Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 22 June 2017

Cary Grant has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 15, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cary Grant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bristol High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. At least one photograph is included in this article This article has an infobox Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: This tag does not make any definite assertions about Grant's sexuality; however, having reviewed the text, it is of significant enough note that the banner is warranted.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template:WP1.0

Infobox

Why should we not put an info box?Thenabster126 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

consensus re: no infobox We hope (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What Consensus are you referring to? Seems that there was support for restoring it.--JOJ 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I think infoboxes are an important aspect of an article, and Grant seems to (randomly) be the only famous, impactful person on this entire site without one. I like looking at an infobox and instantly seeing age/spouses/etc instead of having to scroll through the entire article looking for one basic piece of information, which I know "discourages reading entire page" but people will read an article if they want, regardless of condensed info. TropicAces (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to start a war here, but I agree that of all the well-developed articles on influential, well-known people I've seen on here, this seems to be the only one where the infobox was deliberately removed, and it just looks weird. The infoboxes have become a recognizable feature of Misplaced Pages, and while they do repeat some info from the main body of the article, they are also really helpful for giving a summary of the main points about a person (birth, death, birthplace, etc.) I hope this isn't the start of some movement to remove them all from articles of famous people who aren't in sports or politics, as doing this would discourage me from using Misplaced Pages because I don't want to have to read walls of text to get a short summary of a person with a lengthy article. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For your information, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, not to mention the many more articles listed at WP:FA that don't use infoboxes. But on behalf of other content creators everywhere, I do apologise for making you read the "walls of text" we have sweated blood and tears over. Cassianto 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a useful tool to obtain information, and a feature that makes it easier and quicker to find basic information should be welcomed, not disparaged because then people don't read all the content. Many users of traditional encyclopedias for reference have used them to search for a particular fact or two, with the reading of the longer article an option if you wanted more in-depth information. Encyclopedias aren't about the reader appreciating the hard work of the content creator, but about presenting useful information in the forms in which it will be most useful, in my opinion. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe we should not bother at all then? Let's have a sodding infobox and be done with it. Cassianto 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is to mock up one here on the talk page, with the proposed information that would be included in it, and then have an official WP:RfC on whether to include it in this article. There literally is no other satisfactory way to resolve the question, as these discussions tend to be circular and endless otherwise. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Some people above spend too much time deliberating, bitching, making up stupid reasons for doing things. You remind me of software developers. Put the infobox back on this page (and others where it was removed). It's what it's for. Quick information at top - WITHOUT READING THROUGH ENTIRE ARTICLE. That's the whole point is it not? As to whether it makes an actual editor (or user) not read entire article (or less editing is done/etc/blah blah) - those are laughable reasons for removing it. Get real. Most/all the reasons listed above re: removal are just ridiculously anal retentive. People come here for information; YOU ARE NOT HERE to educate them by forcing them to read more than necessary by removing helpful templates. If they want more than an infobox of information, they can still read (or edit) article, obviously/duh. --Brady Shea (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It seems that most of the comments above want it restored. I rarely come across a bio of any decent size without one. I'm not actually sure why it hasn't been put back. --Light show (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the previous infobox, with the pertinent information included:

Cary Grant
Cary Grant in 1941
Born	Archibald Alexander Leach (1904-01-18)January 18, 1904 Bristol, England
Died	November 29, 1986(1986-11-29) (aged 82) Davenport, Iowa, U.S.
Cause of death	Cerebral hemorrhage
Resting place	Cremated
Other names	Archie Leach
Education	Bishop Road Primary School Fairfield Grammar School
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1932–1966
Spouse(s)	Virginia Cherrill ​ ​(m. 1934; div. 1935)​ Barbara Hutton ​ ​(m. 1943; div. 1945)​ Betsy Drake ​ ​(m. 1949; div. 1962)​ Dyan Cannon ​ ​(m. 1965; div. 1968)​ Barbara Harris ​(m. 1981⁠–⁠1986)​
Partner	Maureen Donaldson (1973–1977)
Children	Jennifer Grant (born 1966)
Awards	Academy Honorary Award (1970) For his unique mastery of the art of screen acting with the respect and affection of his colleagues. Kennedy Center Honors (1981)

• This should work.--JOJ 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Added back. Thanks for posting it. --Light show (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Removed. There is no consensus to add a box, so your bad faith edits have been removed. if you wish to add a box, please do it the right way, by discussing to change the consensus, not by edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  There was never a consensus to remove the infobox in the first place, plus consensus seems to still be in favor of keeping the infobox. I'm pretty sure that consensus doesn't need everyones approval. It just needs enough editors to agree.--JOJ 15:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• "There was never a consensus to remove the infobox in the first place". There was never a consensus to add one in the first place either. Not everything has to be agreed by committee before it happens. – SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• So far, two editors have removed the infobox against consensus and without attempting to discuss. Please discuss your reasons for going against consensus.--JOJ 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• The stated consensus on the matter is that there is no infobox. You are the one editing to force it in against the consensus. You are the one that needs to produce an arguement based on guidelines and policy as to why the consensus should be overturned. So far no-one has done that. – SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Where is the consensus that agreed to remove it in the first place? There is none from what I can find. It should never have been removed in the first place and should be restored because this is what the majority of editors seem to prefer. And you accusations of bad faith are falling flat and look like poor attempts to steer the conversation away from the true content discussion. That's twice in the same thread..--JOJ 15:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the second time: there is not always a need to have every edit agreed to in the first place, and the same level of prior discussion was made to remove it as to add it in the first place. I would not have had to make an accusation of bad faith if you had not edit warred to force your preferred version back onto the page. As to your claim of what users prefer, it is an "argument" I have seen made often, without any evidence to back it up. SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now that's the third time you've accused me of either edit warring or making bad faith edits. I challenge you to either produce evidence of your accusations or stop using uncivil rhetoric. You said that the "stated consensus" was that there was no info box. Where is this consensus discussion located. All I can see is that there are twice as many editors wanting to include an info box than there trying to keep it out. JOJ 16:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• The article did not have an IB. It was added (per Bold); it was removed (per Revert); the next step should be to discuss. You edit warred to re-add. That's not uncivil rhetoric, despite your desperate claims to the contrary. As for "there are twice as many editors wanting to include an info box", this place does not work as a democracy, as I am sure you know. I am still waiting to hear a policy or guideline based argument, which are what count. – SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

As a reminder, this article had an infobox from June 5, 2006 to June 15, 2016.

Going by the previous infobox consensus and this new discussion, my tally of those offering a clear opinion:

Keep infobox

1) User:Collect 2) User:Gerda Arendt 3) User:Checkingfax 4) User:Jules 5) User:Jojhutton 6) User:SmcCandlish 7) User:Thenabster126 8) User:TropicAces 9) User:TheBlinkster 10) User:Softlavender 11) User:Bmatthewshea 12) Light show

Remove infobox

1) User:Dr. Blofeld 2) User:SchroCat 3) User:Cassianto

4) User:Ssilvers

Light show (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAVOTE – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There were no voters. All of the above editors discussed and gave clear rationales with their opinions.--Light show (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would dispute the claim of "clear rationales with their opinions": many of those who wanted the return of the IB, simply said they missed it or wanted it returned. That's not a "clear rationale" based on policy or guideline. I'll also point out that a quick glance shows you have missed at least one individual off the list. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Very possible. Who? --Light show (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You missed User:We Hope, who participated in both discussions. One extra person in favor of removing the infobox is hardly going to strengthen the oppositions argument.--JOJ 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the person I saw either! (That's the problem with trying to vote count: didn't you run into similar problems when trying to count on another IB discussion you didn't know anything about?) And again, it's not a question of "one extra person": it's about the arguments as they relate to guidelines and policies, and I see little evidence of that from those wishing to change the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXUSE...The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article..

If we agree that articles are not "required" in articles, then we must also agree that they are not "prohibited" in articles as well. So it's not incorrect to have an infobox in an article, nor is it incorrect to not have one. Both ways are not against any guideline. So in order to determine whether an article should or should not have an infobox, we have a discussion. We have had that discussion, twice now. Both times there were a majority of editors who are clearly in favor of having an infobox in the article and that is clearly not against any policy or guideline. Misplaced Pages is not a vote, but is is also not an oligarchy, where a few editors can assert their opinion over the majority.--JOJ 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, things are not decided by who can call on the bigger flash mob to defend their corner, but on the arguments based on guidelines and policies. Simply complaining "I expect to see an IB", or "I miss the IB", isn't any good reason to revert the status quo. – SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And exactly how have you determined what the standard is for other peoples opinions being relevant or not? By what authority are you given this right?--JOJ 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Since you're so concerned with "consensus", where was it when you removed a Picture of the Day for a "clearer copy" of the photo you uploaded? We hope (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How exactly is that relevant to the current discussion?JOJ 17:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion; just a load of idiots trying to push their agenda, that's all. Cassianto 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside the fact that this thread is about one personal attack away from becoming a full blown ANI discussion, what agenda are you referring to exactly?--JOJ 19:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, not ANI! Please, just put the infobox in, but please don't take me to ANI. Cassianto 19:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If it went to ANI, it wouldn't be because we don't see eye to eye on the infobox inclusion. It would be for your incivility and personal attacks during that discussion. Just so we are on the same page if it happens.--JOJ 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I couldn't give a fuck about ANI, or it's resident troublemakers. So go ahead. Cassianto 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that seems obvious. Otherwise, do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?--JOJ 19:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything I think can be found above. But should you have selective reading, more can be found here. Cassianto 20:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter is noted. It's also noted that you dislike infoboxes, which is your prerogative, but please note that not everyone will hold the same opinion on infoboxes as yourself. Just because you may personally feel that they are "repetitive, visually degrading, intrusive, uncertain, and better as lists", does not mean that other people do not find them useful and informative, as many here have already written. Not every article needs an infobox, but this article should have one.--JOJ 20:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so please you've noted it. Again, I couldn't really care. This article had a consensus, of sorts, so I fail to see what's changed? Have you had the decency to approach the GA Nominator or the author to see what they think? Maybe they've deserved the right to know of your plans before you go ahead and bastardise all their hard work! I see you're from California; tell me, why is it always the Americans who, seem to be even more obsessed over Infoboxes than anyone else? Cassianto 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

His clothing donated to charity after death

Both New York magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that his clothing was donated discreetly to the poor and homeless after his death, which is in line with Jennifer working on homeless issues at a law firm before becoming an actress. The article currently says something different, that it went to celebrities and others. I think the article should be corrected on this point, as these are two very high quality sources. I will leave this to regular editors here to decide what to do. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I decided to make the edit myself, adding a new sourced line. 5Q5 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I've removed it because in my opinion, it adds nothing of value. Feel free to discuss, though, should you feel it particularly important to mention where Grant's clothes went to after his death. Cassianto 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree My edit in the article providing high quality news media sources stating that Cary Grant's clothes were donated to the poor and homeless after his death was reverted by editor Cassianto who called it an "Uninteresting factoid not worthy of inclusion." I therefore wish to store the deleted line and reference here in protest because the line contradicts and corrects the claim currently in the article that is sourced to third party 1997 biographer Graham McCann (the book's copyright actually says 1996, Cary Grant: A Class Apart), who never communicated with Grant's daughter or wife when writing his book and who, according to this Misplaced Pages article, says his clothes were donated to "Frank Sinatra, Roderick Mann, Stanley Donen, Kirk Kerkorian and others." I could not verify this claim searching for these names in the book on books.google. Here is the "uninteresting" deleted line "not worthy of inclusion" (it could have been tweaked by any editor if necessary, as opposed to deletion):

1. "Cary Grant's Body Cremated In California". Orlando Sentinel, December 2, 1986.
2. Donaldson 1990..
3. Cite error: The named reference ew was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Binkley, Christina (24 August 2016). "The Strange Journey of Cary Grant's Suits". wsj.com. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 January 2017. Today the clothing of celebrities goes to auction; the actor's daughter gave away his famously stylish wardrobe without anyone realizing. Excerpted also in New York magazine August 26, 2016.

Finally, I wish to express my position that this article currently suffers from a lack of credibility due its preference for poor quality sources, those being biographies by strangers and fan websites over mainstream news media interviews with Grant's daughter and wife. It therefore isn't worth my time to attempt future edits. The article simply cannot be trusted. Good day. 5Q5 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You can throw a tantrum as much as you like, your edit was not an improvement. It's as simple as that. Cassianto 18:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Minor bequests, regardless of who got them, don't belong in the article at all. I'm debating whether to delete the entire last line, in fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Wiki editor and don't claim to know the hows and whys, but would point out that Grant was and continues to be famous for his sartorial style. There is a reason the WSJ published the story referenced above. 38.116.36.205 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Mike P

Yeah, I've axed the last line. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

1917

The lighting of magician David Devant was at the Bristol Empire theatre, not the Hippodrome. Devant headed the variety bill in the week of November 19, 1917, when Leach was operating the arc lamps. He almost caused a disaster for Devant by letting a spotlight fall on what was supposed to be a concealed mirror (source: Bristol's Forgotten Empire, by Terry Hallett, published in 2000). For information, Devant's only appearance at the Hippodrome had been in 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.14.179 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC) The text has still not been corrected.

"Arsenic and Old Lace": Which President Roosevelt?

Why was my addition of "Teddy" to specify which Roosevelt in the description reverted? It seems a legitimate clarification, especially since it is likely that a large portion of Misplaced Pages readers have no experience with either the film or the play. Was it the use of the familiar "Teddy" instead of the formal "Theodore"? If so, why wasn't the edit modified, instead of being reverted? Gil gosseyn (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have restored your edit. Dr. K. 01:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Gil gosseyn (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for the disambiguation. Dr. K. 14:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Top-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Bristol articles
• High-importance Bristol articles
• WikiProject Bristol articles
• GA-Class Theatre articles
• Mid-importance Theatre articles
• WikiProject Theatre articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles