Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 3

Sexuality, again
The marriage and sexuality section seems heavy on gossip and light on evidence. Grant's daughter and two of his wives denied homosexuality or bisexuality. That seems to trump claims by authors trying to hawk a book by attaching themselves to the subject, yet the rumors appear first as if they were fact. I'm going to try editing the section to rely more on those who knew Mr. Grant without dispute over those who claimed to have known him.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I trimmed the section for balance, while keeping all of its source citations.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

minor fix-up
fixed up poor phrasing in the intro section - it's highly debatable that grant was known more for comedy than drama, makes more sense to simply say that he was known for both. also deleted this unreferenced/possibly completely erroneous claim slapped into the middle of the Academy Awards paragraph in the intro section ("...due to the fact that he was not signed to any specific studio in an era when the studios controlled the identities of the recipients"). whether it's true or not, it's not significant enough to be added to that section i wouldn't think (the only info really needed in the intro is that he didn't receive the award, not theories as to why.) it also made the the first half of that paragraph a particularly sloppy/lengthy run-on sentence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.142.97 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad Footnote
Footnote #21 is Hadleigh 2003, p. 238, but there isn't a work by "Hadleigh" listed in the references. Does anyone know what book this is supposedly referring to or should this be removed? Jtyroler (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Radio Work
Should anything about Grant's work on radio be included? He starred in "Mr. and Mrs. Blandings" in 1951. He was in two classic episodes of "Suspense", "The Black Curtain" (1943) and "On a Country Road" (1950), plus radio versions of some of his films, including "Suspicion" on Academy Award Theater and "The Bishop's Wife" on Lux Radio Theater that I'm aware of. There are probably others. Jtyroler (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not widely known today but actors typically did radio versions of their films back when radio was in its heyday, including top leading men like Grant and Clark Gable or Wallace Beery. Occasionally they'd do something altogether different, like James Cagney voicing a version of Dalton Trumbo's astonishing Johnny Got His Gun that I'd love to hear in its entirety.  I just looked at the page and it's not immediately apparent where best to fit Cary Grant's radio work in, though, but it should certainly get a sentence or phrase put in there somewhere at the very least.  I'll try to think about it myself.  With a film career that huge to deal with, it's tough, though.  Accubam (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Grant, Cary (Suspicion) 01 Crisco edit.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grant, Cary (Suspicion) 01 Crisco edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 17, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In his own Write
Beyond a statement about his screen persona that Grant supposedly wrote, which is quoted from a secondary source, there's nothing about Grant having been a writer, yet there are three "writer" categories on the article. Why is that? – Salamurai (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Denied American Citizenship in the lead
A few days ago a few editors used two separate rationales for completely removing the simple fact that Cary Grant was an American in the lead paragraph.

The first editor claimed the fact that he didn't fit the definition of "English-American" based on the Wikipedia article English American. Presumably because he was born in England. Yet somehow completely ignoring the section on "Expatiates" or people who move to the US from England to become citizens. So yes if you want to use the article for your criteria, he most defiantly fits the definition.

Both editors expressed concern that since he became notable before actually becoming an official US citizen, that WP:OPENPARA is criteria enough to exclude his American citizenship from the lead. Somehow both editors completely overlooked the fact that being a resident of the United States is also criteria for inclusion:

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident.-- JOJ Hutton  02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You left off the end of that when the person became notable. Grant became notable as an English citizen. We don't introduce ambiguity into an article when it is clear what the person's national origin is when it was still in effect at the time they became notable. Changes of citizenship after notability are simply reported in the article text. They are not denied, they are simply properly placed and explained. We do exactly the same thing if someone is born in the US and becomes notable, then changes their citizenship. We still call them American. This leads to the least edit wars, because it avoids cultural appropriation. During his time, Grant was well-known as an English actor. Keep your Americanization to people born in the US or who moved there and became citizens before they became notable. There are plenty of these such as Isaac Asimov that the Russians or some other nationals would like to claim. You can't have it both ways; using the nationality at the time the subject became notable is the correct dividing line. Yworo (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave off the end, I assumed it was implied within your own statement. He was a permanent US resident as well when he became notable. Please don't ignore that as well. JOJ Hutton  05:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Permanent resident" is a legal status. I see nothing in the article that supports if or precisely when Grant obtained such a status. Yworo (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a citation that Grant actually had been legally granted "permanent resident" status, and what year this occurred. Otherwise he clearly became notable as an English citizen before he became an American citizen. Yworo (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is using the modern definition of "permanent resident" on something that happened nearly 100 years ago. He moved here to stay. He was processed through Ellis Island. Before air travel, people didn't come to the US to simply visit for a few years. They came to stay. You need to stop your Wikilawyering over some menial detail. He lived in the US most of his life, he was a US citizen for more years than he wasn't, and he was a US resident when he became notable. -- JOJ Hutton  14:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article for a long time prior to August 2012 was written in British spelling and with the wording " was an English actor who later gained American citizenship." You are the one who changed it despite long consensus and you are the one who has been edit warring ever since to maintain your incorrect position. I have simply restored the long-standing original wording. Go find something else to do. Yworo (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He is better known as a US citizen, having lived in the county and been a citizen the greater portion of his life. All of his films were American. His ties to England were literally severed when he moved to the US for good when he was in his teens. I don't see how the article should not reflect his preference over your objections.-- JOJ Hutton  14:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then start an RfC. You didn't have the right to change it arbitrarily and without being at all involved in the discussion. Despite making these arbitrary changes over previous consensus back in 2012, you didn't even join the discussion on the talk page until 25 March 2013 when editors noticed and reverted what you had done which was against clear policy about article styles. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What previous consensus are you referring to? Is there a consensus that said that the British spelling is preferable? I didn't see one. The changes that I made back in August of 2012 were in response to changes that an ip made just a month before hand. Before that, the American dates and spelling were used. In fact, the article was started with the American dates and spellings. And per WP:RETAIN, the original version should be the default.-- JOJ Hutton  15:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kinda hard to tell that, since you didn't mention it in your edit summary and it seems you didn't use the talk page at the time. Yworo (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do your own research. Its not everyone else's job to keep you abreast of every situation.-- JOJ Hutton  15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

History of consensus on nationality
Since at least 21 April 2011, the lead has read "English actor". Discussion on this talk page under the section Talk:Cary Grant, in line with discussion on other subject who changed their nationality, concluded that a hyphenated term, such as British-American or English-American is misleading, implying that the subject was born in the US and thus depreciating their birth citizenship. Grant was born English to two English parents in England: he was certainly not "English-American" in its most commonly understood sense. Hyphenated terms are ambiguous. To emphasize that he became an American, the qualifying phrase "who later gained American citizenship" was added to the lead sentence.

Thus it stood until 24 March 2013, when Jojhutton changed it. He was reverted by an editor involved in the original discussion. He began to edit war over it, and was repeated reverted by editors involved in the original consensus. He has not sought nor gained a new consensus, and continues to occasionally change it arbitrarily, usually without an edit comment stating what he is doing. He has been asked to show consensus for his change or to start an RfC. Continuing to change the article to an ambiguous term previously rejected by consensus is disruptive editing and should be reverted on sight, and probably reported.

To make this clear: Grant was a British citizen for 84 years, an American citizen for only 44. Regardless of what the US citizenship oath was at the time, he retained his British citizenship under British law and died a dual citizen.Yworo (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on so many levels. Not only have you misrepresented the "consensus", but you have gone even further by making slanderous statements worthy of ANI. The article did not "stand" at "English actor" for two years before I changed it as you incorrectly imply with your comment above. At many times it was "English-American", "British-American", and even "English born American". Before that it was " English-American" for several years. You're statement obove also implies that I am the only one making these changes. Also a complete falsehood. Many other editors have edited the article in the same manner. You have outright lied about my edit summeries. I have left edit comments in each of my revisions, minus one that has nothing to do with the edits in question. I now ask that you publicly renounce these lies and slanders or I will be forced to obtain outside help from an admin notice board. You cannot go around making slanderous statements on talk pages as a way to gain an upper hand in a consensus debate. This is not the first time that you have made incorrect statements on this topic. Its disruptive to make false statements andoIt's not indicative of the consensus forming process. JOJ  Hutton  17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I may have not looked closely enough at the edit history and some of my comments may have been inaccurate. But since July 2011 which was the date of last discussion of the matter of consensus until March 2013, the article has not stated "English-American", "British-American", and even "English born American" for even as long as 6 months at a time, so your assertion that it did so "for several years" is simply false. The details of the history which show that the July 2011 consensus was upheld by long-standing persistence as well as discussion on the talk page is below. Yworo (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sampling of versions since July 2011
The wording "Cary Grant was an English actor who later took American citizenship" was proposed by User:Sue De Nimes on July 17, 2011. There were no objections to this wording at the time and it was implemented as the consensus version of the article. No further discussion occurred until 24 March 2013. Here is a sampling of the history of that wording and who changed it when without discussion or gaining consensus.


 * August 16, 2011: "an English actor[3] who later took US citizenship"
 * September 1, 2011: "an English actor[3] who later took U.S. citizenship."
 * October 1, 2011: "an English actor[3] who later took U.S. citizenship."
 * November 1, 2011: "an English actor[3] who later took U.S. citizenship."
 * December 4, 2011: "an English actor[3] who later took U.S. citizenship."
 * January 1, 2012: "an English actor[3] who later took U.S. citizenship."
 * February 2, 2012: "an English actor[3] who later took U.S. citizenship."
 * changed w/o consensus February 23, 2012 by 77.49.83.69 - no discussion, no new consensus formed.

This non-consensual change went unnoticed until User:Sue De Nimes corrected it on July 21, 2012
 * consensus version restored July 21, 2012 "an English actor who later gained American citizenship."
 * August 20, 2012: "an English actor who later gained American citizenship."
 * September 4, 2012: " an English actor who later gained American citizenship."
 * changed w/o consensus September 18, 2012 by User:JimmyS900 - no discussion, no new consensus formed

Again, this non-consensual change went unnoticed with some minor back and forth wording changes until April 6, 2013, when I noticed the change from the previous consensus version without any new consensus having been formed on the talk page:
 * consensus version restored April 6, 2013: "an English film and stage actor, who later gained American citizenship."

Since that date User:Jojhutton has repeatedly restored his preferred wording, without establishing any new consensus to override the July 2011 consensus, while falsely claiming that he is restoring the "consensus" or "original" wording. This is simply a false assertion, as I have just demonstrated. This may of course be unintentional based on an incomplete knowledge of the consensus formed after long discussion and the actual history of the changes from it. Yworo (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment on Above Unfortunately what Yworo describes as the "July 2011 consensus" is no such thing. The consensus before that was "English-American". For years before that, the article was some form of that. The July 2011 edit was against the previous consensus that included many editors. Yworo seems to throw around terms like "against consensus" and "consensus version restored" as if it was true, which it is not. And if per WP:CONSENSUS a new consensus was formed because someone made a change and it wasn't reverted for 6 months, then the same could be said for many of the subsequent versions in which were not changed for much longer than that.-- JOJ  Hutton  22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not proof. That's a bald assertion. Where are the diffs you said you would provide to prove that you are right? Nowhere. You have a misconception of what constitutes consensus, it's not a simple historical count of opinions on the talk page. Also, it can change. I've made an argument that it changed at a specific time and was maintained for specific periods of time. That is in line with how we determine consensus on Wikipedia, which is not a vote. Yworo (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the ambiguous hyphenated term, English-American, be used to describe the subject?
Should the ambiguous hyphenated term, English-American, be used to describe the subject? On other subject's biographies, such as that of Charlize Theron, it has been concluded that the hyphenated term occludes and depreciates the subject's birth nationality. Grant is not a person of English ethnicity born in the US as one interpretation of the term indicates. In addition, WP:OPENPARA specifies that the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable is what should be used in the lead sentence. Grant clearly became notable before he was naturalized as an American citizen. Consensus above (leaving out the non-policy adhering suggestions) was to make the lead sentence "... was an English film and stage actor who became an American citizen in 1942" in order to be completely accurate about the subject's nationalities. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Way to word it neutrally. Not even worth responding to. JOJ Hutton  22:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I don't think pointing out that a term is ambiguous, when in fact it is, is non-neutral. Do you dispute that the term has multiple interpretations, one of which is accurate when applied to the subject, the other of which is not? Yworo (talk)


 * No, the proposed wording both follows WP:OPENPARA, clarifies the fact the after achieving notability the subject became an American citizen, even giving the date, and is both completely accurate and more informative than just using the ambiguous term, 'English-American', which would be misinterpreted by a wide percentage of English readers. Yworo (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I can see arguments on both sides, but since he was well-known before becoming an American citizen, it seems reasonable to describe him as an English actor who later gained dual citizenship. I haven't followed the whole issue of who made what change when. I just think that's the best wording. Omnedon (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The RfC is not worded neutrally, and you should fix that.  A RfC body is not the place to make persuasive arguments.  I prefer formations of the type used in Charlize Theron: "English and American" or "English actor who later gained American citizenship".  Infoboxes can list all of the details, and the article body can elaborate.  English-American should be avoided. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, mentioning "English" "actor" "American citizen" and "Hollywood" in the first few sentences. Grant first became known when he was English (for work in the US), importantly however, he is best known for his Hollywood movies. The lead should reflect this. Also Yworo, policy is not nationality "at the time they became notable", policy is subject's nationality, period - unless they are predominantly known for things in the past, then it is nationality "at the time they became notable". Please note the difference. FurrySings (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Although considered an English actor for the first part of his career, Cary Grant took out American citizenship and considered himself an American throughout the later part of his life, so that the "English-American" description is likely the most accurate. FWiW, it could also follow that the explanation of his nationality and citizenship is clearly defined in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Would American-English be an acceptable term for the same reasons? Grant was born a British Citizen to British parents. When he became notable he was a British Citizen. By all means add that he later gained US citizenship but not at the expense of stating his British nationality. I have yet to see any source quoted that states that Grant renounced his British Citizenship either. While the US may not have recognised dual-citizenship the UK did. Without a suitable source we must assume he also held British citizenship until the day he died. The onus is to prove otherwise, supposition doesn't count. Sue De Nimes (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And the source that Britain allowed duel citizenship to someone who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country?-- JOJ Hutton  22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There presumably can't be one since it's not true. Under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 is unambiguous that foreign naturalisation results automatically in the loss of British nationality (Part III, paragraph thirteen). It wasn't until the British Nationality Act 1948 that it was possible for a British citizen to achieve dual citizenship by way of foreign naturalisation. Binabik80 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a bit of a follow-up, until the 1980s, citizenship in the U.S. did not proffer or allow dual or multiple citizenships. One of my friends was an American citizen but had lived (and worked as a teacher) almost all of his life in Canada, yet was reluctant to give up his U.S. status. He applied for a dual citizenship and a special citizenship court which I attended was established. He was noted in the media as being one of the first (maybe the first) to have both U.S. and Canadian citizenship. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why the lead should state "became an American citizen" rather that "gained American citizenship" which it was how it read some time back. I think the addition of the year also helps a lot with getting the full situation across in the lead sentence, where it can easily be compared with birth and death dates and the reader can form their own opinions about the relative lengths of citizenship, etc. Yworo (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Find a compromise. To preface this, note that I have not been involved in this debate and was brought here by a RfC bot. Style guidelines notwithstanding, it seems to me that Grant most recently identified as an American citizen (please correct me if I'm wrong), and thus should be identified as such first. Adding to that, he is also usually known now for his work on the American screen, unless I'm mistaken. He may have been English, and he may have been known primarily as an English actor for a long time, but his legacy is as an American actor, and he was an American citizen, no? Is there disagreement on this point? The current wording is a little cumbersome, not because it's poorly worded but rather because it's trying to deal with a complex issue in a space (the lead) that should more efficiently address these things before exploring them in more depth in the body. My personal suggestion would be to rephrase the lead as follows: "was an American film and stage actor of English origin who was known for his transatlantic accent, debonair demeanor and "dashing good looks." Grant is considered one of classic Hollywood's definitive leading men." --Batard0 (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * English actor who became a naturalized American citizen seems about as accurate and neutral as one could wish - we are not obligated to follow any other biography and can reach a separate consensus here, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hyphenated English-American - This is obviously a very poorly constructed RfC, made by an editor who has a history of tendentious editing over the whole nationality thing. Suggest we either 1) annul this RfC and put together a more reasonably worded one to get a better sense of consensus, or 2) Go with "English-American" as it seems relatively fair and accurate, or 3) Not mention any nationality in the lead, and describe the nationality further on in the body. NickCT (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No - leave as "English/British actor [...] who became an American citizen in 1942" Available refs quote him as "English actor" or "British actor" during the late 30s and early 40s, even through until 1958. (see my comment below for refs). Chaosdruid (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * English actor who became a naturalized American citizen / English actor who became an American citizen in 19XX / British born American actor, I offer the last as he is most notable for his American work. Why introduce pointless ambiguities to save 3 or 4 words? Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * British-born American actor is the only description that could be honest. Per the lead, "He established a name for himself in Vaudeville in the 1920s and toured the United States before moving to Hollywood in the early 1930s." That kind of flimsy connection to his acting career in the U.K. is no reason to mislead readers. He would not be listed in WP if not for his notability as an American actor. The same is true for Elizabeth Taylor, who became a child star in Hollywood at age nine. She was not therefore "a British-American actress" but a British-born American actress. There seems to be a never-ending conflict about recapturing stars who were born in the UK but lived and practiced their profession in a different country. They were both only notable for being American actors, and any hyphenating is deceptive. Just state where they were born and where they did 99% of their work. Nationality is made totally clear by saying "British-born". --Light show (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And why not also reconsider Olivia de Havilland's description as a British-American actress. She wasn't born in the U.K. and never even lived there! How then could she be a British actress? This article will soon be read by many when she turns 100. And it may undermine WP as a RS. --Light show (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Taylor does seem to have some justification, if her article is correct that she had dual-citizenship at birth and renounced neither. In THAT instance 'British born' would suggest that she did renounce the UK citizenship. I agree with your general point that hyphens are usually ambiguous and at times dishonest. W.H. Auden, is described as 'Anglo-American', which is even more ambiguous. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment Not only have you still not answered for your previous lies/Falsehoods/misrepresentations, but you edited the article against the previous consensus version. You should really have kept it at the version that resulted from the previous consensus rather than editing it to your preferred version without consesus. until this RFC has concluded. Good faith can only be stretched so far before it can be reasonably assumed that one is acting in bad faith. JOJ Hutton  23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe in good faith (see ) that this is the previous consensus version, and was for some years before you started edit-warring. Also, accusations of lying imply intentionality and thus are a form of personal attack. Please comment on the content and not the contributor, which is long-standing Wikipedia policy. I have been involved in this article longer than you have, and know what the consensus was and that there has been no change in consensus made on the talk page since July 2011. Yworo (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to lie, prepare to be called on it, regardless of intent. And did you just say that you have been involved with this article longer? Sounds like an ownership issue to me.-- JOJ Hutton  01:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not lying, but you are making personal attacks. The details of the consensus established in July 2011 and variations from it without discussion is above. I have no interest in owning the article, simply having a clear and unambiguous lead sentence rather than an unclear and misleading one. Yworo (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made several outright falsehoods and have yet to apologize nor back up your statements with facts. You dismiss any comment in the previous consensus discussion that you personally feel does not adhere to your interpretation of the guidelines. You have shown ignorance in your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and have continue to act as the victim. You have shown signs of tendentious editing and have continued to attack me with falsehoods and misleading statements while nitpicking the article history and talk page comments suit your needs.-- JOJ Hutton  01:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn. The details of the July 2011 consensus and the history of deviations from it, have been detailed above. You simply appear not to have noticed. I have no intention of admitting anything or apologizing for anything. While the details I provided may have been erroneous, you are still the one in the wrong, not me. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're so confident in your interpretation, why don't you go ahead and inform the editors of that previous discussion about this RFC. Lets see what happens.-- JOJ Hutton  02:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most editors responding to RfCs do actually read the talk page. And I've linked the history of the article since July 2011. In any case, I'm not trying to uphold an old consensus, but am rather simply forming a new one based on broad participation from editors outside the usual on this article, which is what you should have done and I suggested that you do several times, but which you didn't bother to do. In any case, you certainly are being uncivil about this. Yworo (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have only linked a portion of the article history and have already stated that you have dismissed any comment from the previous discussion that you feel did not adhere to the guidelines. That is nitpicking the discussion to meet your goal.-- JOJ Hutton  02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see you're a rather opinionated fellow. But your animosity is not helping your case. C'est la vie. Yworo (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't need opinion to help any case, let alone mine. There are only facts. And when I have time, the facts will be linked, including any false, misleading, or blatantly incorrect statements that you have made on this topic.-- JOJ Hutton  02:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do be aware that changing the wording of the RfC is bad form once others have responded. Also, including or pointing out any material you claim to be "false, misleading, or blatantly incorrect statements that [I] have made on this topic" would be disruptive to the RfC process itself and should not be posted in the RfC response area above. What should be posted there are policy-based arguments for your position, if there are any, that is. If you have a problem with me, feel free to start a User RfC about my conduct, but this content RfC is not an appropriate place to do so. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate it when facts get in the way too. And why can't you make one simple comment and just leave it alone? Why must you fiddle and tinker with everything you say? Now thats disruptive because it creates unnecessary edit conflicts.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors are allowed to copyedit their own comments before another editor replies. And that's certainly not within the definition of disruptive editing. Another false accusation on your part. If you'd slow down on your knee-jerk must-get-the-last-word responses, you'd not even notice. Yworo (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jojhutton, I am not taking sides on this, but just in terms of behavior, I do have to point out that you are being very uncivil and assuming bad faith to a great degree. Let's try to cool it off here and talk about the issues. If there are points you can make about what happened and what consensus was at some given point, then it should be simple to show that with diffs. Let's focus on data, not emotion. Omnedon (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the concern and you are correct in one regard, there needs to be more civility. Just need to point out that not everything that Yworo is 100% correct.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then show that with evidence. Omnedon (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh it will be. Don't have time on my hands to spend creating dozens of diffs, but this weekend should avail me the time. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  03:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do be sure to explain away the proof of the long-standing July 2011 consensus posted above at . Of course, versions before that consensus was implemented and upheld through persistence and lack of further discussion leading to any new or changed consensus are moot and not applicable to the current state of the article. Consensus need not be explicit and is not based on some sort of count of opinions in comments on the talk page. It's not a vote, that's not the way these things are done and if you think it is, you are mistaken. Showing that the article was stable and was eventually returned to that stable version after each divergence since the last talk page discussion on the matter (as I have done) is sufficient to establish that there  was such a consensus.  What you must show is that a new consensus was formed on the talk page subsequent to the long-standing July 2011 version after such discussion on the topic was resumed on 24 March 2013. Good luck with that, since no such consensus was formed. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And what, pray tell, leads you to the conclusion that the opinions of the editors prior to July 2011 are irrelevant? Or why the longstanding version prior to July 2011 is not relevan? Or why the version after February 2012 would not be the new consensus version? JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Standard Wikipedia policy: "consensus can change". It changed in July 2011 and has not changed since. It can change, and that's what the RfC is for. One doesn't determine consensus from long stale talk page comments, but rather from the current opinions of current editors. Yworo (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A single edit by a single user hardly constitutes a new consensus.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It all depends on how long that edit is maintained and/or restored. A single change that is supported for several years, being reverted to sooner (or sometimes later), represents an implied change in consensus. Yworo (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here, as I got caught up in the previous argument on this matter. Today it's been complicated further by somebody replacing the wording with "an British born..." If the quibbling makes Wikipedia look stupid, the bad grammar makes it worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that the fact that he was English when he became notable, and that he made half his films as a British citizen, does not fit in with the fact that a lot of Americans want to "make him theirs". I am sorry that this does not fit in with their wishes, but feel free to carry on trying to change it for another 10 years, maybe something will change. As for previous consensus, I was one of those people who was involved in the discussions in 2010 - he was an English actor who became notable as both a "British actor" and "English actor", and became an American citizen in 1942.
 * Feel free to use these refs: Like most of the other British actors here, [... Cary Grant, [...] (Toledo Blade July 10, 1940)] and "Cary, who was English, but had a tremendous American following." & "Cary Grant, British citizen [... " (Motion Picture Volumes 57-58, 1939, pp.82 & pp.84)] - he was still being called "British actor" in 1958! "She and the British Actor [..." (HOLLYWOOD (AP) in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Dec 20, 1958)] & (Daytona Beach Morning Journal - Dec 20, 1958).
 * There is also the "transatlantic accent" issue ("a cultivated or acquired version of the English language once found in certain aristocratic elements of American society and taught for use in the American theatre"), which makes it appear he had a naturally American accent that was trying to emulate a British one ... he had a British accent because he was British Chaosdruid (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chaosdruid, re: a lot of Americans want to "make him theirs", he IS mainly theirs, he became a US citizen, he did his most notable work there. Possibly trading on, what Americans saw as 'Britishness', nonetheless he chose to have his career/citizenship/life there. He isn't 'ours' except starting out in the UK. Plenty of other actors etc. chose to keep their UK citizenship, he didn't. Look at this poet. … … ps Grant's accent certainly doesn't sound any kind of 'British' to an English person. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Politics
I would dispute the statement that Grant made an "overtly partisan appearance in introducing his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention". The fact that he "spoke of "your" party rather than "ours" in his remarks" means that he was not endorsing the party at all.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Politics
I would dispute the statement that Grant made an "overtly partisan appearance in introducing his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention". The fact that he "spoke of "your" party rather than "ours" in his remarks" means that he was not endorsing the party at all.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Grant voted for Nixon twice, and for Reagan twice, so there is no doubt he was on the Republican side after his retirement from acting. (ShawnLFlynn (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

The contention was that he was "overtly partisan." Noting that he voted for Nixon and Reagan has no relevancy at all relating to that. (Sellpink (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC))

Rheumatic fever?
Some years ago, I either read or heard in a documentary or on Turner Classic Movies (somewhere!) that when Cary Grant had rheumatic fever, he was cared for by his close friend, one of the "Brewster sisters". Since I cannot recall which actress, it would either be Jean Adair or Josephine Hull. This information struck me, and stuck with me, due to the rheumatic fever in my own family.

If true, it's not only a sweet detail, but speaks directly to Grant's health both during the purported bout of RF and the probable sequelae of a serious life-long condition called "rheumatic heart disease". People with RHD are much more likely to have strokes than the general population due to clot formation on damaged heart valves or the higher incidence of atrial fibrillation. There are other serious effects of the condition, too. Does anyone owning Grant biographies have any information on Grant and RF?

(Unfortunately, the WP article on rheumatic fever has a section on rheumatic heart disease that delves deeply, and heavily laced with jargon, into changes that occur in heart cells and lacks simple, plain information on the disease's consequences. For more information, see this patient information article from Circulation, a journal of the American Heart Association, for a clear explanation of RHD:
 * "Cardiology Patient Page: Prevention of Acute Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease" - http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/130/5/e35.long )

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Grant was 80 when he had his first stroke, and he had been a heavy smoker until he was over 50. (ShawnLFlynn (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

Comprehensive Filmography
Jack Breeze (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Books on Cary Grant

 * A Class Apart by Graham McCann £0.01
 * Cary Grant Biography by Marc Eliot £1.94
 * Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart £0.01
 * Cary Grant: Dark Angel £24.03
 * Good Stuff: A Reminiscence of My Father, Cary Grant £1.32
 * Cary Grant: In Name Only £0.01
 * Cary Grant a Life in Pictures £25
 * Cary Grant: The Leading Man (Kindle Edition) £3
 * Evenings With Cary Grant: Recollections in His Own Words and by Those Who Knew Him Best £2.78
 * Dear Cary LP: My Life with Cary Grant £0.01
 * Affair to Remember, An: My Life with Cary Grant £0.01
 * Cary Grant: A Celebration of Style £23.39
 * Cary Grant by Pamela Trescott £0.01
 * Complete Films of Cary Grant £0.01
 * A Touch of Elegance by Warren G. Harris £0.01
 * Cary Grant by Jerry Vermilye £0.01
 * As I mentioned on my talk page, I have Affair to Remember, An: My Life with Cary Grant (1989 edition, first one), Dark Angel (1996 edition), The Lonely Heart (1989 edition, first one), Trescott's biography, and an ebook version of Marc Eliot's biography (the page numbers change as I maximise or minimise the app size.) —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Second hand books are fine, one of the new £12 ones you listed is actually 0.01 used. That's fine, can you re check?♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Checked. IMHO, the ones that are really needed for the bulk material would be Dark Angel, The Lonely Heart, Eliot's and McCann's biographies. Cary Grant: In Name Only can be used as a sort of standby for Dark Angel, The Lonely Heart, Eliot's and McCann's biographies. If there is any info missing we'll use the other books listed here. For his personal life, Affair to Remember, An: My Life with Cary Grant, Evenings With Cary Grant: Recollections in His Own Words and by Those Who Knew Him Best, Good Stuff and Dear Cary would be good, but I wouldn't use Dear Cary really as it's too personal and Cannon does tend to go quite negatively on him at times. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 09:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a book especially on his film career?♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dark Angel, The Lonely Heart, Eliot's, McCann's and Trescott's biographies is a good place to start for a film career. All the biographies cover both his film career and personal life in detail. If you want a specific book on his film career, then This book for £0.38 would be a start I believe. Here on carygrant.net are some books you might want to take a look at.  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool Ssven.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Politics
Had to remove this due to problems with Nelson 2007 vs 2012. Best once somebody gets the book to verfiy it and this can be elaborated on and restored.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) His widow Barbara Harris described Grant as "probably more Republican than anything else, but he was more interested in the issues. So could go either way". He did not think film stars should make political declarations: "I'm opposed to actors taking sides in public and spouting spontaneously about love, religion or politics. ... I'm a mass of inconsistencies when it comes to politics."

Grant maintained friendships with colleagues of varying political positions, and his few political activities seemed to be shaped by personal friendships. Grant condemned McCarthyism in 1953, and when his friend Charlie Chaplin was blacklisted, Grant said that Chaplin's artistic value outweighed political concerns. He was also a friend of the Kennedy brothers and had close ties with the Mankiewicz family, including Robert Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz, and hosted one of Robert Kennedy's first political fundraisers at his home. Grant made a rare statement on public issues after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, calling for gun control. In 1976, after his retirement from films, Grant introduced his friend Betty Ford, the First Lady of the United States, at the Republican National Convention.

Lede image
I'm curious as to why the 1941 picture of Cary Grant was changed to a screencap of North by Northwest. The previous one seems better to me (it's even a featured picture), unless there is some sort of copyright dispute involved. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes you're right, and it does capture the ironic sense of humour. I just wanted to see how I could change the look of the article in time being!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I need some motivation to start working on this. Any objection to me restoring the colour image of him during the writing phase to make the page look more appealing to me? We'll restore the black and white one when completed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll restore the previous one once it's done, but I need to find a way to make the page look more colourful and to start working on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Which section in the article you prefer to work on? Childhood, Career, Legacy or Personal life?  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any, I go through each book systematically and add content to wherever appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll focus on the article's film career and legacy sections.  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Roberts
This looks plagiarised from wikipedia. I've used it as a source in several places but it will have to be replaced I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"In 1947 he gave the same figure to the state of Israel"
This statement is sourced (and I've looked it up in the source; it's there), but it can't possibly be correct. There was no State of Israel until May 1948. The authors of that biography must have either got the chronology wrong, or maybe the donation was to a pre-state Zionist organisation. (The extract from the source comes up for me here.) Do any other sources mention this? Also, the article states in the body that Grant thought his father was partially Jewish, then in the footnote it says he donated money to the State of Israel in the name of his dead mother. Anyone able to clarify on either of these points? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Date Format
WP:DATERET was written so that there wouldn't be edit warring over dates, yet Ssven has insisted that this article conform to his preferred date format. This article has had the MDY date format for nearly 14 years now. Please drop the stick and just move on. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've dropped the stick. Well, the article will model itself after Angela Lansbury now. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 06:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"The private Cary Grant"
This seems to be a very obscure book. I don't know what's in the book exactly, but to suggest that Cary Grant's father was not his biological father is a pretty tawdry and exceptional claim, and it would definitely require much more extensive sourcing. Where else is this claim made? This falls under Verifiability: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, at first I thought it was from the book I had. I didn't write that. It depends if that book is considered a reliable source or not. You could write it as xxx argues or claims that and it wouldn't be problematic. Perhaps I can get a copy of the book later in the year and see. I'll come back to writing this in a few weeks but I'm going to busy over the next month.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

LSD
I'd thought that there was something covering this previously but can't seem to find it. It's pretty important to mention I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe just a brief mention about it would do. After all, he ain't a hippie despite taking it up.  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His use of LSD is well sourced and could easily be expanded, although the section about his alleged gay life are all poorly sourced and reads like a National Enquirer article. It doesn't warrant a section, written like some crime story. It should be fixed. And BTW, the person who greatly expanded that section with pure "allegations," "claims" and "rumors" was a SPA who edit-warred to keep his personal opinion in. --Light show (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be trimming the homosexuality section anyway so it reads better. I agree that it's not well constructed. Personally I don't think Grant was gay at all, I think he mainly liked women though from what I've seen, but probably had a few affairs with men too, a lot of the Hollywood stars did. The LSD stuff is very well documented, but I'm reluctant to rely on Higham and Moseley for that. We'll see how it goes. I'm on to the McCann book now.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How about relying on Timothy Leary? Leary said that it was Grant who actually converted him to the positive potential of LSD.(McCann, p. 173) In the mid-1960s Grant even wanted to portray Leary in a film, since Leary had by then become a proselytizer. (Greenfield, Timothy Leary: A Biography, 2006 p. 549) There's no shortage of RSs, including Grant, who after he retired, talked about his LSD experiences: "If I drop dead within the next ten years, I will have enjoyed more living in the latter part of my life than most people ever know."(Timothy Leary, High Priest, 1968).
 * Yes, Leary seems like a good source to start with.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the gay "accusations" section, Grant could have sued WP for libel, which is relying on innuendo and gossip. When Louella Parsons once merely suggested, in one of her columns, that he was gay, he sued her and settled out of court. He also sued Chevy Chase for making the same mistake of spreading gossip, and that libel is used as a RS in the section.--Light show (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that US libel laws do not make such suits simple nor effective. They often simply spread the innuendo around, and the defendants are often "judgement-proof".  Lack of a lawsuit in no way indicates the tabloid claims are correct. The Leary anecdote is also of de minimis value in this biography as far as I can tell. I trimmed the "sexuality" section down a bit - and we really should not use any "contentious sources" as extensively as better sources. Collect (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the trim, but I do think we need to mention the Porter claim as a few authors have mentioned him attenting places while in New York and I think some minor detail on him living with Scott is necessary given that he was a major part of his life. Can you try to find the page number for the Parsons claim and format as sfn? I can't find any other source ion a google search which mentions he sued her.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There was no page number as it was from an ebook, which anyone can buy. BTW, can you support the fact that two men, or women, living as roommates must imply "sexuality?" If not, you've created an innuendo with this synthesis of detail which should be removed from a section called "Sexuality." --Light show (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Gay allegations
Should the section on Grant's "Sexuality" contain:

"William McBrien, in his biography Cole Porter, claim that Porter and Grant frequented the same upscale house of male prostitution in Harlem, run by Clint Moore and popular with celebrities, Grant lived with actor Randolph Scott off and on for 12 years, which led to rumors. The two had first met early on in Grant's career in 1932 at the Paramount studio when Scott was filming Sky Bride at the same time as Grant was shooting Sinners in the Sun. They moved in with each other soon afterwards, and according to Higham and Moseley were pressured by the studio to be photographed on dates with Sari Maritza and Vivian Gaye to diminish rumors of homosexuality."

-- Collect (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * "Several authors, including Higham and Moseley, have implied that Grant was homosexual, while others including Hedda Hopper, and screenwriter Arthur Laurents claimed that Grant was bisexual. Although biographer Robert Nott writes that there was never any evidence that Grant was or had been gay, and that such rumors were based on gossip. When Chevy Chase joked on television in 1980 that Grant was a "homo. What a gal!", Grant sued him for slander, and he was forced to retract his words. Similarly, when gossip columnist Louella Parsons suggested he was gay, he sued her for libel. Grant had roomed with his actor friend Randolph Scott in between his marriages, which led to rumors. However, Virginia Cherrill, Grant's first wife, said that Grant and Scott were only platonic friends. Grant's daughter Jennifer Grant stated that her father was not gay, although he "liked being called gay". He once used the term during a scene in the comedy Bringing Up Baby. In 2012, Dyan Cannon, his wife of four years, said that Grant was not gay: "[He] was all man in the bedroom. That part of our life was very fulfilling. There were no problems. There's rumors about everyone in Hollywood.""


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


 * Well good luck, my heart isn't set on writing this one anyway, Ssven was the one who persuaded me to do it. I'll be sending the books back to WMUK and letting somebody more competent write this instead. Can't be bothered.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe Light show can have a go at resorting this getting this up to stub class FA standard?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Summoned by bot. I don't find anything objectionable to this material as long as its addition does not over-weight his sexuality in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All rather moot, as the section and the weight of examination on the topic has be re-written a few times since then to the point that the RfC is discussinga situation that no longer exists, but thanks for closing this off. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I realized the RFC was outdated, but someone requested a formal close yesterday, and I'm here to please. I considered closing it as moot, but the discussion was straightforward enough that I saw no harm in closing on the merits. Curiously, I have been asked to rescind my close. Rebb  ing  19:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask you to rescind your close, but you know it should have been closed as moot. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Higham/Moseley Reviews
This article is very heavily sourced to (Higham, Charles; Moseley, Roy (1990). Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart. Avon Books. ISBN 978-0-380-71009-6. per Wikipedia biography)   :" Mr. Higham is the author of several celebrity biographies specializing in the revelation of unflattering details (the Duchess of Windsor was a prostitute in China; Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy). He and Mr. Moseley, who has written books about Merle Oberon and Rex Harrison, set out to reveal how unpretty was Grant's life. "
 * " But the primary focus of the book is to prove Grant's bisexuality, which had been rumored since his early Hollywood days, when he lived for years with one of his alleged lovers, the actor Randolph Scott - but which Grant always denied. Grant also had an affair with Howard Hughes, the authors assert with nothing but hearsay to back the claim. The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism. Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart is a compilation of blind items and thirdhand pronouncements, among them, It was common gossip in Hollywood that they [ Howard Hughes and Randolph Scott ] had been lovers. The reporting is not just nasty, it is irresponsible. Grant was arrested for performing a sex act with a man in a public restroom during World War II, they blithely report, with unnamed sources confirming the incident."
 * "When they are not slinging innuendo, the authors assume the pious tone of men performing a public service, as if Grant, by living his life privately, had pulled a fast one on us. The honest biographer cannot shirk the painful truth, even at the risk of being called deliberately sensationalist, they crow. Then with oily mock generosity they add, Cary Grant, despite his many very human failings, did his best to be a good and decent man. Let others argue if they will. A wily duo, Mr. Higham and Mr. Moseley supply all the information we need to despise Grant and then scold anyone fool enough to do so. "

With such a "glowing" review, I ask whether the biography of Cary Grant should rely so heavily on a book the NYT would likely have burned.

People magazine said

The NYT review noted:


 * "What is it about Cary Grant biographies that seems to require two authors? Here's a better question. What is it about Grant that he should be subjected to smarmy treatment? Those who love Grant would be advised to skip this book too. It is that rare work that is at once tedious and offensive."
 * " In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo. Even if what they write is true—and the evidence they offer is hardly convincing—the question remains: Why would Grant's admirers want to subject themselves to this kind of disillusionment? "

A review that says the book is not convincing, is "lurid" and is more "innuendo" than "biography" would seem to indicate a somewhat less-than-reliable source.

Re: Higham, the Los Angeles Times said:
 * "At the conclusion of the account of his investigation, Donati writes: "Charles Higham describes himself as a serious writer and a scholar; yet, in the academic realm the worst sin is falsifying primary-source material to prove one's thesis. Deceitful, pseudoscholarship degrades information and distorts the truth.""
 * "Higham stands firmly by his conclusions about Flynn. And Higham--author of a number of best-selling biographies including most recently "The Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life," which also contains material about the duchess' Nazi connections--said that his most important work consists of "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Both depict assistance and support of--and dealings with--the Nazis by prominent people and businesses."
 * " For instance: "According to theater historian Milton Goldman, it was widely rumored that Archie (Grant's real first name) was a gigolo in New York, servicing a wealthy woman. However, there is no evidence to support this." A few pages later Higham and Moseley write, "There is no record of his having any love affairs with women at this time.""
 * "In the interview, Higham said that the episode regarding Grant and his location on the night of the Manson murders is "poorly documented" and is based on a conversation with now dead producer William Belasco. In the book, the incident is described as "the most mysterious and puzzling act of his (Grant's) entire career, still unsolved and baffling to the biographer.""

OK - a book not regarded as genuine "biography" by any major reviewers, which has an author who appears to be a tad fanciful in his handling of the truth, etc., which links Cary Grant to the Manson murders,  is a reliable source? Collect (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

The sad thing on this is that you think I wouldn't have known this or haven't the ability to judge sources. I have 300 odd articles of FA or GA quality, and am more experienced writing here than both of you. Higham was the first book I received and the first book I went through, and I didn't use it to claim anything which was obviously false. If it's a stronger claim I would only ever say "Higham and Moseley claim" anyway. Most of the material I checked with other sources and it checks out. Now if you would all kindly fuck off and allow me to write this it'll get balanced out with the other sources eventually anyway. It's pretty insulting to me that you think I don't know what I'm doing, much like it was with Rationalobserver criticism of the Sinatra article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

It wasn't the best book to start with but the first which arrived so I started with that. I have the Wansell and McCann books still to go through and potentially more books, probably half a dozen. I extracted what I thought was accurate or useful from the first book and will do the same with the others I go through. That's how I write articles. I'm barely 1/6 through writing this properly. To turn up so prematurely and start slagging it and me off and not allowing it to be written and balanced out is pretty unfair. We're all volunteers here and I'm making an effort to get an important article into shape. Your condescending attitude and picking the most extreme claims as examples of the entire book being a lie says it all. Now are you going to let me write this properly or are you going to sit on your throne dictating and lording it over the sourcing? Clear off please, and allow this to get written with a better balance of sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Collect, you're removing material which I know is verifiable in other books, the McCann book says something similar about the pocket money and I had intended replacing the Higham source as I go along. To completely remove material and not give me a fair chance to develop and boost with other sourcing is disgusting and actually disruptive.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

The material mostly wasn't bad material though. You removed any mention of Randolph Scott for instance which is absolutely ridiculous as it's documented by dozens of authors and the top newspapers. I've just had to waste half an hour repairing the damage you did to the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, it could never have met FA with the poor sourcing, and may reach that status with actual reliable sources. Improving an article is not damaging it.  Thank you. Collect (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For which of course you have tremendous experience of.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What an odd comment - I do have experience with magazine editing etc. and only have 2 "GA"s on Wikipedia, so I should have said that a GA with such poor sourcing would be an embarrassment. Thank you for correcting me. Collect (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you were lecturing me on what is needed to pass FA, that seemed strange because to my knowleddge you have no experience with FAC whereas I've contributed or reviewed well over 100 articles. You were right on there being a problem at FAC if the article relied primariy on Higham and Moseley, but if you allowed it to be written properly instead of moaning about it that would be sorted out soon enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider then the RMS Titanic which was mainly made of good steel, and only a little bad steel.  A very fine ship indeed.   Sunk by ice, but the steel did crack. Collect (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It saddens me to see two editors I value fighting like this. --John (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to "fight" - I just fear that any casual attitude towards a source which has been specifically derided as false by strong reliable sources dealing with the precise topic at hand should be avoided and we ought not say "well the people attacking the source did not say 'this' claim was false" where it is much simpler to discard the poor source where large numbers of better sources exist on the same precise topic.  Other works by Higham are likely fine and dandy - it is just the one single book here which has been so specifically attacked by multiple reviewers than one wonders the value of retaining it as a main source for any article. Collect (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you don't intend to "fight" but you are coming across as a little tedious when I'm trying my best to get on with writing it and reducing use of the Higham source where possible. As I've said, I agree with you that the Higham book has received criticism from several reputable papers for exploiting the "Cary da gay" argument and has a few questionable claims like the Manson car one and Flynn the Nazi. It is genuinely otherwise a very well written biography and I've proved with over 30 examples changed that it was accurate. Can it be 100% trusted as a source? Difficult when there's some strong, disputed claims, but I think they were added to sell books. The book does seem to be largely accurate and contains a lot of details, particularly on his earlier career which I strongly doubt were made up. I've replaced a lot of them and have proved that actually they got their facts right, or at least that's what others have written. Higham has also received criticism himself for exploitating certain things like homosexuality and Nazism in Hollywood, but he was also the recipient of the Prix des Créateurs in 1978 and of the Académie Française and the Poetry Society of London Prize, and they don't give those out to shoddy tabloid writers. Such a source should only ever be used in moderation. certainly not as the main source for an article, but if you care to be patient within a few weeks the balance of sources and content will be much improved.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Subjects needing multiple sources
It's hard to tell from the above discussion exactly which topics or statement in the article would benefit from have multiple sources to avoid any implied bias and non-neutral issues. To avoid edit conflicts, maybe any concerned editors can just note below any commentary that could be contentious or less credible due to its single source, such as Higham & Moseley's book. --Light show (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

American or English?
One of the key facts in the bio given in the first sentence of the lead, is his nationality per his notability. This was edited as American per MOS but was reverted w/o a rationale.

As part of that revert, the alt description of the photo was changed to a meaningless description. And the clearer cropped image was also deleted w/o explanation. --Light show (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

He was English. "He became an American citizen in 1942" covers that. I doubt Grant himself would have ever called himself a real American. If I hear a single further complaint from you Light show on this I'll go further than requesting an interaction ban from commenting on articles myself, SchroCat and Cassianto write, I'll provide enough evidence to get you banned from the site. Your vendetta has gone on way too long now. You know what happened with Kubrick and Sellers. If you don't want to be banned get on with something else and belt up.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was recently reminded. --Light show (talk)!!


 * In this case I tried to be reasonable and agree with you on the sexuality section being poorly written and needing cutting. But you then soon turned it into a "ganging up" scenario with emboldening your "agree", as if I didn't largely agree with the changes anyway. If you always remained constructive and seemed to genuinely want to improve articles I'd treat you with a lot more respect. But you've proved time and time again you can't do that and seem to have a vendetta and attack the work of people you perceive to have done you an injustice. Either you put an end to this vendetta you have and get over it or the time is really going to come when you'll get a full ban from the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're forgetting that I'm not offended by PAs. I made that pretty clear a few years ago, when I wrote that the personal attacks from your team "have become so expected that I usually ignore them." I'm only concerned with seeing that biographies are not undermined, which is enough to get one banned from articles. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another attempt by Light show to hinder actual progress of the encyclopedia? How original. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 06:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, now you're showing off your ABF hounding skill. --Light show (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean, as opposed to what you just did? I must be a shark! :P Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 06:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed it say to "English-American" which is more accurate than saying that he was just English, which is misleading.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  19:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's still a bit misleading per WP guidelines, which say that his bio nationality would be the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. His debut film was in the U.S., so I would think that "British-born American actor" would less imply he was also a film actor in the U.K. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey I agree, but wording it that way is somehow not making everyone happy. Hopefully this will be a good compromise and the matter can be put to rest. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave it a stab. The first sentence should tell the reader the subject's nationality/profession/reason for notability. --Malerooster (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Source needed yet removed
Per the lead's last paragraph, Grant was awarded an Honorary Oscar by Frank Sinatra at the 42nd Academy Awards in 1970. This is a major award, and possibly his most valued. Yet the source for it was deleted without explanation. --Light show (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The lede does not need sourcing. The body is sourced now with detail on Frank Sinatra's speech anyway with a reliable, non-copyrighted source.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OK

 * trailer at TCM To Catch a Thief File:To Catch a Thief3.jpg no copyright marks. We hope (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * trailer at TCM I'm No Angel File:Mae West Cary Grant I'm No Angel.png no copyright marks. We hope (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * trailer at TCM Topper File:Topper 1937 Screen Shot 15.png no copyright marks. We hope (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * trailer at TCM Notorious File:Ingrid_Bergman_in_Notorious_Trailer.jpg no copyright marks. We hope (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * trailer at IMDB Monkey Business File:Monkey Business trailer.JPG no coypright marks. We hope (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * trailer at AllMovie Blonde Venus File:Blonde Venus (1932) Trailer Screenshot 3.png no copyright marks. We hope (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not OK

 * trailer at TCM File:North by Northwest movie trailer screenshot (20).jpg Copyright notice between 00:15-00:17 of trailer. We hope (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * File:North by Northwest movie trailer screenshot (26).jpg North By Northwest-notice as above. We hope (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A massive Sexion
"Personally I don't think Grant was gay at all, I think he mainly liked women...", commented Dr. Blofeld earlier. Yet, besides doubling the size of the ambiguous "Sexuality" sexion, which relies on rumors and denials of the rumors by those who knew him best, we now have a photo for innuendo. Why is that photo put in a "Sexuality" section? In fact, why is there a sexuality section at all? IMO, it implies that editors may have an obsession with his bedroom life. I suggest moving the photo, a bad one anyway, to a neutral location, and reducing the 500-word tabloidish Sexuality commentary. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not carp about this while you're at it? We hope (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that it's ok to have a section for Scott called "Rumors about sexual orientation", solely based on "unsubstantiated gossip", with denials by his son, among others? Maybe we can gather all these similar sections and publish them in a "Gossipedia" sold at liquor store checkouts. We could even add James Dean's "debated sexuality" gossip to increase sales. The only serious question is whether it should be a weekly or a monthly. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Go to sleep, Uncle Miltie We hope (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, that would be worthy of an issue's article as it's also based on rumors. Plus it has a very reliable source since Howard Stern discussed it. All we'd need is for you to find some family-suitable photo, or at least an illustration. My fear is that  we run out of dead American stars to smear. --Light show (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Join local debate and little theater groups where your arguments and emoting might be welcome. We hope (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While Scott's son denies it, here, its Grant himself who denies it! His daughter denies it too. Grant predicted that all of these (debate about his sexuality, including whatever that's happening on this talk page) would happen. Really something, isn't it? —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 00:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't care at all about his sexuality, only his right to privacy. I care about WP bios getting trashed by permitting pure gossip as commentary and even photos to support innuendo. Scott's section even lacks a source for a key statement: "This has led to unsubstantiated gossip that the two were a homosexual couple." Another pillar being abused, thereby, since "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources." James Dean's sexuality section is almost half the size of his Career section! And it's likewise all based on gossip and rumor. I support Ewan McGregor's take on the overall problem. It's also a bit annoying to see primarily deceased American stars' bios getting smeared by tabloidism. --Light show (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose we remove any commentary that relies on gossip or rumors since they are not from reliable sources per guidelines, ie. soap, including "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." And although such gossip about living persons can be defamatory, it does not mean that WP can feel free to add the same rumors just because they're dead and can't complain. The current BLP guideline: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Any support? --Light show (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone would object, then, as implied by the silence, can you give a basis per guidelines which overrides the guidelines just noted? --Light show (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I posted a question about "Rumor-based" sections, and replies can be seen or added to there.--Light show (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo of Grant and Scott
There is no assumption made about the sexual orientation of either man re: the photo. The two men shared a home and were starred in many films together.


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

The photo was taken for publicity and with the consent of both persons to photograph them at home. Those are the facts--they shared a home together, were friends and worked together in many films. The only one making the connection to the photo and alleged homosexuality is you by the removal of it.

Am guessing that any and all posters and lobby cards here-PD or non-free-picturing these two men together ought to be removed so that no one assumes either was gay. We hope (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose use in clear juxtaposition to the "they were gay lovers" rumours.   If the photo were in a section other than "Sexuality" you might assert it has nothing to do with the claims, but the section is "Sexuality" and the photo damn sure is related to the rumours peddled in that section. Collect (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then I think you need to make the same objections at Randolph_Scott where the subject is also discussed. We hope (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor There are many problems on Wikipedia, it is not up to me to fix them all.    It is not up to me to do all the litter collection of Wikipedia - when I find a piece of litter to deal with, that is sufficient. Collect (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Kannitverstan So it's perfectly all right to have the material at Scott's article, but not here because you're watching this article and not Scott's? We hope (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why bother ojecting? That photo doesn't even need one since by it's own description, as a posed "publicity still" for the film My Favorite Wife, implies it's use in a sexuality section is prima facie deceptive. --Light show (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I might suggest using this photo instead, which at least implies sexuality, as opposed to happy dining. And isn't that the film where she asks him, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?" Can't recall. --Light show (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely ridiculous. He lived with Randolph Scott for twelve years and was his closest friend. The photo is perfectly encyclopedic. I'm staritng to suspect that Collect has perosnal issues with homosexuality. I noticed he was outspoken with Gary Cooper too. Perhaps it's time you were topic banned from commentary on homosexual subjects Collect?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually - no "perosnal issues with homosexuality" just a belief that Wikipedia policies tell us to avoid promoting rumours which appear to have poor foundations. And I am a strong backer of actual LGBTQ issues -- Scott and Grant in a picture is not one of them.  Collect (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be more suitable to use for the section then? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alas - we have to stick to non-copyright photos. Look at Commons. The current photo is listed as "copyright not renewed" which is insufficient as far as I can tell if the photographer lived afterwards (the loss of copyright is clear for text, not for images). Collect (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * US pre-1978 copyright law doesn't deal with life of the photographer. File:Marilyn Monroe in 1952.jpg This is copyright not renewed, with plenty of people working with it and it passed FAC.  The Daily News/Sunday News did not renew the copyright.  Neither did Dell for Modern Screen. The issue is part of this bundle which came from back files at the US copyright office. "Library of Congress has determined that this item is not in copyright." We hope (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Last warning, I see one more conflicting edit or comment from you and you'll be up at ANI with ban request from wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote farm
I am aware that Light Snow edits this article so i will not try to fix the quote problems (hes has an ownweship mproblem)... but think others should take a look as per MOS:Quote. A famous person like this should not have such a bad article. Think its time to get some help here as the quotes are out of control. -- Moxy (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Only a few edits added by me, mostly for adding sources. I didn't wear any overalls for this one. Other farm hands took control. --Light show (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Moxy, you poxy idiot, if you'd waited just a few hours I've finished the research on this now and will go through and trim and finish it before nominating for GA. That include dialling down on some of the quotes. Thanks for the vote of confidence.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've given it a read and trimmed/paraphrased or removed a fair number of quotes, but only those which affected the readability. If you actually take the time to fully read it I think it reads well and is really informative, a reasonable balance. Multiple quote boxes are perfectly acceptable in articles and frequently appear in articles promoted to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of "Archie"
Per MOS:LASTNAME subsequent use: the subsequent references to "Archie Leach" should be as "Leach" and not "Archie", just as references after "Cary Grant" should be to "Grant" and not to "Cary." He was not widely called "Archie" in the press as a rule. Collect (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Leach or Grant
There is some confusion over the use of the names in the early section, swapping between. Leach and Grant. Could we call him Grant throughout, but make it clear that he performed under his birth name (a practice followed by the John Le Mesurier article). Any counter thoughts to this? – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also use "Grant" throughout. In fact last night, I started to adjust this in the early sections. I don't understand why we would be referring to him by using his birth name at all.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to call him "Grant" throughout the article as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I thought the convention was to use birth name until the subject becomes the title of the article. He wasn't known as Grant when he was in vaudeville. That was why, and I've seen this frequently done in articles where there is a later name change, so assumed this was convention. I agree it would be easier to just call him Grant throughout.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think you're supposed to use the name that's the article title (see also Article titles). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * But he's the only one who changed his name--we now have a "Grandmother Grant", where we previously had a "Grandmother Leach"-the mother of Grant's father. We hope (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed it a bit - we don't need to know which grandmother (or the address either). - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Theat er/re
I've also noticed an inconsistency in the spelling of Theat er/re, when not used as a noun. As the rest is in US spelling, I think this probably should be too. – SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Peer review?
This is just a friendly suggestion, but maybe you should open a peer review? It seems that a lot of editors have suggestions and opinions on the article, with a peer review the Talk page won't become too bloated with a gazillion different sections. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I agree that would be a good move, but can I finish my copy edit before it opens? I'd like to finish that before looking at the article with a fresh pair of eyes for a PR. – SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you should probably remove most of the GA additional comments to PR. I only started it to demonstrate to Eric that I am certainly open to a thorough review and further constructive comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So is there an official GAR out there or just some general complaining? (I'd say a PR is in order)  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but there might well be soon. PR is of course moribund. Eric   Corbett  23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge personal life
Opinion, , , etc on merging personal life into main body? I think the prose might perk up a little with some biographical variation from just focusing on the films. I think it'll be better for it if we merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done both in my time, but prefer to have the personal life within the main chronology: people's lives are not so easily pigeon-holed, particularly as many of his relationships were were with other thespians. It does break up what may feel like a list of films/actors/reviews in the prose, particularly if he appeared in a film with someone he later had a relationship with. Idea be tempted to include his business work in with the main chronology too: it's all part of an overall picture of shifts of focus within a lifetime. – SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The business work would be more suited to later life section I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been pondering this, but I think I would support the merge. It breaks up the list of films and makes things a bit more readable, and it buries the gay rumours (or what's left of them) into the main narrative so they don't leap out like Daffyd Thomas. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT Studies
I know is objectionable to any mention of Grant being gay but I'd be more alarmed by the fact that this article has an LGBT studies project tag above even WP Bristol. Is this acceptable given that he wasn't confirmed gay or bisexual? I'd be tempted to remove it, though as there is a large amount of LGBT related material written about him you could probably argue it qualifies under LGBT studies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say the question falls within the scope of the project, but I don't see why there would be a problem rearranging the order of the project links. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Any project may set whatever standards it wishes .. but using "objectionable" to refer to any editor where the meaning in English is extremely unfortunate, should be quite avoided.   What is, moreover, clear is that no sexuality categories ought be applied. Captain Kirk has been the subject of many LGBT  sources as well.  Care to try adding it?  Collect (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That third rail
Folks, I know this is an issue, and I also know it was a demand of the original GA reviewer, but the oversized photo of Grant and no infobox looks terrible; for actors, we do need the biographical informational summary that infoboxes contain, as well as the wikidata parameters. We can go into the eternal ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debate, but it is appropriate to include them on popular culture biographies such as film actors. At the very least, a collapsable box or at the very, very least, make the picture the default size, as it is, it takes up half the screen on my browser and squishes the lead text in a way that looks quite odd. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 23:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in several discussions on the bloody things recently, I really don't want to get involved in another, but I will just say the WikiData line is a straw man: the information already exists (it can be seen here, containing all the pointless factoids that don't actually tell us anything important). There may be other arguments for inclusion, but WD isn't one of them, I'm afraid. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also slightly unclear on the size issue for this image. The coding doesn't force a size onto it, and the MoS-suggested "thumb" parameter is the one that is in use, so it should appear no larger or smaller than many other images on the page (and across the encyclopaedia generally). Do you have a size preference set, Montana? I think I see that the image size was changed in the interim. It should be an acceptable size now. – SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Access dates for Google Books
I see has added access dates to Google book refs. As you've been told very recently, and as is specifically stated in the cite book documentation, these should not be added. These should be removed, preferably by the editor who added them.

On a second more general note, a number of the book sources have a published date, which is too specific: it should be a publishing year only. – SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I have no problem adding them. It is no big deal for me. It is a choice that many other editors and myself do not mind doing. Better safe than sorry when it comes to linkrot. I do not insist that you insert them and likewise there is no need for you to insist that anybody remove them once in place. The bolded words (your emphasis) do not appear in the documentation for unless I am blind, which I am.


 * Where is the MoS on book publishing dates? Does it limit us to year only? I have seen many instances of full dates and never gave it a second thought. Cheers!  08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As you've been told, Linkrot has nothing to do with books. The published work - identified by the unique ISBN - is what matters. it doesn't matter when the page was accessed, because it's still the same book. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the access dates to Google book refs. For the publishing year, that's yours and Doc's call.  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 08:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat is right - Google Books is convenient for accessing a book source, but convenience is all you have. The ISBN is sufficient to be able to locate the book; if you've got a full British Library pass, you should be able to get any book and verify the text, for mere mortals an inter-library loan will have to suffice. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I fail to see how the project is harmed by me adding them, nor do I see how the project is improved by them being removed. SchroCat is the only editor to ever balk at this, and many editors participate in adding them. I fail to see the justification in removing them. As I say, I do not insist that anybody add them, and I do not understand anybody feeling compelled to remove them. does not say what SchroCat says it does and even if it did it does not compel to remove that which already exists. Cheers!   09:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, time for you to depersonalise this. As your recent trip to ANI and subsequent discussions on 's talk page may have shown, your changes are not always right and not always needed. This is not just me on this point. Our most experienced source reviewer, Nikkimaria, has told you they are not needed, the template documentation which I've quoted to you before tells you they are not needed and now another editor has told you they are not needed. Judgin from the various discussions I've seen you in recently, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to be a big problem here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) There are valid arguments for putting them in, and valid arguments for not putting them in. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter too much, so if people like them in, put them in, if people don't like them in, accept it and move on to something else. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What matters more than access date is the URL, as if that is the source used, others need to be able to see that version. It is asking too much to ask five FAC reviewers to all get the hardcopy through ILL. The accessdate parameter probably isn't necessary, but I have seen some google books have changes in content visible.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  05:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote boxes
I notice the quotes had been de-boxed, and was about to restore them, but edit conflicted. Could we please discuss the issue here before any more reverting? The argument to remove them has simply been "WP:MOS" - the MOS is a big place and I am certain parts of it contradict each other; however, my counter-argument for retaining boxes is simply that it looks better when browsing on my iPhone in landscape mode. Discuss. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was the reverter on that point. The use of blockquote is a deliberate choice by most editor, based on the formatting of the page, and the break of the text around the box. Using the QUOTE template provides a sub-standard reader experience in many cases. It's not always the case, and the QUOTE form is often far superior, but to think the form verboten is something that does not help in providing good quality articles. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The documentation puts the MoS in a nutshell and states that they are only for pull quotes. I carefully crosschecked the article and none of the quote boxes are being used for pull quotes. When reading an article it is actually very distracting for us on desktop computers to have to jump around to quote boxes then try to figure out where they go in context. So, there are two solutions:
 * Convert the quote boxes to blockquotes using the template. Or:
 * Incorporate the quote box content into the body of the article so the quote boxes are indeed pull quotes.
 * No big deal to go either way. Pick you flavor. Sounds like #2 would be win/win for the smartphone angle.


 * . SchroCat is injecting a personal preference here that does not mesh with our easily obtainable house style. Cheers!  09:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Reping    09:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As other included the boxes not me (I only reverted against your edit) perhaps you should depersonalise the debate by not finger pointing. It certainly is not just me: there are numerous FAs and GAs and others that use the form in this way. As above, it provides a better reader experience, and the flexible guidelines of the MoS can be ignored from time to time when practical considerations are better than dogma. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, SchroCat. Sorry. I do not like finger pointing. The fact that other articles do it has nothing to do with anything. You know that. Cheers!  09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like finger pointing, why have you done it in two threads here? Others inserted the boxes here, not me, and if I hadn't reverted you, Ritchie would have done (as he's said at the top of the thread). - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would be pretty cool if Cary and Kate actually commented in this discussion.  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 11:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never seen pull quotes used on Wikipedia. Plenty of FA-class articles use quote boxes in the manner in which they are used here. Similarly to images, they make it easier for the reader to delve into the text, by highlighting important aspects of the subject; in biographies, they make it possible to inject the subject's opinions and thoughts or examples of analysis of the subject into the article without cluttering the main text. I looked at User:Checkingfax's suggestions, and while made in good faith, they seem very odd to me. I've never seen blockquotes which are not part of the previous sentence of the non-blockquoted text (i.e. when a quote that's longer than three lines is included in the main body of text) used in an article. Checkingfax, can you please provide examples of FA-class articles where quotes are inserted in this manner? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Indeed, we don't "do" pull quotes at all, I ran into this issue on one of my FACs a couple years back. The template documentation is out of date and out of sync with what they are actually used for.  Quote boxes versus blockquote inline is a matter of taste and purpose; a quote box is almost a graphic element, taking a quotation as a sampling all but discobnected from the narrative text, while blockquote is best used for substantive quotes within the context of the article body.  That said, the quote boxes here probably need to have the background color lightened up to improve readability, it's an accessibility issue.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  05:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull quote templates should not be abused in this or any other article as form of decoration for block quotations, per MOS:BQ. It is not a matter of taste at particular articles; these types of quotations, and the templates for them, are distinct and unrelated, with pull quotes being extremely rare in encyclopedia articles, because they're a bombastic and PoV-pushing news style technique. There have been several proposals over the years to have regular block quotations decorated with some kind of fancy style on Wikipedia, like various blogs do (wildly inconsistently), and these proposals have been uniformly rejected. In the interim, MoS, which long ago had no advice to give on the matter, settled, after so many of these discussions concluding against decorative block quotes, on recommending the same style found in virtually every style guide on the planet, which is what Quote outputs: A separate block that is indented on both sides.  The reason that some news (and, by extension, blog) publishers use a more decorative style is multi-columnar layout on the page, in which horizontal space is at a great premium and cannot very practically be indented away. This does not apply on Wikipedia, so we have no rationale for festooning block quotations with outlandish, decorative box layouts. Meanwhile, we have quite a number of guidelines all consistently against excessive style markup and other decoration for purely subjective aesthetic purposes; this is a clear community consensus in general, and need not, per WP:BURO, WP:GAME, WP:CREEP, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc., be nit-picked down to specifically addressing every conceivable form of it. (Yet, again, we already have MOS:BQ saying not to abuse these templates this way.)  The template documentation is  out of date; the comment above is getting the history completely backward. It's the historical deployment of pull-quote templates in many articles, before RfCs and MoS said to stop doing this, that has been obsoleted. The templates have all been comparatively recently updated to reflect the guideline shift, and various editors spend some time here and there converting misused pull quote templates to the block quote template. It's a low-priority cleanup effort, but it should absolutely not be imagined that it's running in the opposite direction, with people converting block quote templates to pull quote ones; that would be WP:DE / WP:POINT, just like going around and changing all instances of "UK" to read "U.K."  Also, we do actually "do" pull quotes, just rarely.  In my pull-quote-template cleanup runs, I find about one genuine pull quote per roughly 125 articles abusing the pull quote templates. An argument could be made for eliminating pull quotes entirely from WP (or, rather, from mainspace), as an inappropriate style that belongs in journalism and marketing, and I would support such a move, but it has not been successfully proposed to date.  PS: These templates are also occasionally [mis?]used for another very journalistic style, the callout, most commonly to present some famous line from a work of fiction; it's dubious whether these should exist in WP, either.  I'm not sure if anyone cares whether the pull quote templates are used for this. It's not a major visual and encyclopedic-purpose disruption problem like the grossly inappropriate misuse of PQ templates to draw WP:UNDUE attention to trivial commentary at articles like Dr. No (novel); this is a rampant problem affecting thousands of articles, and is especially problematic when the material is PoV not trivial, as is often the case at politics-related articles, the ones that are most often plastered with these things and take the longest time to clean up in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * oh good... Another tedious wall of text (stalking me now? Going out of your way to spread your disruptive poison?) as to the lie that the use on Dr No is "trivial commentary", you've been corrected on that already, so try not to be so dishonest in your bludgeoning of other people's opinions. – SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't help feeling that that wall of text above is supposed to be ironic. "Horizontal space is at a great premium and cannot very practically be indented away" - which is, in fact, exactly what you get when you read Wikipedia on an iPhone or Android-derived smartphone, which millions of people do daily. My favouring of quotation boxes has nothing to do with any point of view, but from usability and readability. I would recommend SMcCandlish reads "Painless Functional Specifications - Part 4: Tips", particularly the section containing "Avoid walls of text: entire pages with just text. People get scared and don't read them." A genuine "bombastic and PoV-pushing news style technique" is the front page of The Sun last Thursday. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Any time someone says "text wall" in a discussion like this, it generally means "I'm playing sour grapes, because I have no rebuttal." You're free to open an RfC at WT:MOS about changing MOS:BQ to favor putting block and even short quotations into decorative boxes. It will fail.

, we should probably propose some more standardized and less problematic approach to differentiating block quotes from the regular prose, more effectively than just the current indentation (which is standard publishing practice all over the world, but may not be sufficient for mobile presentation). Several style guides recommend also a minor font-size reduction or other font change (serif to sans or vice versa). Another approach (not necessarily mutually exclusive) might be a very slight background color change, one that would not cause WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems. (Spanish Wikipedia takes this combined approach.) But an attitude of "to hell with MoS, I'm never going to follow it", as if WP:IAR read "Ingnore any rule you don't like, just because you don't like it", is not a useful approach nor one accepted by the community. Nor is abuse of templates and layout styles that exist for a specific purpose, to do something completely different in nature but identical in appearance.

The abuse of pull quote formatting in this article in particular was not only against MOS, for no actual reason, but introduced numerous other problems, including the following, formatted as a list since paragraphs bug you so much:
 * WP:UNDUE favoritism toward a particular biographer among several (one who is arguably getting too much attention throughout the article more generally).
 * Causing non sequiturs in the prose, such that anyone following the main text will be confused if they didn't also study the quote-box captions.
 * Injecting comments into confusing places without any context for them, other than be in some way related to the entire section in which they appeared; this is terrible information organization, and is a marketing "woot! look at this cute box! give us your attention, sheep!" tactic that does not belong in an encyclopedia.
 * Drawing unwarranted attention to trivia.
 * Treating short quotations as if block quotations.
 * Even omitting important contextual details that are right there in the same source.
 * Obviously, it confuses readers into thinking these are pull quotes when they are not. This is problematic because pull quote are used to draw reader attention to in-context version (often expanded) in the main prose, with supporting material. So, these boxes are misleading readers into content treasure hunts that lead nowhere.

I could go on, but providing a detailed and complete argument apparently offends you and you'll just say I'm "text walling" again and provide more irrelevant off-site links. [The blog you pointed to is interesting (I do have call to write functional specifications for work), but Wikipedia is not a functional spec, it did not address block quotes, and very little of it, other than plain English, and revision, are pertinent to WP writing.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Missing infobox
This article had an infobox from to. I miss it. Is this really a matter between a GA reviewer who doesn't like it and recommends removal, and principle editors who don't like it, or the community also? - You can shorten it if it seems bloated, and/or collapse it as the Sinatra compromise. We have better things to do than this again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "We have better things to do than this again". Quite. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I say restore it and expand the infobox so it spans the entire right side of the article like the Winston Churchill article. That would look cool ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone who worked with the article certainly does have better things to do than to revisit this, but those who insist on IBs appear to have nothing better to do than to start the quest again. The manner in which "We have better things to do than this again." seems to imply that the reviewer, the principal editors and everyone else who assisted with the Grant article are out of line for not having one and need to be brought back into line like naughty kids.


 * Hi, . OK, you made me look, you made me look, you made me look like a dirty crook: Winston Churchill has five-and-a-half screens of infobox, and sixty screens below the infobox, for a total or nearly sixty-six screens.


 * I am surprised that a GA reviewer's comments led to the removal of a long established infobox. Cheers!  03:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff with the suggestion to kill the IB.
 * Keeping score seems to make the words of having something better to do ring hollow.
 * Needing to "resolve" this says someone's prepared to "waste time" on this.
 * We hope (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you not got anything else you could be doing, Gerda?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a huge number of arguments in favor of an infobox. The diff for removal "(per GAN)" suggests it's needed to be removed for the GAN, but the GAN merely suggests there is a size issue. But if the infobox is collapsed I see no reason for this statement. Surely that's a sensible compromise? A collapsed infobox? I still can't see why people will object. Or is another RfC needed to convince people? --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A visitor courtesy of Gerda's rather unsubtle canvassing. – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Please restore the info box. There was no justification for completely removing it. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You really want another RfC? --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a shit, frankly. So save your threats for someone who cares.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given you've never edited the page, never commented on this talk page and are only here because of Gerda's canvassing, why do we have to follow your instructions? Can I suggest there could be other things for you to concentrate your mind on. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Look would you like to stop the ad hominems and actually address my points? Why not have a collapsed infobox as a compromise? --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Look would you like to stop the attempts to smear by innuendo: there was no ad hominem element to my comment. Gerda canvassed you on your talk page, you came running to do her bidding. There are arguments for and against idiot boxes and I've not seen you provide any of them to push back against. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look up the article ad hominems to remind you. All the arguments have been made against my editing history, not my argument that has been completely ignored. Calling them "idiot boxes" is not a valid argument in my book. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you weren't canvassed were you? Tut, tut, tut...   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look it up and work out its not a noun and shouldn't be used as such. As to your "arguments", you have put forward a suggestion, but no reasons why we should be following your suggestion (which is why your prior non-involvement in anything relating to this article has been raised). As to the name "idiot box", I've not made any arguments, so I'm a little bemused by your comment. Do you want to read that sentance and try again? – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with the observation that GAN suggesting that the infobox was too long is not grounds for wholesale deletion, and that removing it on that basis is disingenuous, even WP:POINTy. I also observe that most of our well-developed articles have them, and that we know for a fact that mobile readers make heavy use of them, and that a large number of desktop readers like them, as do many editors.  We also ARBCOM admonitions not not editwar over them, and a reminder from ARBCOM that no wikiproject is empowered to demand that they be left off of "their" articles.  All that said, that doesn't mean there's a consensus for or against having one on this particular article.  I wuold bet a bazillion dollars that if an RfC were held on the matter at Village Pump that the consensus would be to include one here, because their presence on bios has become a de facto norm, but that an RfC on this article particular talk page would be likely come to the opposite conclusion because of a bloc vote by a cluster of individuals who don't like infoboxes. (Prediction based on observation of previous debates of this sort, where they were held, and what the outcomes where.) The likelihood that I'm correct on this guess suggests to me that the anti-infobox position is doomed, because there's already a clear site-wide consensus in favor of infoboxes, in part because a lot of opinions against them have changed over the last decade, as they've become increasingly functional (and as loci of dispute, like the ethnicity parameter, have been removed). But only time will tell, I guess; I'm just making a prediction based on a prediction here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Main editors of the article

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

Yes, User:Collect claims to have promoted it to GA and got the half million award for doing so. Even SchroCat I'm sure wouldn't claim to have authored this and he has five times the number of edits, which were actually constructive ones..♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I claim that my points were important to making it a good article - including the fact that it otherwise kept using poor sourcing, that some claims were not backed by actual sources, that it repeatedly violated MOS,  etc.   I do not make as many edits per article as some do (edit countitis) and my editing of Joseph Widney made clear in the past, it is not simply adding masses of badly sourced verbiage that improves an article, but improving articles can take many forms.  The game-playing of attacking me and "shaming" me that has pervaded the thought processes of some editors because I deigned to think that a good article review taking under 2 hours which failed to note the over-reliance on a fabulist, and scores of MIS violations was a tad inadequate is indicative of an attitude on the part of some editors who think tag-teaming "shaming" is a sport which is a proud one to partake in.  I have now been "shamed" more than 300%, which well ought be enough for such editors.  I would rather remove the excess marble to produce a statue, than to   fill an article with 100,000 characters of fluff, paraphrase, and quotation.  "Good articles" must serve the reader, and not serve egos. Collect (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you weren't shamed because your admin friend John ensured that that was censored out, rather than doing the honest thing and at least asking you why you're claiming it. I would normally have restored it but I know John would probably block me if I did, such is the neutrality of adminstrators on here. " I would rather remove the excess marble to produce a statue, than to   fill an article with 100,000 characters of fluff, paraphrase, and quotation.", yes, me too, just as well this article isn't that then isn' it? Let's move on anyway, thankyou Collect for helping me promote Cary Grant to GA status, your help was priceless ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

Are they tasks of  ? I don't see them in the essay but here's the diffs for your actions. We hope (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of his edits were reverted anyway because he removed valid content at the same time!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WooHoo... An essay written by you? If you go to that length to justify being morally bankrupt, I would hate to see what you would do if it is something important. Mind you, from the person who gave the world the sentance "In his obituary, The Daily Telegraph called him "a much-feared and notoriously bitchy celebrity biographer whose works fell squarely in the “unauthorised” category." and "In his unashamedly self-promoting memoir, In and Out of Hollywood (2009), Higham presented himself as a sort of Chandleresque figure, dedicated to sniffing out other people’s darkest secrets." I'm nore sure content really is your thing – no wonder you try and claim other peopl's credit for your own! – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If any thread on this page should be hatted, it's this one, per WP:OWN and WP:VESTED. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are on a one man mission to piss as many people off as humanly possible?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you on a mission to get blocked yet again for personal attacks?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Death age
Why is his age of death not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.6.162 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, 82, cited to Morecambe & Sterling p. 324 - did somebody recently add this? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We knew that and found it easily, not even two weeks ago, but you told us to look at the sun ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep-read this and added it-feel free to revert if you like. We hope (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would anyone revert that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)