This might be relevant to the Leach references section)--Ponytail 6 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

I just had the same idea when reading his original name. Maybe there is something on IMDB, I'll check. Ben ^T/_C 04:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note about this footnote: 1. The script actually had Dexter (Grant) saying " I. . . I suppose you think its odd, my wearing this. I realise it looks odd. . . I don't usually . . . I mean, I don't own one of these." However Grant ad-libbed his own line, "No. I've just gone gay . . . all of the sudden." Vito Russo, The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies [revised edition] Harrow & Row, 1987. p.47 It has a mistake, it is making reference to Cary Grant's quote from the film Bringing Up Baby in which his character's name was Dr. David Huxley, but this footnote states Grant's character name as Dexter, there must have been some confusion with Cary Grant's character in The Philadelphia Story, C. K. Dexter Haven. As I am unsure if the mistake was made by the poster or if it comes out of the book The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies [revised edition] Harrow & Row, 1987. p.47 I am posting it here for you all to check on.

RE:

"Grant also sometimes claimed that one of his parents was of

Anglican

."

If this is your source [1]:

"The source of this rumor...

...which contends.....

They theorize.......

Since there is little evidence to support this entire theory.....

...which was reported second-hand....

Cary did not practice any religion in any formal or traditional sense

...his ideas on spirituality and God are fairly generic and agnostic...

If Cary's natural mother...."

I am removing it AGAIN.

PS:

1) This is an encyclopedia, if you can find it in Britanica, or World Book, etc., we'll put it in.

2) In any case, we don't use terms like "in any case".

3) This was NOT very important to the man in his life, nor should it be important to an article like this, which is about KNOWN FACTS of the man's general life and details about his film career.

4) Can you find something in his own words? An interview?

WikiDon 18:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went to that webpage, and it was shocking - it was detailed, with specific citations and footnotes. In other words, it was the opposite of Wikipedia.

I do, however agree with your enumerated requirements for what should be in an encyclopedia. What's highly amusing is that none of these requirements are used in the obsession that Cary Grant MUST be gay, even though so many of the sources used in that joke are beyond questionable.

Cary Grant sued Chevy Chase for libel and WON. Now why wouldn't that be a bigger part of this fake article than some fribbley author who said that the notoriously interview-avoiding Grant not only opened up about being gay (when he had sued someone else for saying it), but allegedly MADE A PASS at the gay author?

But hey, it's in a BOOK, so it must be true. (All other books that say Cary Grant wasn't gay, of course, aren't AS true, because Cary Grant MUST be gay. The survival of gay bars around the world hinge on this lie!)

But thanks for the laugh. I love reading stuff like this - it always gives me yet another new example to give to people who ask why is it that wikipedia is such a joke.

In fact, the examples of wikipedia BS are becoming a real encyclopedia in itself!Simplemines 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always appreciate your unproductive input Simplemines. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Shoesy, it would be unproductive for you because I use big words. :)

You still trying to pass yourself off as a WP administrator? You're a source of laughs for Wiki mockers. Keep up the good work!Simplemines 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_Present cites a band with no mention to the film.[reply]

--24.196.167.234 23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)The text mentions that some fans consider Grant's 50s & 60s work among his best. With a nod to North by Northwest, those fans would be in a very tiny minority. I've never heard anyone make that assertion.[reply]

The Quotations section needs to be reworked. There is something wrong with the way the "as per (external link)" references appear.

I reverted User:Onefortyone's insertion of hearsay content regarding Grant's alleged homosexuality. Given the discussion above and the rough consensus that any information on his sexual orientation should be well sourced, I don't believe Onefortyone's edits belong. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you have deleted the following passage:

In his book, Hollywood Gays, Boze Hadleigh cites gay director George Cukor who said about the homosexual relationship between Scott and Grant: "Oh, Cary won't talk about it. At most, he'll say they did some wonderful pictures together. But Randolph will admit it – to a friend." According to screenwriter Arthur Laurents, Montgomery Clift was gay and Grant "at best bisexual". Significantly, Grant seems to have been the first using the word "gay" in a homosexual context on screen. In the famous 1938 screwball comedy, Bringing Up Baby, he plays a shy paleontologist who, during one scene, appears in a pink dressing gown telling incredulous observers "because I just went gay all of a sudden."

These are some additional facts supporting the view that Grant was bisexual. Onefortyone 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are not "facts." In the paragraph, you have two sources, both of which are hearsay, one of which is double hearsay (someone saying Grant's roommate said Grant was gay) and has the clear motive of labelling as many Hollywood personalities as "gay" as it can. The third point, regarding Bringing Up Baby, has nothing to do with Grant's sexual orientation, nor is it even likely that the word "gay" meant "homosexual" in that context. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, which makes it clear that hearsay and unreliable sources are not sufficient for this sort of content. Please leave the paragraph out of the article pending discussion here from other editors. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again: Please leave the paragraph out of the article pending discussion here from other editors. And do not make another

personal attack on me as you did in your last edit summary. I have given you a clear explanation why your edits do not appear to meet Wikipedia policies. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I have cited from a published book by an expert on gay Hollywood. I would say that Arthur Laurents is a reliable source, too. It is also very interesting that Grant may have been the first having used the word "gay" in a homosexual context on screen. Further, there are other biographers who clearly say that Grant was bisexual. These rumors are well known. Do you have problems with the fact that Grant may have been bisexual? See also the discussion above [2]. Onefortyone 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with unreliable sources, and I have explained why none of those sources appear to be reliable to me, particularly not the book Hollywood Gays. If you check the amazon.com entry for that book, you'll find, for example, that Grant himself does not reveal his sexual orientation, and that "There's nothing very surprising about his choice of subjects--Paul Lynde, Liberace, Randolph Scott, et al.--all of whom, conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased." One reviewer, who claims to be a journalist, wrote:

As a journalist myself, I can testify that Cary Grant never gave interviews, even for articles about him. When he HAD to give an interview, he managed never to say anything. So you can write off the Grant interview right away. No conceivable way would he EVER EVER have spoken to Boze Hadleigh. In fact, I can't see how anyone would.

In other words, I'm not the only one who finds that source to be unreliable. In addition, the Arthur Laurents claim is completely unsourced (where did he say this? to whom?). | Klaw ¡digame! 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there was no Grant interview by Boze Hadleigh concerning Grant's sexual leanings. In his book, the author cites George Cukor who said, "Oh, Cary won't talk about it. At most, he'll say they did some wonderful pictures together. But Randolph will admit it – to a friend." This is in line with your statement that Cary Grant never said anything when he had to give an interview. The Library Journal, certainly a reliable source, says about Boze Hadleigh's book: "Still, the interviews are highly entertaining and provide an important, mostly undocumented view of the film industry's social history. Recommended for both general readers looking for dish and scholars of gay history and film studies." Sorry, to my mind, you seem to have problems with sources which state that Cary Grant may have had bisexual leanings. See also the Sexuality section of this talk page above. There, another user says, "Don't presume to whitewash someone else's life just because you don't agree with it." Onefortyone 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that same discussion above: Users that "re-insert" things that have been edited and chastise others for attempting to whitewash Cary Grants life should back up and attempt to be objective. The Library Journal says your source is "entertaining," not reliable or accurate. And I don't appreciate your personal attacks in the least. This has nothing to do with Grant's sexual orientation, but with reliable sources. Please review

WP:CIVIL and stop the personal attacks. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, you are the person who has completely deleted a contribution by another user, simply because you do not agree with the content of this contribution. This is not a personal attack as you claim. It is a fact and supported by the other user's comment concerning a similar dispute I have cited above. Onefortyone 00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can work out the dispute concerning Grant's relationship with Randolph Scott. Perhaps some other editors may help. Onefortyone 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further quotes from Arthur Laurents, Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood:

I was afraid Farley [Granger] moving in would be announcing I was gay. Whatever people might think, they didn't know. Now they would. But didn't some of me want them to know I was living with a movie star? Cary Grant and Randolph Scott famously lived together as bachelors; to prove it, they double-dated. The comparison got a smile out of Marmor but Farley and I did double-date: his beard was Shelley Winters, mine was Anita Ellis or Geraldine Brooks. Shelley pretended she didn't know; Anita and Gerry knew and didn't care. (p. 123)

Cary Grant, arguably the finest screen actor of his time, had deftness and humor, was always sexual, usually ambiguous. When we became mildly friendly through Hitch[cock], he told me he threw pebbles at my window one night but was luckless-I wasn't home. His tone made it impossible to tell whether he was serious or joking, but his eyes and his smile implied that even if he were joking, he would have liked doing what we would have done had I been home. That was all and it was enough for me: fantasies are better left fantasies. Monty Clift shared the New Boy in Town pedestal with Marlon Brando. I preferred Monty: more variety, more nuances, more vulnerability. And whatever his sexuality was, it was intensely romantic. (p. 131)

Publishers Weekly says of Laurents's book:

In a jaunty, engrossing style, the 82-year-old discusses the highlights of his 60-year career as a writer, director and producer, the ins and outs of his love life, long-term psychoanalysis and friendships with almost everyone in Hollywood and on Broadway. Laurents is brutally honest about his personal life--his difficulty coming to terms with his gayness, his anger at colleagues like Elia Kazan who named names to HUAC and his even greater anger at himself for working with them--and he rarely holds back when he thinks that others deserve criticism. ... he tells of Katharine Hepburn making antigay remarks at a dinner party; Richard Rodgers's severe alcoholism in his later career; and George Cukor's calculated "rise above being an unattractive Jewish queer by becoming an elegant silver-and-china queen and a Republican." But for all his candor, Laurents comes across as a highly intelligent, loving, politically involved, generous and gracious man--as evidenced by his commitment to social justice, his artistic vision and his long-term relationships with Farley Granger and with Tom Hatcher, who has been his life partner since 1955. Onefortyone 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the gay subtext of the Bringing Up Baby line, see [3]. Onefortyone 03:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Laurents quote is your "reliable" source? Even *he* wasn't sure of Grant's sexuality. As for the second link, let's look at what an LGBT site has to say on Grant's sexuality:

Rumors of Grant's homosexuality swirled early in his career and followed him throughout his life. Grant and his close friends consistently denied rumors of his homosexuality or bisexuality. Although he had many failed relationships with women (he married five times) and numerous gay friends, including William Haines and Australian artist Jack Kelly (later a set designer professionally known as Orry-Kelly), with whom he lived briefly in Greenwich Village, there is no conclusive evidence that Grant was bisexual.

No conclusive evidence means that your edits are merely rumors, which have no place in an encyclopedia. And your other sources clearly fail the reliability test. The content should come out. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret the additional quotes above as strong evidence for the assertion that Arthur Laurents, who was part of the homosexual circles in Hollywood, was quite sure that Grant had bisexual leanings and how much the attractive young screenwriter was turning the elder actor on. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that Grant didn't 'out' himself, presumably because he didn't want to make his real feelings public. It may be your personal opinion that rumors have no place in an encyclopedia, but the Wikipedia:Verifiability page clearly says,

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth."

This is what I am doing. Referring to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments published in reliable independent sources such as published books and articles. Rumors are part of a celebrity's history, and rumors about Grant's bisexuality have been widely discussed by several independent sources. So I do not think that the content should come out. We may add a note to the article if you like that "Although Grant had many gay friends, including William Haines and Australian artist Orry-Kelly, there is no conclusive evidence that he was bisexual, as the star never outed himself," or something like that. The Bringing Up Baby quote may be included either in the "Quotations" section or the "Miscellaneous" section of the article. Onefortyone 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not what you're doing. Boze's book is not reliable; one of the professional reviews on amazon points out that the book is limited to "off-the-record" interviews with subjects who are conveniently not around to dispute his accounts. Plenty of other posters on amazon have also questioned the legitimacy of the interviews in the book. And, of course, Boze has a strong motive to include as many big-name stars as possible in his book to try to sell more copies. "Published" is not the same as "reliable."

As for Laurents, look at what you wrote: I would interpret the additional quotes above... This is Wikipedia. It's not a place for your interpretations (or mine); it's a place for facts. Laurents never says that Grant was gay. He never says that he had evidence that Grant was gay. And the quote you placed in the article is not supported by the text you duplicated above. It's quite clear that Laurents just didn't know; if he did, he wouldn't have wondered if Grant was joking or serious. If you want to reproduce the quotes above in the article, that would leave the interpretation to the reader. But what's in the article now is not justified by those quotes.

Rumors are part of a celebrity's history, and rumors about Grant's bisexuality have been widely discussed by several independent sources. That's not what you put in the article, however. If you want to write, "Grant was often rumored to be bisexual, but there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that he was," those are facts and are supported by your countless sources. But what you put in the article, due to its lack of context and the unreliable nature of the sources, implies strongly that we know that Grant was definitely bisexual. And that's something we almost certainly will never know one way or another. Any text that implies that Grant absolutely was bisexual has to come out unless it's very well sourced - which your edits are not. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, administrator Jtdirl said,

The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that the text I have included

can easily be balanced with counterarguments (Grant's widow and one surviving ex-wife both vigorously argued in TCM's documentary on Grant that he was heterosexual), a battle of hearsay sources isn't my idea of encyclopedic. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Jtdirl replied,

But all Grant's wives have to go for evidence was . . . hearsay. They weren't with him every minute. They weren't married to him when he was with Scott. One of them wasn't even born. All they had to go on is things he might have said to them (how many gay or bisexual husbands tell their wives the truth?) or they might have heard from other people. In other words, hearsay. If the personal opinions of ex-wives count, so do the personal opinions of colleagues and friends. It is all or nothing. You can't say 'I believe source x rather than source y' because that is POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You argued that

hearsay is not good enough for an encyclopedia, and unless we have something stronger than a questionable author saying that someone told him that someone else said Grant was gay or bisexual, it shouldn't be in the article. ... | Klaw ¡digame! 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that articles in Wikipedia should refer to assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and rumors, especially when the lives of celebrity stars are concerned and several independent sources refer to the claims. Your opinion that Boze Hadleigh "has a strong motive to include as many big-name stars as possible in his book to try to sell more copies" is only your personal assertion and not NPOV. I think author Boze Hadleigh isn't as questionable as you believe, since the Library Journal clearly says that his book Hollywood Gays provides "an important, mostly undocumented view of the film industry's social history" and recommends it "for both general readers looking for dish and scholars of gay history and film studies." On the other hand, it is understandable that there are some fans of celebrity stars which may not be happy with several of the interviews in Hadleigh's books, as in their opinion their stars had to be heterosexual. Be that as it may, if Hollywood director George Cukor, himself a well-known homosexual, says that Cary Grant won't talk about his homosexual relationship with Randolph Scott, but Scott "will admit it – to a friend.," this is certainly an important statement made in a published book which is worth mentioning in the article. As for the quotes from Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood, gay screenwriter Arthur Laurents seems to have been very sure about Grant's homosexual leanings, when he relates that Grant threw pebbles at his window one night but was luckless, as Laurents wasn't at home, and that Grant's "eyes and his smile implied that even if he were joking, he would have liked doing what we would have done had I been home." For the attractiveness of Laurents in his younger years which the author himself mentions in his book, see this photograph showing Arthur Laurents with his boyfriend Tom Hatcher. No wonder if young Laurents was turning the elder actor on so that Grant wanted to spend the night with him. There are many other published sources referring to Grant's bisexuality. In an article on Burt Lancaster, Gerald Peary writes that

Laurents recalls that when Alfred Hitchcock wanted to cast Hollywood's two most famous closeted actors, Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift, as his closeted homosexual criminal leads for Rope (1948), a fictionalization of the Leopold-Loeb murder, they refused. Too close to home? See [4].

In a movie review of Hitchcock's Rope we read:

As originally planned by Hitchcock, the film would have starred Cary Grant in the role of the publisher and Montgomery Clift as Brandon. But the established homosexual relationship between Leopold and Loeb, and the tacit recognition of a similar tie between Hamilton's killers, persuaded the bisexual Grant and the gay Clift to steer clear of the project to avoid long-term commercial repercussions. See [5]

In an article on director Alfred Hitchcock, Ken Mogg says that Hitchcock "is often said to have seen his 'real', inner self as Cary Grant, his handsome, bisexual star!" See [6]. In his book, Open Secret: Gay Hollywood, David Ehrenstein refers to a number of gay and bisexual star couples such as Montgomery Clift and Jack Larson, Farley Granger and Arthur Laurents, Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott. In his review of five Grant features which appeared on DVD, the same author says:

Yet amid the documentary's many clips, the one of him in Bringing Up Baby caught in a frilly nightgown and screaming that he went "gay all of a sudden!" is missing. That may well be because the film brings up the rumors of his affair with actor Randolph Scott (with whom he lived on mid off from 1932 to 1942) only to brush them away. Wife number 3, actress Betsy Drake, says she and Grant were "too busy fucking" to talk about Randolph Scott. Still, she confesses she has "no idea" of what may have gone on before, although wife number 5, Barbara Harris (not the actress), buys the "bachelors living together" story. Neither she nor Drake has anything to say about Grant's pre-Scott alliance with designer Orry-Kelly. See [7]

On page 307 of their book, America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies, Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin write that in the 1930s, "most gay and lesbian people in America were forced to lead double lives, keeping their sexuality a secret." Among the many actors mentioned on this page are Randolph Scott and Cary Grant. On page 27 of his book, Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties, Steven Cohan says that "Grant was actually middle-aged, British, bisexual ..." Onefortyone 01:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you simply don't get it; you believe these sources are reliable because they say what you want them to say. They're all repeating the same rumors and the same hearsay, and they all couch everything in "may well be" language. There's nothing from Grant himself; nothing from Randolph Scott or any man who actually had a relationship or tryst with Grant. They're not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. It's just rumors and innuendos, which have no place in an encyclopedia. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this discussion is over, but I was just reading it for the heck of it, and I find it amusing that David Ehrenstein's book was accepted as a source, since the part quoted is incorrect. Jack Larson and Montgomery Clift were never lovers, only friends; Larson's lover was director James Bridges, even way back then. This then causes me to question the rest of his "pairings." You obviously did what you wanted, but you will never convince me that Boze Hadleigh, as just one example, and Ehrenstein, as another, are credible sources for anything.Chandler75 02:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several independent authors who seem to have no doubt about Grant's bisexuality. How many homosexual persons would have outed themselves at that time? Onefortyone 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say as an academic I find Keith's stance mindboggling. The claims are from named sources in credible publications. There is more than enough claims to warrant inclusion. If this was an academic publication, the above quotes and references would make reporting of the claim automatic. Indeed failure to mention something with so many sources would be be looked at as either incompetent research or agenda-motivated censorship. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems interesting to me that this article and talk seem to contain more speculation about Grant's sexuality than was ever committed to print during his lifetime and perhaps after. I see an agenda here, but I can't blame anyone for wanting to claim Cary Grant as their hero. Documenting facts about his life appears to be merely incidental, and that's unfortunate.

Here is an additional source which proves that Grant was bisexual: William J. Mann, Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969

pp.109-110:

The gay scene was also documented at this time by the photographer Jerome Zerbe, who spent "three gay months" (his words) in the movie colony. The most likely candidates for Zerbe's shutter were actors willing to take off their shirts or drop their pants; Zerbe snared a classic butt shot of Bruce Cabot. More fascinating, however, are his many photos of Cary Grant and Randolph Scott, attesting to their involvement in the gay scene: Scott arriving at a party at Zerbe's apartment, several lovely poses of Grant in a bathing suit.

p.159:

At roughly the same period, Jerome Zerbe painted a far more complimentary portrait of Grant. During his "three-gay-month" sojourn in the movie colony, Zerbe often stayed with Grant and Scott, finding them both warm, charming, and happy.

p.230:

Jack Kelly was a good-looking, stocky, doe-eyed young man whose hair, by the time he was in his late twenties, had turned prematurely gray. By 1921 he was working as a tailor's assistant in the garment district, selling hand-painted neckties as a sideline. It was about this time that he met a seventeen-year-old vaudeville acrobat by the name of Archie Leach. Within a few months they were sharing a Greenwich Village loft, just behind the present site of the Cherry Lane Theater. Their third roommate was Charlie Phelps, who, as Charlie Spangles, played in drag at the Metropole Club. Archie Leach, of course, would later become Cary Grant. They lived together, on and off, for the next nine years, until Archie left for Hollywood in January 1932. Onefortyone 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--24.196.167.234 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)You can honestly call this 3rd-hand innuendo "proof"? And why is Cary Grant becoming more gay as the decades pass after his death? Nowhere, anywhere, will you find reliable verification of non-hetero activity by Cary Grant. There was some speculation during his lifetime, never confirmed, not even a hopeful youngster claiming to have an affair--and Grant had every opportunity to exploit his fame. What is apparent is that Grant had gay friends and wasn't "homophobic". Now activists want to connect a dot that's not there. Aside from misshaping perceptions about Cary Grant's personal life, these self-appointed activists are hurting their own agenda in the long run, because open-minded straight people will see the connection made: "He hangs out with gays, so...he must be gay!". Cary Grant brushed these aspersions aside in life, and now he's dead and "Wikipedia authors" can say anything they please, with anarchic impunity. It is absurd and it demeans this site, Cary Grant, and you.[reply]

Wikipedia authors do not say what they please, they are only citing what is written in many published books. Onefortyone 15:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find it truly weird that more space is taken up by unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo about Grant's sexual preferences than the entire section on his time in Hollywood. It merits a couple of sentences (if that much). Clarityfiend 07:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could write 5 or 6 paragraphs on his Hollywood career. Varitek 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was Errol Flynn or Fatty Arbuckle, then it would make sense to discuss it at length because it seriously affected their careers, but with Grant, it's just gossip. Clarityfiend 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just publish a book speculating that someone may have been gay, and suddenly you've got a "credible source of information" and that speculation gets stuck on someone dead for 20 years. Oddly enough, a ridiculously innocuous phrase on

Lindsay Graham, who is widely known (though not "proveable") to be gay, was struck down. One more reason why Wikipedia is a Wild West of Worthless Information.--24.196.175.110 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the US cutoff age was 34, but I can't find any references to Grant's service status online, other than a reference to relevant documents which were part of a donation from Grant's estate to the (Oscars) Academy. But it seems odd to that more than half of the substantive text in this article addresses speculation about Grant's sexuality, which wasn't even a topic in the crummiest tabloids while he was alive, but seems to be a cottage industry post mortem.--Son of Somebody 12:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant is said to have Roma (Gypsy)Heritage

Just a stupid rumour, never confirmed by any serious biographer.

Whoever changed the photograph could you please change it back to the original black & white. That one was so much better.

Yeah, this new photograph is horrible.

Did anyone else find this statement as comically stupid as I did?

Though in all of his divorces, especially with Dyan Cannon, none of his soon-to-be ex-wives brought the subject up.

In other words, Dyan Cannon _especially_ didn't bring up Grant's homosexuality. I mean, it's either not brought up or brought up in degrees. One can't not bring something up in degrees, can one?

One wonders why contributors to Wiki, in particular, have an affinity for discussing sexual orientation and political affiliation. Why? It's such a shallow and personal topic that, in the final analysis, mean nothing except to the contributors sense of of the world.

Why? Because Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Any noteworthy Teacher, Instructor, or Professor will not allow his or her student's to quote Wikipedia as a primary source.

Wikipedia is distained by academia, and I, for one, forbid my students from quoting Wikipedia, in any manner or form.

Wikipedia, does on many occassions, include sexual references through bios when it deems such as appropriate--yet, when someone, such as I, insert factual affirmation about such persons and their sexuality, I am accused of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.132 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, in reviewing your edit history, it's rife with reversion and edit wars. The "sexuality" info you inserted was a first person observation about a gay cruising area in Central Park with absolutely no referencing whatsoever. Then you insist it's "public domain." Public domain does not mean common knowledge from experience. The other part of your history is full of your insistence on removing discussion on talk pages with which you don't agree. No wonder you forbid your students to use it, you have been a source of unreliable information, including your personal observations of pricing habits of record stores and the existence of bodystockings on Playboy pictorials. Get real. Oh, and learn to sign your talk comments, spell correctly and add edit summaries when you do manage to contribute something worthwhile to a page. Wildhartlivie 07:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda new to Wiki and wondering if the following link would be appropriate to the external links or not. Photos of Cary Grant. Our site does sell a product but we have hundreds of original Cary Grant photos posted that are relevant to the article and would probably be of interest to researchers. I've seen similar type links but I'm looking for guidance as to what's considered appropriate. Thank you. --mmgMmgphotos 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hej på dej