Talk:Claudette Colbert/Archive 1

Unsourced edits

While not widely talked about, Claudette Colbert was a known bisexual to her intimates. Her affair with Marlene Dietrich is mentioned on that page and she had a long standing relationship with Verna Hull who had an adjacent house to hers in Barbados. So far only anonymous users have removed these items. It would be appreciated that before removing them again the person would identify themselves and state their reasons. I knew the persons involved. Doc 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is Verna Hull? Woman of fictitious?--Wbrz 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc. It wasn't me that removed them, however I am in favour of removing them. I appreciate that you knew the people involved and I've read of Colbert described as bisexual, so I'm not disbelieving it. The issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Obviously nobody is going to dispute the other things in the article about her movies and what-not, but her bisexuality is another story - if a published source could be cited that would greatly improve the situation. I'm sure you appreciate that a lot of gossip and innuendo has attached itself to various Hollywood celebrities past and present - without verification there is nothing to distinguish this from various other lies and half-truths that are scattered throughout numerous biographical articles. Rossrs 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In short, you want to say that Colbert was a bisexual. Rossrs said I've read of Colbert described as bisexual, so I'm not disbelieving it. The issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Is it so? Sexual perversion, leave here.--219.104.29.203 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If that comment is directed at me : no I do not want to say in Colbert's article that Colbert was a bisexual. Do you realize that you are replying to comments that were made more than a year ago? Doc is not part of this discussion, so he is not likely to reply. Neither is User:Chandler75 who you have replied to below. You keep bringing my name into things, do you realize that I agree with you that it should not be added? You say it should be left here - it is left here. You are the one that can't leave the subject alone. As you are the only one still making comments about this old discussion, would you like me to archive this section so that it no longer appears on this page? It is obviously bothering you. We can't delete it, but we can move it so that it is no longer visible. Would that help? Rossrs 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh's fan, leave here.--219.104.29.203 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". Rossrs 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people testify about Laurence Olivier having been a bisexual. He suggested a thing like it with his autobiography. Who testified that Colbert was a bisexual? her husbands? her friends? Please lead a conclusion from a cause. Please do not give top priority to a conclusion.--Wbrz 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wish that I knew of a source other than first hand knowledge. I knew Verna Hull rather well and worked with her. I met Claudette a time or two with Verna and many intimates knew of their relationship and adjacent houses in Barbados. Neither made a show of it, but in the 1960s it was an accepted fact among their good friends. Doc 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Her husband was still alive in 1960's. Did not her friend have to live in the neighbor with her? Are you a delusion maniac? --Wbrz 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You might try "The Sewing Circle" by Axel Madsen but I don't know if she's in it. Though Rossrs states, "Without verification there is nothing to distinguish this from various other lies and half-truths that are scattered throughout numerous biographical articles", as far as Wikipedia is concerned, trash between the covers of a book is all that's needed. Madsen's piece of junk should do just fine, focusing as it does on Mercedes de Acosta, Garbo, Dietrich et al. As someone once said of de Acosta's book, "Here Lies the Heart," - "and lies and lies and lies." Forget the typos, the misspellings, the inaccuracies - this is what Wikipedia calls a great reference and should suit your purposes. As far as an affair with Garbo, I worked on the Garbo bio by Barry Paris and don't recall any such thing being the case. Paris is extremely thorough, with fastidious source notes, and is highly regarded as one of the best biographers ever. You probably don't see him quoted much on Wikipedia.Chandler75 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Documents the double life of "The Sewing Circle," a group of lesbians and bisexuals that included Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Tallulah Bankhead, Joan Crawford, Myrna Loy and Agnes Moorehead.--218.217.208.185 10:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a thing heard of for the first time that Colbert has met Greta Garbo. Are not they your ideas at all? Were not the celebrities only combined by force?--Wbrz 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In response, Colbert's friend Helen O'Hagan told the New York Daily News that the actress barely knew Dietrich or Garbo, and that Colbert was "a man's lady".--218.217.208.119 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Boze Hadleigh also wrote about Colbert -- I think his work is unfairly disparaged. I've lived in Hollywood for 24 years and have met many people who confirm Hadleigh's facts from first or second-hand knowledge -- which is a lot better than most accepted history. A few people seem to require a higher standard -- almost impossible to meet -- for the bisexual/homosexual information, and they seem to be on a mission to cleanse all of it from Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.11.178 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 August 2006

Boze Hadleigh, a journalist, interviewer and writer primarily of gossip about homosexuals of Hollywood.--Wbrz 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When writing about people's private lives, a higher standard is required than just hearsay or interviews where there are no tapes or that have been published after a person's death when they can't deny them and can't sue. If you're going to write that some people at Wikipedia don't want to put unfounded statements in an article, you should sign your message.Chandler75 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

She was a noble lady. Leave here if you want to do obscene stories.--219.104.29.203 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this work, a direct quote from Chapter 11 of The First Lady (a re-release of "April Ashley's Odyssey" by April Ashley by Duncan Fallowell (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982, ISBN 0-224-01849-3): "And I visited Verna Hull who often came to AD8 when she was in London. She lived next door to Claudette Colbert with whom she'd shared a house for many years. But they'd fallen out and despite living only feet apart they didn't speak at all." Also, in an article about Colbert that was published in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo in 2006 is the following information: "mantuvo una larga relación con una mujer llamada Verna Hull, su vecina en la isla caribeña de Barbados".[1] 204.126.250.112 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Duncan Fallowell's book, the biography of a trans-sexual, April Ashley's Odyssey (1982).--218.217.208.119 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

After Colbert's death, her purported bisexuality was explored most deeply in a well-reviewed book about gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in Hollywood, which was written by William J. Mann. I have added it to the article, though carefully using qualifiers re her sexuality, which remains unknown, or at the very least, unproven. But since the book was well-reviewed and considered by most critics I've found on LexisNexis and ProQuest as well researched, it merits inclusion in the article.204.126.250.98 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

William J. Mann, an iconoclastic-openly gay author and film historian. His book Behind the Scenes: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped 1910-1969--218.217.208.159 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no source in the above-mentioned though a lot of sentences were being written. All are the comments on anonymity. Nevertheless, other party's real name comes out. Then, what on earth was her marriage? Were her marriages all lies? There is not explanation about it at all as above. Please put out the source if she has met even once with Garbo. I can think only with the third-rate gossip that people liking a so erotic story finished. If such a thing was written in the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Who testified? Or, who saw? Please write such evidence. It can be thought an extremely unfair way.--218.217.207.123 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair did a article on Colbert a few years back and researched the bisexual/lesbian rumor and came up with nothing proving it or no one who knew her who would confirm it so it's apparently not true. User:209.124.229.184 03:25, 2 March 2006

Not correct, don't know who Vanity Fair talked with, but not the ones in the know if that was their conclusion. Do you know the date? I'd like to read the article. As stated above I met her and knew her longest standing lover Verna Hull who was very open about their relationship in the 1970s. Doc 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This comment is a little confusing; what bisexual? what lesbian? Please supply references etc for inclusion in the article.--218.217.208.159 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please write not the rumor going around town but the source. Please write not your guess but evidence. How did the person who knew her during the lifetime make a remark for her? Or please write the fact that the third person watched her.--Wbrz 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

As per Wikipedia's general attitude towards trivia (WP:Trivia) I am going to attempt to remove the section by either absorbing relevant information into the article, and removing anything that is either irrelevant to a general appreciate of Colbert's life and career, or contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am recording my views for each point here, as I expect disagreement. I would welcome discussion here if anyone disagrees with edits related to this section.

*Relations between her mother and grandmother were poor. Colbert was closest to her grandmother. needs citing, but maybe somewhat relevant and could easily be added into the article

has been added to article. Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*She worked as a stenographer, a salesclerk in womens' clothing, and a tutor, in order to pay her expenses at the Art Students League of New York. could easily be added into the article

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*For the Love of Mike (1927) is a lost film; the print no longer exists. relevant as her film debut and could easily be added into article

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*Colbert made ten films at Astoria Studios in Queens, New York. maybe relevant, could be added if the right place in the article is determined.

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• She co-starred three times respectively with Herbert Marshall and Melvyn Douglas. irrelevant

*Ellie Andrews of It Happened One Night (1934) was a part refused by all other actresses in Hollywood. really? every single one? so if Marie Dressler had wanted to do it, they would have let her? Even Colbert accepted only on condition that the salary be doubled and that the picture would take only four weeks to make. significant film, interesting comment, could be added, needs source though.

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• She did not attend Academy Awards at first in 1935, because she thought that Bette Davis would win the Oscar. However, she was taken to the hall by the academy staff afterwards. of minor relevance
• Her first marriage was originally kept secret; she and Norman Foster did not even live together. this point is covered in the article slightly. the comment as it stands here is irrelevant as it does not attempt to answer the most important question - why did they do this?
• Mary Pickford also was an actress who did not allow to take the photograph only from the left side as well as Claudette Colbert. irrelevant
• She got sick during production of Tovarich (1937). Therefore shooting of the film was prolonged. irrelevant. she also injured her back and missed playing in All About Eve - much more significant
• Production of Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) cost a large amount of expense. almost every film "cost a large amount", what's so special about this one? irrelevant.

Production of Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) cost more to produce than her other movies.--218.217.206.18 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Scenes showing Colbert's face from the right show she was equally lovely from that side, but such shots are hard to find. then wait until one is found and then quote someone of repute declaring her to be lovely. Wikipedia should not be presenting this opinion, just the facts.
• Colbert had talent of business. this comment means nothing without further explanation.

Colbert moved about well on the business side in the Hollywood age.--218.217.206.18 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• There was no romance between Colbert and men other than her husband. this is outrageous. how would anybody but Colbert know this?

There was no rumor that she had the romance with men other than her husband.--218.217.206.18 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• She had used the house in Palm Springs as a second home when she was living in Los Angeles. irrelevant
• She worried about becoming overweight and was careful about not overeating. most actresses had the same fear if they wanted to keep working. irrelevant.

She was worrying about her health.--218.217.206.18 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Claudette did not work overtime. irrelevant without further context/explanation. how is it significant?--218.217.206.18 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*The idea of a villa in Barbados came to her following a visit to Noel Coward's house in Jamaica. could be mentioned in the article, though it's not particularly important it would be part of an exisiting paragraph.

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*In 1963 she appeared in television commercials for Maxwell House coffee. should be put into the article

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*Although in 1969, Colbert said that she intended to write a book entitled "How to Run a House" for her friend's Bennett Cerf's Random House Press, this was not to be. She never even published an autobiography. should be put in article - but needs a source

has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• She kept two dogs in the active times and kept a cat in later years. irrelevant Rossrs 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Adhesion anti?--219.104.27.181 09:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to get rid of most of the trivia, but since you're already on the job, more power to you. I agree with nearly all of your comments (I don't think an unwritten book merits inclusion though). Clarityfiend 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Pressman

The first sentence called her "Mrs. Pressman". I removed that, since it's rather odd and doesn't exist in any other articles in Wikipedia. It was re-added and my edit called vandalism. It was a good faith edit, not vandalism. I'd appreciate input from others on this topic. Corvus cornix 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wbrz is repeatedly calling my edit vandalism and is now issuing threats to me on my Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling her Mrs. Pressman is very unusual and not in keeping with the style of Wikipedia, there's probably a guideline in the MOS somewhere. You can remove that message from your talk page as it appears to be issued in bad faith. John Reaves (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Another editor has removed it. Corvus cornix 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Colbert had two husbands. She divorced the first husband immediately. She lost the second husband. Therefore, she was a widow. Spouse(s), Norman Foster (1928-1935), Dr. Joel Pressman (1935 – his death in 1968), She was interred beside her second husband.

Because it erased a public fact for a personal thought, is not it destruction?--Wbrz 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this Mrs Pressman silliness! She was Claudette Colbert. There is ample reference made to her marriage to Dr Pressman in the section "Marriages". If there is a place for this reference, that is where it belongs, not in the first sentence of the article. Orbicle 12:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is nothing but silliness. "Claudette Colbert" is the name she made famous. And this, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names states it plainly and clearly :

"But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under. Elizabeth Taylor, even though she was married eight times, would not be referred to under those other surnames." (my emphasis. I don't think I can state strongly enough that this applies to all cases.) Rossrs 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you want to say that she was a lesbian, you do not like Mrs. Pressman?--219.104.29.203 13:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Read my earlier comments carefully - I do not want to say Colbert was bisexual or lesbian or heterosexual. I don't want to say she was anything but an actress. I said earlier that I thought the comments should be removed. How could you misunderstand that? All articles must follow Wikipedia's guidelines. It was decided long ago that a person should be referred to by the name they are best known for. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about actresses - the only one I have ever seen where the name was followed by "Mrs .....", is this one. Not Elizabeth Taylor, not Zsa Zsa Gabor, not any other married actress, just Claudette Colbert. We are not going to make a special rule for Claudette Colbert just because you are bothered by it. You are making a huge leap if you think it somehow means I want to suggest that Claudette Colbert was bisexual. I do not know or care about her sexuality. OK? Click on this link and read it please :Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. Read it through a few times so that before you comment again, you know exactly what you are talking about.

The bit you need to read is this ""But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under. Elizabeth Taylor, even though she was married eight times, would not be referred to under those other surnames." Rossrs 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The person who doubts that she was a bisexual even once must leave here.--219.104.29.203 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that would be you, as you've made it clear that you doubt she was bisexual. You obviously haven't bothered taking my suggestion, so I'm not going to try to help you any more. But as you're leaving, I guess it doesn't matter. Rossrs 14:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It Happened One Night → Greatest Success?

It Happened One Night → Greatest Success? There are pros and cons in the United States about this movie. Therefore, you should not praise it blindly.--Wptfe 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right in saying that there are pros and cons for the movie. I'm not saying the movie itself was a "great success" but I am saying it was "one of her (Colbert's) greatest successes". I think that is fair - for Colbert personally it was a success, she won a lot of recognition, plus her only Academy Award, for it. Also, the film was made 73 years ago and is still one of the films she is most remembered by. Rossrs 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not tinker for your guesswork without permission.--219.104.2.139 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't require your permission for any edits I might make, and my edits are all attributed to source material - there's no guesswork. Rossrs 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"worst picture in the world"

"worst picture in the world", covered in New York Times 07-31-1996, p. D21, Don't remove perfectly notable information on the stars of her films. Don't see any facts in the article.--219.104.2.21 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want information removed then cite your source. Don't expect other editors to be able to read your mind. That's all you have to do. Cite it the way the other quotes are cited. Rossrs 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"worst picture in the world", was the one being written with Colbert initially balked at pulling up her skirt to entice a passing driver to give a ride, complaining that it was unladylike. However, upon seeing the chorus girl who was brought in as her body double, an outraged Colbert told the director, "Get her out of here. I'll do it. That's not my leg!". You separated them.--219.104.30.149 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, gibberish and illiteracy

Seem to be the standards of the last edits. One hardly knows where to begin to correct the "English" used. It looks like a war has been declared by the last two editors to see how puerile and unintelligible their additions can be. I, for one, think it pointless to intervene. I don't know if the page can be protected again, but that would be a boon. Orbicle 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you a It Happened One Nights fan? This article is Claudette Colbert's page, not page of It Happened One Night. If you wants to write the thing of It Happened One Night lengthily, should write it on page of It Happened One Night. --218.217.216.235 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The film is important enough to Colbert's career to warrant discussion. The rest of the article could be expanded to include more detail as it's all very vague and brief right now. I see the It Happened One Night section as now being sufficiently covered, and I think it's the rest of the article that needs work. In any case, it wasn't Orbicle who added the It Happened One Night information, so as usual, you are accusing the wrong editor. Rossrs 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What is Jack Warner?

What is Jack Warner? It is an irrelevant story to Colbert.--219.104.2.21 12:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not write Jack Warner or Myrna Loy's story lengthily.--219.104.30.200 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

and please do not continue removing this information just because you don't believe it is relevant. The film was one of the turning points of Colbert's career, so to explain how she came to make a film that she didn't want to make, but which she is still remembered for 72 years later, is significant. Colbert had a great career, but it needs to be placed into some kind of historical context instead of the endless gushing praise that is being spread through this article. It's relevant and it's sourced. Please read WP:Consensus and if you want to remove it, wait until you have reached a consensus. There is no agreement to remove it, only your opinion. If you look at other Wikipedia Featured Articles, this kind of related discussion is considered normal as it places the subject, in this case Colbert, into a broader context that helps understand her better. Rossrs 13:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What is Myrna Loy?

moved → Trivia section : extraneous Jack Warner's detail better suited for Jack Warner article. This article needs to be specific to Claudette Colbert. moved → Trivia section : Myrna Loy's extraneous detail better suited for Myrna Loy's article. This article needs to be specific to Claudette Colbert.--219.104.30.196 13:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

no, these comments are more related to Colbert, than they are to either Warner or Loy. Just because the comments were made by Warner and Loy doesn't mean they are important to them. Why on earth would they be put into the Warner or Loy articles? They directly affected Colbert. Your edits confuse me. For one thing you changed Loy's comment before you put it in the trivia section. What is this nonsense about films on a bus? That is not what Loy said. That was a sourced quote and you replaced it with something unsourced. You can't do that. You also kept the references to the other 3 actresses but removed Loy? Why? Where is the logic? Rossrs 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Warner and Loy are personally unrelated to Colbert's career. They were indirect.　Please write Warner and Roy to trivia section. --219.104.30.149 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "Roy" it's "Loy". You haven't even attempted to answer my questions. A discussion is not about you telling me what to do. Rossrs 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article writes Colbert's career whole. A certain specific work alone should not be picked up. --219.104.30.149 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

moved → Trivia section

moved → Trivia section : extraneous the film detail better suited for It Happened One Night article. This article needs to be specific to Claudette Colbert--219.104.2.21 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Large sections of the article which contained very apposite information about Colbert have been perfunctorily moved to a Trivia section. THEY DO NOT BELONG THERE. In fact, the general idea is to get rid of trivia sections as much as possible, not to create them. How can the references to All About Eve/Margo Channing, especially the Colbert quote about crying for years be considered Trivia? Orbicle 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About State Of The Union, All About Eve and A Streetcar Named Desire. Those movies were not her Later Careers. It is not Vandalism. Never write !! --Wptfe 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Orbicle. This is the same point I have been trying to make. User:Wptfe and his multiple anon IP's seem to think that as soon as a name other than "Claudette Colbert" is mentioned, it is irrelevant and gets moved to a trivia section, which should not be there anyhow. It seems to be personal judging by the comments on this user's talk page, and there is also a problem with me being Australian (where we speak fluent English BTW). I have suggested more than once that this user read WP:Consensus. So : User:Wptfe and your gaggle of anons, please note - I am going to remove the trivia section again. DO NOT REVERT THIS unless you have a CONSENSUS. If you do, it will be considered as VANDALISM and reported accordingly. Rossrs 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rossrs wrote: "... me being Australian (where we speak fluent English BTW)..."

No way! Who knew? I thought the national language was Strine. ;-) Orbicle 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, my mistake. I speak Strine, but (I try to) write English! ;-) Rossrs

Coincidence?

I think it's amazing that in the space of a few short hours three editors come along and make the same revert. (here, here and here) I'm surprised that Claudette Colbert appears on so many watchlists. So what's the problem? Why do you keep removing a piece of information that is sourced and relevant. I also think it's really funny that anyone who would purport to know more about cinema and how a cinematic article should be written, than other editors, would put an edit summary such as "whoever Agee is". If you are so uninformed as to not have heard of James Agee, you could always find out who he is by looking at his Wikipedia article. BTW .... when you remove something from an article BUT leave the cite that followed it, the cite then appears to cite whatever information preceded it. This is wrong. You've got to be more careful when editing. Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues

I just tagged this article for multiple issues for, well, multiple reasons. There are a few instances where the actress is referred to by her first name. I changed some of them, but due to the article being basically full of citations placed in the middle of sentences (another problem), I gave up on it. Evidently there's some misunderstandings or disagreements regarding this article, but one thing's for sure; all the edits by different people is leaving it virtually unreadable. There are half finished sentences, incorrect redirects, and (again) citations placed in the middle of sentences. If possible, please put citations at the end of a sentence. There's way too many places where they're stuck in the middle and, believe it or not, it's distracting. Another problem is the "Opinion" section. IMO, this seems like a trivia section that was renamed "Opinion" so it can be kept in the article. None of what is there is really needed. Unless someone's opinion of a person somehow enriches the article or proves a point, it needs to be left out. I tagged this page instead of fixing it all myself to give whomever wrote this a chance to fix it before I have at it. Everything is sourced, which is great, but the way it reads now is confusing and downright sloppy. Pinkadelica (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced a re-inserted non-English reference with one that contains the same information in English. For any questions regarding this, please see WP:CITE#When to cite sources for discussion regarding non-English citations. In addition, I changed the year of US immigration to reflect the official record shown at the Ellis Island National Park website. This source would take precedence over any other website using secondary sourcing and as such, should remain in the article. Finally, there is no need to cite identical material twice in an article, and especially not in an infobox. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the last few days have seen an improvement in the article, by correcting some of the poor English and removing POV and poorly sourced material etc. I think the article has a good skeleton, but not much on the skeleton. I think there is too much "In 1937 she made X film" and "In 1938 she made Y film", which to me, is just a padded out version of Colbert's IMDb filmography, but gives little insight into Colbert, how she was perceived, and whether or not she was an influential figure. I think it deserves to be expanded, and although previous efforts to expand it have been met with all kinds of hostility and revisions, this is the normal style to aim for rather than the exception. I think all articles should aim towards the standard of featured article, although realistically most will never get there. Examples of featured articles that I believe have the appropriate level of depth are Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Angelina Jolie, Eric Bana, Cillian Murphy, Diane Keaton and Jake Gyllenhaal. Actually all of the media related biographical featured articles have depth, context and perspective, all of which are currently lacking here. Even formerly featured articles such as Humphrey Bogart and Henry Fonda, despite their faults, have a suitable level of depth. There are many more articles that could be given as examples, the point being that this is the community-accepted standard. This is achievable for this article also, and I believe it should be the aim. In the past, things such as critical quotes have been removed, incorrectly stating them to contravene our WP:NPOV policy, however each of these featured articles contain critical quotations. They are important, and I'm giving that just as one example of the type of expansion needed. This can be a WP:GA and it can be a WP:FA. Rossrs (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this is a skeleton of an article which is a direct result of me cleaning it up. Presenting bare facts was a better alternative than some of the content that was originally included. Since Colbert's career was so varied and her fame spanned many decades, I do believe more attention should be paid to her impact on films and the industry in general. I found a few items about her personality (ie shrewd business woman, etc) that can be included, but in the interest of presenting something "passable", I omitted them. Admittedly, I know little about Colbert's life which is another reason why I chose to not delve into that side. I'm all for the addition of relevant, neutral and sourced information. If anyone else has an issue with the addition or removal of information, they should address the issue on the talk page in a mature manner instead of reverting it. If any new users pop up, I think they should be pointed to this page to discuss any matters that they disagree with before removing content in small intervals in an attempt to get their version included. Lastly, anyone that is hostile or rude simply won't be tolerated. No one has to be insulted by someone else over the internet over a Wikipedia article. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points, and I think that the article had to be stripped back to skeleton form, so that it can be built. It's a great beginning. I also will not tolerate any more of the personal attacks, rudeness or blatant dishonesty that have surrounded any attempts to edit this page. Rossrs (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten this article in line with the comments made by User:Pinkadelica, and using the articles I've named in the paragraph above as models, given that they have all been assessed as meeting Wikipedia's guidelines to the highest standard. I do not by any means think the article is complete or perfect or anything like that. I do think it is improved, and although I obviously can't list here, every editorial decision I made, I am willing to discuss any point that might be made, as I can explain and justify pretty well every single word in the article. Because this article has been the subject of so much disagreement, it is essential that any subsequent edits are accompanied by an accurate edit summary. As with all articles, this page should be used to discuss disagreements or possible changes in a friendly, open and constructive manner. Rossrs (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not happy with all the "career" headers, but I had to put something. Any suggestions? Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First name

I happen to live right next to the house where Claudette Colbert was born, and the tablet (made by the city of Saint-Mandé, which must have the official birth registries) only mentions "Emilie" as a first name. "Lily" was most likely a nickname. Wedineinheck (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed opinions without the source, and unified duplicated texts.　I already explained Maria DiBattista and Jeanie Basinger. -- Braghis (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Duh ! "Lily" is very seldom used as an actual birth name. Anyway, here is a source and another and another. The Larousse Encyclopedia (first link) is a very much reliable source. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here. It took me a while to do so, but I just posted an image of Colbert's commemorative plate in Saint-Mandé, which, BTW, proves that her first name was Emilie. Wedineinheck (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Okay, here's the deal, Braghis. If you disagree or feel that something is an opinion, then the standard approach is to ask for citations for things or tag it as POV and allow editors who have already worked on the article an opportunity to address it. You did much more than remove opinions. You also removed sourced material and in some cases, just simply removed material for no reason. The article states clearly that she adapted the name Claudette. It was not her birth name. You removed the place where she is buried from the infobox. You cut partial sentences that weren't opinions, but were lead ins to referenced material in paragraphs. As far as Jeanie Basinger, I added the publication from which the quote was taken, which is referenced and is therefore valid. Maria DiBattista may not be a critic, but that's not a requirement to author a book on the topic of female actresses. DiBattista is a professor at Princeton University who authored Fast Talking Dames and has chaired the Committee on Film Studies at Princeton. That's enough qualified for the other editors on this article. Finally, I added a template saying the article was "in use" which asks for editors to respect it and avoid editing while the template is in place. You mass reverted the edits I was making when you did that. That's poor form and bad manners. If you want to make such massive changes to this article, I suggest you broach such large changes here first for discussion, not just say "I changed this." In the future, please respect tags that are in place. They are there for a reason. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since three editors spent time rewriting this article and reached a consensus about the content, I think it is unfair for someone to pop up and add/remove things that haven't been discussed first. We've had this problem before and it's not going to start again. These recent changes weren't just small changes, but large, questionable changes to style & content. Since this article has already been reverted twice, one more revert will result in a 3RR violation. Any battles over content, sources, etc need to be discussed first. If another editor feels this is unfair, open a mediation discussion and all four of us will go from there. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's strange to continue adding unneeded POV without enough sources by three only consensus. There is already the opinions enough. Please do not make up the article only by comment.　-- Braghis (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to take each item, point by point, and open them for discussion, then by all means, do so. No one is continuing to add anything, only attempting to retain material which is sourced such as the DiBattista material and the quote from the Kennedy Center Honors, both of which have valid sources and therefore aren't validly removed except that you don't like them. However until these points are discussed, you are avoiding the spirit of collaboration by engaging in the behavior you are displaying at the moment. If you want to work on this, then by all means, discuss. We can start with the infobox. Meanwhile, I think it's strange that a user who has only been on Wikipedia for 3 days has determined what is and isn't consensus that was already established weeks ago. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

User:Braghis wrote on my talk page:

Critical reviews located in Claudette Colbert#Comments and critical reviews. (duplicated material introduction of co-star F.March and earlier film with first husband) I moved it to the better place. -- Braghis (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have directed the user to discuss these issues on this page as requested several hours ago. The page has been protected from editing due to the above issues. I was in mid edits when the protection was granted. At this moment, the mention of Fredric March and Colbert's joint efforts, as well as her work with her first husband are located in the sequential portion of the article as well as the (now titled) critical section because I had only had opportunity to restore it to the sequential section, as consensus had determined and did not have the opportunity to remove it from the critical section. This article was ordered in career sequential order, with a section at the bottom which discussed essentially the reception and reaction she received from her peers. The article was re-structured extensively with no notice or discussion with editors who have worked and labored over the article.

Braghis, if your reasoning for the move of the March/husband material was because it was "the better place," allow me to suggest that this is your point of view, not a logical reason. When you removed the part about March, apparently because it contained a mention of a review, you left half a paragraph hanging with no lead-in. It coldly went from one paragraph to introduce March by saying:

...She appeared opposite Maurice Chevalier, who commented of her, "She was lovely, brunette, talented and a delicious comedienne, and her English was perfect."[10] These films were popular with audiences.

She was briefly paired with March, and they made four films together, including Dorothy Arzner's Honor Among Lovers (1931), which fared well at the box-office...

I want to also go on record to say that the majority of what was done to this article was misrepresented as being POV, opinions, unsourced or speculation, when in fact, what happened was that the article was mostly re-arranged and had POV removal of cited material. To that end, another newer editor was brought in to revert the changes and avoid a 3RR issue, all based solely on the changes made by Braghis being POV removal. To this point, the only POV I've noted from the changes was one sentence - "the most lasting appreciation from critics." There may be a few other snippets, but removing cited and published material based on the reasoning by the editor that a book published by a Princeton professor and chairman of that University's Committee on Film Studies wasn't valid for inclusion because "Maria DiBattista is not a film critic" and that a quotation from Colbert's Kennedy Honors ceremony wasn't acceptable because the author of The International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers, from which that quote was taken, "is not a celebrity" is indefensible. Other changes that were made included undoing proper wiki-formatting of section sub-headings, removing the (cited) place of birth and others too numerous to mention. When this editor is prepared to discuss these issues here, openly and in the spirit of collaboration, we will be ready. Otherwise, as Pinkadelica suggested, we can all go to dispute resolution. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DiBattista

Braghis, you are going to have to discuss your issues with Maria DiBattista on this page. First, you removed her book from the bibliography and any use of her work, with the rationale that she is not a critic. That was addressed above. Her book is a reliable reference as determined by WP policy. Now you've come back and went to the trouble of adding the words "Professor Maria DiBattista claims" which is totally extraneous and non-necessary to the Colbert article. The real problem with your change is that you did this under the edit summary of "Hispanic Maria DiBattista is NOT a critic." It's not clear what you mean by this summary, but as I noted here before, on your talk page, and above, her status as a critic isn't relevant, although it could be argued, given her status in the academic world in film studies, that she could be considered one. More troubling is your reference to her ethnic heritage. You then returned the same phrase to the article by suggesting her name is being hidden, when the material based on her book is given proper citation, and her book was returned to the bibliography list. I consider this arbitrarily contentious behavior and you are now in danger of violating the 3RR rule as well as disrupting the article to make a point. The other editors on this page are not in agreement with your changes. Either discuss it here or stop editing the page until we can request dispute mediation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to engage this editor on this page and I have approached him or her on the user talk page, all to no avail. Braghis refuses to respond to requests to discuss his or her rationale for edits and language usage that have been made which tend to diminish the qualifications or weight that this author's work contributes. Saying that a Princeton University full professor who chairs that university's Film Studies program lacks the ability and qualification to render commentary and critique on a film actor's work is simply being contentious for the sake of contentiousness. To bring into an edit summary the ethnicity of that person is racist. When those points were made, then he or she charged that the name was being hidden if it weren't mentioned in the body of the article, although the paragraph utilizing DiBattista's published commentary was properly referenced. The wording which Braghis keeps returning is less polished and poorly phrased, and by using the word "claimed" in the phrase, implies the critique and commentary is invalid. And in fact, in the 3rd reversion Braghis made in the last 3 hours, it is worded in such a way that it disputes what the paragraph says. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim regarding the problem with this phrasing. This is POV pushing to the extreme. Finally, since Braghis won't respond, I have no choice but to interpret this as bad faith behavior and contentious editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Please do not continue adding wrong source. Reliability of Wikipedia will be lost sometime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braghis (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Braghis, because you personally do not like what a reliably published source says does not mean it is "wrong." If this is your only attempt at discussing any of this, then by all means, find a reliable source to refute it. Don't just remove it and say "it's wrong." It would actually be even better if you tried discussing it first rather than set out on a contentious edit war. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Father's profession

Colbert's plate in Saint-Mandé says that her parents managed a pastry shop. I guessed that maybe her father wasn't a BANKER, but a BAKER. Yet, many sources mention her "banker father", so I'm keeping this info after all. If anyone has reliable info about her background, be free to edit. Yet, it is established that her parents owned a pastry shop, so we'll have to assume so far that it was her mother who managed it. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Size of images and other recent changes

I know there is a school of thought which holds that images should be placed in articles in thumbnail form, without hardcoding the size, which allows registered users to control the image size by setting the thumbnail size in his or her preferences, but I think this is antithetical to providing the encyclopedia's users with a good article layout, and also work against the long-term interests of the project.

My primary concern (as always) is with the user, and specfically not with registered users and those who are familiar with Wikipedia, but with the users who come to Wikipedia as a reference source without knowing, or wanting to know, anything about the project. They're not here to edit or register for yet another website, they're here to find out something about a particular subject. These people are our target audience, because if Wikipedia seems to them to be a good source of reliable information which is well-presented, they'll come back again, and perhaps, at some point, get more involved in the project, and they'll reccommend the site to others.

It's the "well-presented" angle that I'm aiming at here. The naive user will come to Wikipedia with no specific preference settings, and what they'll see if the images are not hardcoded with a specific size are tiny postage-stamp sized pictures which are often hard to see or difficult to make out what's in them, which, in that state, hardly contribute at all to a well-presented article - if anything, they can be said to distract from it.

If an image is included on a page, it should be shown at the minimum size necessary to make it visually comprehensible without overwhelming the text. In short, it should enhance the text, and neither pull focus nor appear to be an afterthought. This requires that editors take some care in the placement and arrangement of the images, as well as in their size, and speaks against leaving them in their raw thumbnail state.

I appreciate that those who want images to remain uncoded for size are doing so in the spirit of individual choice, but I think they're overlooking the fact that if Wikipedia is to be a success and become the first choice for immediate online information, it needs to serve not only the people who hang around and know its ins-and-outs, but also all those who may come by only occasionally just to dip into the well.

For these reasons I have restored the hardcoded image sizes in the article. Please do not remove them, instead discuss your thoughts about this issue here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is the product of the cooperative work of several involved editors who have not had issues with discussing and working together productively to resolve differences and implement changes. The last couple of days, changes have been forced into the article arbitrarily and with no regard for the productive process, including removing material recently tagged for citations, arbitrarily changing image sizes which have been placed to account for image viewability and article balance, and finally, engaging in edit warring to try and enforce these changes. There obviously are at least three editors who are in agreement on these issues and thus, changes should be discussed here, rather than reverting tenditiously and with no cooperative effort. This needs to stop and dialogue be initiated instead. Please discuss any and all changes here prior to implementation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Affairs in Versailles

With regards to a few recent edits about Colbert's role in the film Royal Affairs in Versailles (such as this), it is wrong to draw a conclusion that Colbert's age, or the size of her role was a consequence of her being no longer an "A-list" star. There is also no relevance in her age, relative to that of the other performers, or whether she played the title character. The film was made with a large cast of well known French performers who all played cameo roles. Colbert playing a cameo role was not a reflection upon her status, because the notable French performers were doing likewise. In fact, if conclusions are to be drawn, I personally find it interesting that in a French film, she was the only person with an established history in American films, with the exception of Orson Welles. Perhaps, just perhaps, her inclusion says something positive about her status, rather than something negative. I won't add my suppositions to the article, but neither should any one else. Further, if you look at the cast listing for the film, it's in alphabetical order, not in the order of importance that is often the case. This usually suggests an equality among the participants, and alphabetical order is generally considered a way of listing the performers neutrally. Colbert's position in the cast list is because her name started with "C". If it had started with "A" she'd be top of the list and "Z" would have put her at the bottom. Again, no drawing of conclusions please. I've expanded the sentence so that that there is mention of the French cast, and it would be interesting to expand upon this, especially as it is an oddity in her career, but not without sources. Rossrs (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I added a "cite needed" tag. I'm happy to reword the sentence, so that it is grammatically (and perhaps factually) accurate, if another editor strongly feels that it should be included, but perhaps that other editor will oblige by providing a suitable source. Rossrs (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with actual discussion on this page, since I find it quite difficult to actually carry on a dialogue on edit summaries. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood Babylon as a reliable source

This edit restores information about Colbert's alleged sexuality based on comments in the book Hollywood Babylon with the edit summary "It says it comes from Hollywood Babylon, let readers decide the reliability". This attitude of including information just because it's cited to a published source and allowing readers to decide for themselves is at odds with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which says in part, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors..." The key word here is reliable. WP:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Again the word "reliable" appears. I have no way of knowing whether this information about Claudette Colbert is true or not, nor do I particularly care, but there is much to support the notion that Hollywood Babylon is not "reliable". Kenneth ANGER (not Kenneth Aggler) has been well and truly criticised since the book was published and our own article on Hollywood Babylon notes this and also blames/credits him for urban legends that have sprung up about some people since the book was published. The last thing we should be doing is perpetuating that. An encyclopedia should not be reporting rumours as alleged facts and then allowing readers to decide whether it's reliable or not. Readers have the right to expect that every word they read on Wikipedia is reliable and when it's clearly not reliable it should be removed. The onus is on the person adding the material or restoring the material after it's been challenged to adequately address these points and support the inclusion. Letting readers decide for themselves is a very weak rationale for including dubious material. Rossrs (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, well said. I was going to say something about this too but I couldn't have said it as well as you do above. I totally agree with everything Rossrs says above. This material should not be readded to the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it that certain users get to declare, without giving any sources, that particular books are unreliable? Shouldn't editors have to demonstrate with reliable sources that this book not be used? And shouldn't this be a consensus decision (and by "consensus", I don't mean prior agreement by the WLH cabal)?—Chowbok ☠ 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, another editor was confronted with a similar situation once upon a time. I'll just quote her, because I couldn't have said it better myself: "[Just] because you personally do not like what a reliably published source says does not mean it is "wrong." If this is your only attempt at discussing any of this, then by all means, find a reliable source to refute it. Don't just remove it and say "it's wrong." It would actually be even better if you tried discussing it first rather than set out on a contentious edit war."—Chowbok ☠ 15:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, that's not how it works at all. The person adding the material is responsible for ensuring its integrity and proving so if challenged. I mentioned that above. Chowbok, as usual you make it personal and that is not acceptable. I've challenged the suitability of this material based on the source provided, and the onus is on the person wishing to add the material to establish its validity. And also as I said above, our own article discusses the view that the material is unreliable. It's not my responsibility to prove that the material is unreliable in order to remove it. That's a backwards approach. You have to establish that it's reliable if you wish to include it. Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? The section about "Questionable Sources" is relevant. Another sentence worth reading is "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Do some research please. You haven't done enough research to even correctly identify the author. Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed the typo, I actually do know who the author is. I even have Fireworks and Scorpio Rising on DVD.—Chowbok ☠ 16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As for your second comment about "another editor" for one thing you seem to have missed that it also includes the word "reliable". Quoting from an unnamed editor without providing context doesn't carry any weight. If you're going to quote at me, please quote from policies and/or guidelines as I have done. Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So the editor I quoted was incorrect in suggesting that the burden of demonstrating reliability falls on the editor removing the source?—Chowbok ☠ 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Rossrs (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to get into the middle of an argument here but isn't verifiability the imporant thing in Wikipedia? How can you say one source is reliable and another isn't reliable if both are published? If they are verifiable isn't that enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverDeepMountainHigh (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not enough to be published. To repeat part of my earlier comment "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which says in part, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors..." Our guidelines make it clear that being published is not enough. Hollywood Babylon has a reputation for gossip and innuendo and the author has been criticised for it. That's contained in our own article about the book. We can't really have an article that says a book is unreliable and then quote from it in other articles. Like all things in Wikipedia it's up to the person seeking to include information to support it. If something can be provided to confirm that the book is reliable, we don't have a problem, but a quick Google search shows that the book is described as "tabloid" or "gossip" almost every time it's mentioned. Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I changed back the stuff about Colbert and Dietrich erroneously but will go back and undo it now.RiverDeepMountainHigh (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC) You already did it! Never mind!RiverDeepMountainHigh (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I didn't mean to step on your toes there. Regarding the explanation - you're welcome. And thanks. Rossrs (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, if you would have read the Hollywood Babylon article you would see why the source is not reliable or disputed. Also, why is that it's only this man that "knows" Claudette Colbert is a lesbian, but no one else? See WP:REDFLAG, particularly "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources and reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended". Thanks. Mike Allen 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's sources on this rumour that may help illuminate the debate:[2][3][4][http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Screen-Lesbians-Hollywood-1910-1969/dp/product-description/0670030171] This is the pic that gave the rumour legs:[5] Fences&Windows 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting picture but what's more interesting is the way it looks if viewed in isolation. It is actually one of several pictures taken at a "Fun Fair" fundraising event at Santa Monica in 1935. Some other photos are published in a Carole Lombard book. The setting is the same, as is Colbert clothing. The photos show Lombard and Colbert/Lombard, Dietrich, Cary Grant and Jack Oakie, Lombard and Cary Grant, Jean Harlow, Toby Wing, and Jock Whitney. Similar poses, clearly not an orgy, and clearly a bunch of people clowning around (except for the Jack Oakie one which is a bit lacking in the clowning department). Looking at only the Dietrich/Colbert picture, it can easily be interpreted as something else. Just mentioning this as a point of interest. Rossrs (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds to me that this is actually sourced enough to be reported in the article, even leaving aside Hollywood Babylon. Mann's book even has a writer going on record about it. It should be made clear that it's disputed, but I think it should be in there. Thoughts?—Chowbok ☠ 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. It's just the Hollywood Babylon source that is dubious. If it was written in such a way as to make it clear that it's not an absolute fact that would work. Rossrs (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At least two of those do not confirm it at all and essentially say that it was a vicous rumor. That would be the New York Daily News and People. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969 treats is as a unfounded rumor. A lot is based off that picture, although a picture doesn't prove anything unless it would actually show sex in action. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the photo above. I love the photo and it's interesting to see how it is perceived when looked at alone. As for the sources, we really only need one that's reliable. I looked at Mann's and was prepared to accept it as I couldn't see anything to make it appear unreliable. I think it's ok. I know we don't report rumours but if the rumour grows legs off its own, that becomes notable in itself. I don't know if that applies here. Maybe it does. Rossrs (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Claudette Colbert/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

On a scale from 1 to 10. I give it about a 7! It needs more information on why she wanted to be in the acting bussiness. Also, what are her education backgrounds, and why her parents wanted to come to the United States(New York)!!216.170.5.59 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Emme

Last edited at 04:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)