Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 1#Middle name

John 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_Present cites a band with no mention to the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::I ask you again: Please leave the paragraph out of the article pending discussion here from other editors. And do not make another personal attack on me as you did in your last edit summary. I have given you a clear explanation why your edits do not appear to meet Wikipedia policies. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

::::I have problems with unreliable sources, and I have explained why none of those sources appear to be reliable to me, particularly not the book Hollywood Gays. If you check the [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569800839/103-1739958-0572647?v=glance&n=283155 amazon.com entry for that book], you'll find, for example, that Grant himself does not reveal his sexual orientation, and that "There's nothing very surprising about his choice of subjects--Paul Lynde, Liberace, Randolph Scott, et al.--all of whom, conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased." One reviewer, who claims to be a journalist, wrote:

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

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

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

::::::From that same discussion above: Users that "re-insert" things that have been edited and chastise others for attempting to whitewash Cary Grants life should back up and attempt to be objective. The Library Journal says your source is "entertaining," not reliable or accurate. And I don't appreciate your personal attacks in the least. This has nothing to do with Grant's sexual orientation, but with reliable sources. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and stop the personal attacks. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Publishers Weekly says of Laurents's book:

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

For the gay subtext of the Bringing Up Baby line, see [http://www.glbtq.com/arts/grant_c.html]. Onefortyone 03:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN15px\^(caint) 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that the text I have included

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

Administrator Jtdirl replied,

:But all Grant's wives have to go for evidence was . . . hearsay. They weren't with him every minute. They weren't married to him when he was with Scott. One of them wasn't even born. All they had to go on is things he might have said to them (how many gay or bisexual husbands tell their wives the truth?) or they might have heard from other people. In other words, hearsay. If the personal opinions of ex-wives count, so do the personal opinions of colleagues and friends. It is all or nothing. You can't say 'I believe source x rather than source y' because that is POV. FearÉIREANN15px\^(caint) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You argued that

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

I argue that articles in Wikipedia should refer to assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and rumors, especially when the lives of celebrity stars are concerned and several independent sources refer to the claims. Your opinion that Boze Hadleigh "has a strong motive to include as many big-name stars as possible in his book to try to sell more copies" is only your personal assertion and not NPOV. I think author Boze Hadleigh isn't as questionable as you believe, since the Library Journal clearly says that his book Hollywood Gays provides "an important, mostly undocumented view of the film industry's social history" and recommends it "for both general readers looking for dish and scholars of gay history and film studies." On the other hand, it is understandable that there are some fans of celebrity stars which may not be happy with several of the interviews in Hadleigh's books, as in their opinion their stars had to be heterosexual. Be that as it may, if Hollywood director George Cukor, himself a well-known homosexual, says that Cary Grant won't talk about his homosexual relationship with Randolph Scott, but Scott "will admit it – to a friend.," this is certainly an important statement made in a published book which is worth mentioning in the article. As for the quotes from Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood, gay screenwriter Arthur Laurents seems to have been very sure about Grant's homosexual leanings, when he relates that Grant threw pebbles at his window one night but was luckless, as Laurents wasn't at home, and that Grant's "eyes and his smile implied that even if he were joking, he would have liked doing what we would have done had I been home." For the attractiveness of Laurents in his younger years which the author himself mentions in his book, see [http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biol1/laur5a.jpg this photograph] showing Arthur Laurents with his boyfriend Tom Hatcher. No wonder if young Laurents was turning the elder actor on so that Grant wanted to spend the night with him.

There are many other published sources referring to Grant's bisexuality. In an article on Burt Lancaster, Gerald Peary writes that

:Laurents recalls that when Alfred Hitchcock wanted to cast Hollywood's two most famous closeted actors, Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift, as his closeted homosexual criminal leads for Rope (1948), a fictionalization of the Leopold-Loeb murder, they refused. Too close to home? See [http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/00/04/13/filmculture.html].

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

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

In an article on director Alfred Hitchcock, Ken Mogg says that Hitchcock "is often said to have seen his 'real', inner self as Cary Grant, his handsome, bisexual star!" See [http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/05/hitchcock.html]. In his book, Open Secret: Gay Hollywood, David Ehrenstein refers to a number of gay and bisexual star couples such as Montgomery Clift and Jack Larson, Farley Granger and Arthur Laurents, Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott. In his review of five Grant features which appeared on DVD, the same author says:

:Yet amid the documentary's many clips, the one of him in Bringing Up Baby caught in a frilly nightgown and screaming that he went "gay all of a sudden!" is missing. That may well be because the film brings up the rumors of his affair with actor Randolph Scott (with whom he lived on mid off from 1932 to 1942) only to brush them away. Wife number 3, actress Betsy Drake, says she and Grant were "too busy fucking" to talk about Randolph Scott. Still, she confesses she has "no idea" of what may have gone on before, although wife number 5, Barbara Harris (not the actress), buys the "bachelors living together" story. Neither she nor Drake has anything to say about Grant's pre-Scott alliance with designer Orry-Kelly. See [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_June_8/ai_n6153064]

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

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

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

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

I have to say as an academic I find Keith's stance mindboggling. The claims are from named sources in credible publications. There is more than enough claims to warrant inclusion. If this was an academic publication, the above quotes and references would make reporting of the claim automatic. Indeed failure to mention something with so many sources would be be looked at as either incompetent research or agenda-motivated censorship. FearÉIREANN15px\^(caint) 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

pp.109-110:

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

p.159:

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

p.230:

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Just publish a book speculating that someone may have been gay, and suddenly you've got a "credible source of information" and that speculation gets stuck on someone dead for 20 years. Oddly enough, a ridiculously innocuous phrase on Lindsay Graham, who is widely known (though not "proveable") to be gay, was struck down. One more reason why Wikipedia is a Wild West of Worthless Information.--24.196.175.110 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The article should mention how Cary Grant deliberately dodged the draft on both sides of the Atlantic during World War II.

No need, it's not true. Grant was 35 when the UK entered the war, working in the US and donated his salary for The Philadelphia Story to British War Relief. When the US entered the war, he was even older, of course. Only specialists above age 27 were drafted. His contributions in taxes and donations more than compensated for any lost action. I've heard the same accusation made about John Wayne, these types of allegations seem to have their origins with drunken veterans who hoped to tear down celebrities they didn't like. Same phenomenon exists for the anti-Jane Fonda rants you'll hear from vets, though many of these have some basis in fact.

Well we all know Wayne dodged the draft but I think it should be mentioned here for Grant as well. Grant took US citizenship so he wouldn't have to return to England to serve, and then managed to avoid serving when the US entered the war. Perhaps it was just as well, since the military didn't accept gays at that time. By the way, Spencer Tracy was 41 and was still heavily criticised for draft dodging.

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

Cary Grant is said to have Roma (Gypsy)Heritage

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

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

Yeah, this new photograph is horrible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm kinda new to Wiki and wondering if the following link would be appropriate to the external links or not. [http://jayparrino.com/Store/Search.aspx?&key=%20cary%20grant Photos of Cary Grant]. Our site does sell a product but we have hundreds of original Cary Grant photos posted that are relevant to the article and would probably be of interest to researchers. I've seen similar type links but I'm looking for guidance as to what's considered appropriate. Thank you. --mmgMmgphotos 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hej på dej

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg

:Image:Catchthief.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In this article there are 3 rumor spellings and 3 rumour spellings - then there's the US spellings favorite and the US spelling realized.

Should we not go for consistency and choose UK or US spelling throughout? (Thanks for writing Wildhartlivie) User:Brenont 19:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:VOTE: Rumor > Latin: rumor WikiDon 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:VOTE: UK spelling. No particular reason except that he was British. Wildhartlivie 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:VOTE: US please, call me a word economist!!!!! Help save a letter, won't you?

:VOTE: Rumor. Yamanbaiia 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I thought Wikipedia would be the attempt of an encyclopedia, not an arbitrary conglomerate of hearsay. Skip the rumo(u)rs and stick to the facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.120.183 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:You should report it to the administrators notice board, and they'll decide if all those edits are enough to get the IP blocked for some time. In any case he has never been warned, i'll do that now. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:Re: "....Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant....I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed."

:Since Hepburn, Tracy, and Grant at least (I don't know who Randolph Scott is or was) are notable for their movie acting, not for their copulating, I don't see that it does. Note that the section in this article pertaining to such things begins with the word rumors, a term I associate with gossip and gossip-mongering. Note that Cary Grant himself adamantly disputed the allegations, which so far as wikipedia editing goes should count for a lot. He clearly did not want to be thought homosexual, and there is nothing approaching conclusive evidence to suggest that he was. TheScotch (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::Randolph Scott isn't so well known these days, but he was once quite well known and had a respectable, if unspectacular film career, and to confirm your suspicions, yes he was more notable for his acting than his copulating. If it was down to his copulating alone, it's unlikely he'd merit a Wikipedia article. But you're absolutely right - there are so many rumours given credence here simply because the allegation has been published. Anyone can publish anything about the dead. It's not surprising that a whole bunch of books have been published about the supposed sex lives of dead celebrities. In some cases it may warrant mention - and in this case I believe that it should - but certainly we rarely need the detailed dissection that is given in some articles, even while the career is glossed over. I guess the acting career isn't as interesting, and that's a sad commentary on the tabloid kind of mentality that is beginning to permeate here. Cary Grant had one of the most successful acting careers ever, but reading his article, that's not immediately apparent. The assumed Grant/Scott relationship was discussed even back in the 1930s. It should be included, but the article goes into way too much detail, especially considering how briefly his 30+ year professional career is discussed. Rossrs (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:Your opinion of Grant's professional work was not sought, is not needed, and is entirely irrelevant. Since "bisexuality" subsumes homosexuality, very clearly Grant did deny that he was bisexual. Quite obviously Grant is not notable "for his bisexuality". If he hadn't been an actor a wikipedia entry in his name would have been unjustifiable and likely immediately deleted. TheScotch (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:In 1999, the American Film Institute published the results of a survey in which Grant was placed as the second greatest male film actor of all time. Oh right, nobody takes his acting seriously now. Ignorance really must be bliss. Rossrs (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:According to the most reliable figures available, the percentage of the population that is homosexual is somewhere between one percent and three percent. This means that when a given person's sexuality is in doubt the overwhelming statistical likelihood is that he is heterosexual. On the other hand, since world population is now close to seven billion, it also means that if (another, say) given person is homosexual there are something like seventy million to two hundred and ten million persons living that are like him in this respect. I don't absolutely rule out the possibility that someone could be notable enough for wikipedia merely by being homosexual or bisexual, but I can't off the top of my head right now think of anyone who would qualify, certainly not someone whose putative "bisexuality" isn't anywhere near established. TheScotch (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::This statistical nonsense such the argument of a heterosexual! Throughout history, it's always about the dominant majority keeping minorities down. No one here is asking that we note someone for just being homosexual; gay folk just want it noted where appropriate. It helps the dominant ones to realize that their world is a bit more diverse than they thought, and it gives credit where credit is due. Kaihoku (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Kinsey died more than a half-century ago, and the study to which you refer has long ago been discredited. More specifically, it has been superceded by the study to which I refer. (Gender, by the way, is a grammatical term only.) TheScotch (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::You are wrong; sure, Kinsey is highly criticized for a number of reasons, but his studies have hardly been discredited nor superceded. You need to back that assertion up. And just because something is not current, does not mean it's not still relevent. Plus, citing which "study" that you refer to would be very helpful to your point! Kaihoku (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinsey has been discredited and his highly biased and unscientific study has been superceded. Moreover the study to which I refer was widely reported in the media, which makes your putative ignorance of it telling. Yes, it would be "helpful" if I could cite its author or authors and place of original publication, and if I come across these I'll try to remember to let you know. In the mean time, I'm not going to devote my life to it, and my failing to do so does not excuse your promulgating misinformation. TheScotch (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To whom this may concern:

I was editing something on the Cary Grant info box and goofed, now it's all messed up. I tried fixing it but to no avail. I wish to apologize for the blunder and ask if anyone fix it, please.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Kenison

:Already fixed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article calls Cary Grant the actor's "stage name". Did Grant legally change his name or not? Whether or not he did, the article needs to refer to him consistently by one name only throughout (although it should, of course, mention the name change). TheScotch (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think that referring to him as "Leach" prior to his name change is appropriate. What's the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::That's certainly the way it's done in the vast majority of biographies I've read of people whose names changed. Birth name used until the name change, then stage name thereafter. Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a novel. TheScotch (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm suggesting that encyclopedic style would match the manner of most serious biographies. What's a novel got to do with it? Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::By my count we only refer to him as "Leach" twice, both in the paragraph on his early life. I don't think that's often enough to confuse readers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

as distilled from previous archived threads.

• Language: Consensus seems to be for American English spelling in this article.
• Sexuality: The current version, as described below, seems to be a fair assessment of this minor topic. Any extension would require reliable sourcing

--Rodhullandemu 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This page currently states that "Grant was preparing for a performance at the Adler Theater in Davenport, Iowa on the afternoon of November 29, 1986 when he suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage. He had suffered a minor stroke in October 1984. He died later that night at St. Luke's Hospital at age 82."

I think it's unlikely that he prepared for a performance in Iowa two years after his death. Why does this discrepancy exist on this page? Issues like this continue to make Wikipedia unreliable. (And don't tell me to fix it. I came here for information; I shouldn't be scolded to provide the information I came here for.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.239.108 (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

:Can we scold you for not reading carefully? :-) The article provides the information that Grant had a cerebral hemorrhage and died on November 29, 1986, having had a previous stroke in October 1984. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

::It could be better phrased for those who do not understand the pluperfect tense. --Rodhullandemu 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:::It's phrased OK; I put it in brackets to separate the 2 events more easily. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the citations in this section are sourced from one author, Eliot. It would be nice...no, it would be responsible, to produce corroborating citations from contemporary sources. Because, despite the glowing editorial review of the above editor on this discussion page, the article's section in question appears to be patently speculative and potentially libelous. Let us have corroboration of these apparently flimsy fantasy-projections by those who would polish the icon too eagerly.--74.171.63.241 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that better sources should be sought; but libel does not arise because all persons mentioned are dead, and as a matter of law it is not possible to libel the dead. --Rodhullandemu 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel that the current (January 29, 2008) section on rumors about Grant's sexual orientation is a triumph of the Wikipedia policy of editorial debate and compromise. The rumors have been allowed to stay in, susbstantiated by various sources, reliable or unreliable though they may be. And disagreements are noted and levels of unreliability are noted. I find the entire section extremely level-headed, even-handed, and well-written. I congratulate those involved for finding a reasonable and rational middle ground in which to include everyone's point of view. I do think that questions/rumors about Grant's sexual orientation are newsworthy, as much as it is newsworthy for Clift or other similar actor, when so much ink has been spilled over the question, and when rumors have persisted for so long and from such an early age. I'm glad this section is in the article, with sourced references, and to such a

detailed degree. I think a lot of people have questions about this, and you have given both sides of the question airplay very fairly. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Very nice job. NoahB (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Gary Grant ever say "Judy, Judy, Judy in any of his movies? Thank you. Judy W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.232.158 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is often listed among other phantom quotes, like "Play it again, Sam" that nobody ever actually said. 86.181.153.97 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that; but I once dreamt that that I was sitting in a bower when Charlotte Rampling strode up to me, saying "Percy, Percy, Percy" while holding a rolling pin. In the dream, I was sure she was addressing me, even though my name in the dream was Simon. I can't remember what happened next. 86.132.222.65 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} In Only Angels Have Wings, he does say "Judy, Judy" but apparently the catchphrase was related to a comic who mimicked his voice as Judy Garland came into a club, or so the story goes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC).

Maybe he had in fact a "mid-Atlantic" accent, but obviously, he was British, and therefore, had a British accent. I don't think they are the same thing.

FDR and Katherine Hepburn would NOT have pronouced "Judy Judy Judy" like CGrant. I rest my case.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:Agreed. Cary Grant did not - and most expressly did not have a distinctive - "Mid-Atlantic accent. His inflection clearly betrayed traces of ersatz upper class British or (once more common) East Coast American "aristocratic" inflections (familiar to most as the inimitable - albeit stilted - diction of the late William F. Buckley). Grant's accent was anything but generically "Mid-Atlantic", which region in point of fact spans from drawling Virginia to (in places) honking New York.

:If anyone has a better way to characterize Grant's accent than my edit of 2/2/09, please do suggest it. Cheers.Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Grant felt that in order to succeed he had to make an effort to appear more American than his fellow countrymen because people like C Aubrey Smith, Ronald Coleman, David Niven, Herbert Marshall, all came from privilaged upper class backgrounds, which was completely in contrast to the poverty stricken upbringing Grant had experienced in Bristol. He was astute enough to know that he wasn't a part of them and would never be so adopted the ambivolant accent. His accent was neither British or American but a pleasing hybrid between the two. However, if he was playing an Englishman such as Jimmy Monkley in Sylvia Scarlett or Archie Cutter in Gunga Din, he would be able to muster the perfect 'cockney' accent at will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.120.241 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

::Actually, there's a reprint of a fascinating circa 1932 magazine interview on one of the most prominent Cary Grant websites in which Grant tells the reporter that he had tried to learn to speak with an "American accent" so that he would be able to be cast in more films here in the United States, to increase his range of roles, in other words. He noted that he'd been largely unsuccessful but in actuality he sort of was, in that the resulting hybrid didn't really sound particularly British or really much like anyone else, but did enable him to play American roles with no problem at all. The answer, I think, is as simple and as intriguing as that. Upsmiler (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an ambiguity in the term 'Mid-Atlantic' accent. In America, according to the relevant Wiki article, it is used for a specific accent commonly found in some of the 'Atlantic' states of the USA. In Britain (where I come from) this meaning is unknown, and the term is used to describe someone with a primarily British accent who has modified it, for whatever reason, towards American usage. This is usually considered an affectation, and gives rise to ridicule, but can arise naturally among British people who have lived or worked for long periods in the USA. In the case of Cary Grant, his accent would be difficult to place among British accents: certainly not a West Country accent (which he would presumably have grown up speaking), but not RP either. To my ears, he doesn't sound much more 'English' than many American actors of the same period.109.149.30.196 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)