Talk:Cary Grant

Archive

*Older conversations are archived here

FAQs

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)

Sexuality issue in current article

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)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

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)

Grant not an icon

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.10.0.0 - 92.13.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Mother

I lived in Bristol briefly in the 1970s and was told by local people that Grant came back to Bristol regularly to visit his mother who was in a local mental hospital. These unpublicised visits continued until she died in the the early 1970s. However, I can't source anything yet, anyone else help on this?Bedwasboy (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to fit the bill, if the BBC are to be believed. --Rodhullandemu 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I lived in Bristol in 1971, and remember a picture of him in the evening paper, with a caption saying he was visiting his mother. 86.143.139.43 (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Further confirmation: my late mother was a nurse in Bristol in the 1960s (she never mentioned it being a mental hospital though, I got the impression it was an old folks' home or maybe a geriatric ward). Cary Grant's aged mother, Mrs Leach, was under her care and he used to come and visit her. The article doesn't seem to mention his mother later than 1938, and perhaps ought to mention when she died.Paulturtle (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Judy, Judy, Judy

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)

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).

Dates

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)

"Sexuality" section

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)

Accent

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)

Citizenship

It is also important to note that it says Cary Grant is a British born American actor. He is a British born British Actor! He just worked in america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.180.145 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some fact-checking would be in order. Did he have dual citizenship, for example? It does seem wrong to describe him as "British-born American". Unless he actually tore up his British passport or something.--82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I have changed it to British actor. At worst he was a British actor who held american citizenship but he was in no way American. Spudbynight (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source is? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

"British-born American actor" would seem to be the right way to say it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

His place of birth was Bristol. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000026/. He was born to British parents. If you think he was American then quote a source. Spudbynight (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cary Grant became an American citizen on June 26, 1942 and legally changed his name, from Archie Leach to Cary Grant. See: <Cary Grant FAQ> , <Cary Grant bio> Cary Grant, ad infinitum... Fwiw Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

He was born in England, worked in America, and became an American citizen. "British-born American actor" describes that situation properly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How could an actor who became an American citizen not be an American actor? If he also retained his British citizenship, then he was a British-American actor. It seems to me he was a British-born British-American actor, but that's a bit of a mouthful. Maybe best to describe him in the lede as a British-American actor, and get into his place of birth later on. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph gives citizenship as a determining factor. "British-born American actor" and "British-American actor" each are correct, and as long as both "British" and "American" are included, I don't think that one option is more correct than the other. It covers both his origin and the citizenship he chose, so it seems like an accurate and neutral way of describing him. Rethinking my opinion... if he retained British citizenship, "British-American" would be correct. If he relinquished it, "British-born American actor" would be right. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How many of his films were British releases? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

None? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

I can't think of any. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Until 1988, with the passage of some landmark legislation, American courts would not consider dual citizenship. I was actually present at a Canadian citizenship court when the first American citizen was granted Canadian citizenship status and still being allowed to retain his American citizenship. The same applied to British citizens prior to recent times. For example, Scottish-born Alexander Graham Bell became an American citizen in 1921, thereby revoking his British citizenship. The same premise applied to Cary Grant in 1942; in order to become an American citizen, he had to relinquish his British citizenship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

So, going back to MoS, by citizenship he is considered to be "American", and "British-born" seems like a reasonable way to qualify his origins. I think that "British-born American actor" is the more appropriate term. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

His films have no bearing on this whatsoever, I am amazed anyone could thing this. If you look at the entry for Peter Frampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Frampton you will see an inconsistency. Peter Frampton is exactly the same scenario - born in England to English parents and later moved to American and claimed citizenship. Only a loon would ever dream of calling him anything other than English. With respect to the fact that America does not allow dual citizenship, well that is countered by the fact that the United Kingdom does not allow citizens to renounce their citizenship. We are therefore back to the standard wiki rules of source. There is no argument over Cary Grant's origin but there is no source to claim that he renounced his UK citizenship. Spudbynight (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The US government would not allow dual citizenship in 1942; Cary Grant quite openly became an American citizen to deflect criticism during the war years that had been directed at actors who had not enlisted in the military. He had taken steps to see if he could enlist in the RAF but was counseled to remain in Hollywood as his services were better used in the film industry. FWiW, at the same time as he became an American citizen, he took steps to legalize his name to "Cary Grant" which until that time had been only his stage name. Bzuk (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

The British government wouldn't allow him to renounce his British citizenship in 1942 either. Worth noting that the world extends outside America. Channel 4 in the UK listed Cary Grant as #19 on their list of Greatest British Actors http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/greatest-brits/results/nominees/actor/16-20_results.html , seems like I am not alone. I am going to change this back to British actor who also held American citizenship and this should be left unless someone can quote a source indicating that he renounced his British citizenship in the eyes of the British government. Spudbynight (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is your documentation that Cary Grant was a British citizen after 1942? Your change neither has consensus nor supporting documentation and will be subject to removal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

You may not be alone in describing him as a British actor, but you should take into account that several editors have expressed a different viewpoint as to the way the information should be presented, and you have made the change to the article despite being the only editor in the discussion to hold this view. Bzuk's comment about lack of consensus above, is correct. Also, rather than presenting the information in the way that you personally believe it should be conveyed, you should look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph which explains Wikipedia's generally accepted format. Your preferred wording may ultimately win support, but the discussion has not ended yet. Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is there any source stating that he was not a British citizen after 1942? Spudbynight (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) In addittion Wiki states "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.". Cary grant completed 38 of him movies before 1942, well over half of them. Surely then by any criterion he was British when he became notable? Spudbynight (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1942, citizens who took the oath of naturalization had to swear in their American oath of allegiance a promise to renounce all previous citizenships upon assumption of American citizenship. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

The actual wording is quite specific: "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..." FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Here's an alternate wording that may be appropriate, "British-born Hollywood actor" and leave the reader to find that at some point he had become an American citizen. FWiW, any of the reference sources I have located do not refer to a British citizenship after 1942, but that may not have precluded an unenforced revocation of his British citizenship. The only thing I had noted is that Grant never referred to himself as a British citizen after 1942. Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

That seems like a reasonable compromise. It certainly reads better than "British-born British-American actor". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the British government not "allowing" someone to renounce their citizenship, how would they enforce such a rule? Would they send a posse into the USA to grab him and conscript him in the British military, and risk re-starting the War of 1812? I don't think so! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How would the US government enforce things? As I mentioned earlier there is a world outside the United States and just because he claimed citizenship (as many do PURELY for work reasons) does not mean that he was no longer a UK citizen. You still haven't answered my points as per his nationality when he became notable. Spudbynight (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If he actively worked to undermine the US in some way, he could be charged with treason or whatever else they might come up with. All or nearly all his films were made in America, or certainly in Hollywood. I like "British-born Hollywood actor". It covers all the bases neatly. You don't need an essay in the lead. That's in the body. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where his films were made. Most of Sean Connery's films were made outside Scotland - try telling him he isn't Scottish! Spudbynight (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Connery become an American citizen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a different issue. Scottish he certainly is, but that's his nationality, not his citizenship. His citizenship is British. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making is that Baseball Bugs keeps referring to where Cary Grant's films were made as if that had some sort of bearing on this discussion. Nobody has answed my point on consistency on Wiki. He became notable before he claimed US citizenship.Spudbynight (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cary Grant was alternately leading man, "second banana" and character actor throughout his early film career. Donald Deschler in The Complete Films of Cary Grant (1995) lists all of his credits by marquee arrangement and it was not until 1942 that the name Cary Grant is consistently the "name above the title". However, the point that until 1942, Cary Grant was British is accepted but after that date, his citizenship is American. Again, I can find no record of him ever referring to himself as a British citizen after 1942, although his work with the shadowy wartime British Security Coordination group headed by Sir William Stephenson is the subject of speculation by Charles Higham and Roy Moselley in Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart (1989). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

I don't refer to myself as a British citizen - it just doesn't come up in conversation. It doesn't change the fact that I am British. As I have previously pointed out there is no record I can find of Cary Grant renouncing his citizenship with the British government. Can you find any record of Cary Grant stating that he was no longer British? I doubt it. I don't dispute that he held American citizenship after 1942 but citizenship and nationality are two different things. His nationality was British and he held dual citizenship. The first paragraph of the article smacks of typical American arrogance. Spudbynight (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) As for Cary Grant only being a 'second banana' prior to 1942 you only need look at the films referenced in the second paragraph of this article. In each of them Grant is the male lead (and in most of them he has the first credit) - surely that makes him pretty notable? Spudbynight (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dual citizenship for a US citizen in 1942 was not possible. Higham and Moseley refer to his taking the oath of citizenship (the US Nationalization oath specifically asks the individual to forswear their citizenship or allegiance to another country). The statement made about his status in the film industry is referenced to the leading role for Cary Grant, and that is denoted by marquee sequencing and by contract stipulations. Prior to 1942, he often appeared as a "number two" but rarely as the "lead actor." Whether that has bearing or not on notability, it merely confirms that after 1942, Cary Grant was considered a "star" and received the customary treatment accorded to a major film star. The statements made about arrogance are off the mark; first of all, you have not researched the backgrounds of the contributors, nor should their origins or nationality matter. Wiki editors assume a neutrality in writing, and if they stray into WP:POV, that is immediately redressed by numerous editors. As to Cary expressing himself as British, I have now consulted countless reference sources and after 1942, he never refers to himself as a British citizen. As already enunciated, his origins and nationality are not in question. FWiW, an offer of an "olive branch" was made, were you uninterested? Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

I've come to agree with Spudbynight after reading United States nationality law. That article states (in the section on dual citizenship) that "Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship." I think that pretty much settles the issue. Unless a source is shown that Grant specifically renounced his British citizenship with the United Kingdom and that that renunciation was accepted by the United Kingdom, he can be assumed to have remained a British citizen as well as an American one. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are reading is a recent interpretation that was based on some landmark legal cases being tried in recent court cases. In 1942, no US citizen was permitted to hold dual citizenship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Then please enlighten me as to how that was enforced, if it was. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Each applicant had to swear in the oath of naturalization a promise to renounce all previous citizenships upon assumption of American citizenship. The actual oath is: "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..." As a public figure or celebrity, Cary Grant would be held to that oath while a lesser individual might not be under such scrutiny. In checking every available reference source, Grant never refers to British citizenship after 1942. Of course, he remained at heart, a "Brit" but his citizenship was that of a US citizen. As reiterated, only recent legal precedent has confirmed US citizens with the right to hold dual citizenship. I took part in the first citizenship court in Canada where a US citizen was able to apply and receive both US and Canadian citizenship. He was a teacher in my school division and his case received a great deal of media attention as he was the first US citizen to successfully apply for a dual citizenship status and that was in 1988; there had been some previous challenges to the dual citizenship for a US-Israeli citizen in 1976 but was dropped in the lower courts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

The same oath is still sworn. Unless he renounced his British citizenship at a British embassy, Britain still considered him a citizen. Do you have evidence that Britain did not? Yworo (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In swearing the oath in 1942, the US would have now considered Cary Grant a US citizen only as they did not recognize dual citizenship until the 1980s. It is true that there was no requirement to turn in passports and even the formal declaration of citizenship would not preclude Cary Grant from claiming or reverting to a former British citizenship. I cannot find that he ever claimed to be a British citizen again after 1942. Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

I don't see what Grant said or didn't say has to do with it. Citizenship is a status granted by a government and can only be taken away by that government. Even if you want to renounce it, you have to follow the rules. For example, did you know that you can't renounce US citizenship from inside the US? You have to do so outside the US at an embassy. If the was simply a matter of what the individual in question says... but well, it's not.... Yworo (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a confusing issue, the US would not accept dual citizenship in 1942 while Cary Grant may have technically retained his British citizenship because Great Britain would not have revoked his original citizenship, even though he made the declaration to renounce that citizenship. As far as his status in this article, he was a British citizen until 1942 and then was a US citizen with the possible retaining of his British citizenship, although I still cannot find any mention of his claiming to be British after 1942. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Another interesting observation: most biographies of Grant are quite explicit and clear when they discuss Barbara Hutton's renunciation of US citizenship, they all say just that, that she renounced her citizenship to become a Danish citizen. But not a word about Grant renouncing his British citizenship to become an American citizen. Why is that, when he's the primary subject of the biography? Could it be because either he never did it or because there are not sources which say he did? Yworo (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, a few light years ago, I had suggested that in the lead passages he is identified as a "British-born Hollywood actor" while in the infobox, his citizenship can be listed as "British/American." As I have said before, Grant never claimed to be British after 1942 and we may have dug a very large molehill over this issue. Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

(outdent) Well, at least according to Marc Eliot, Grant was "arguably the biggest male star in Hollywood" (p. 204) after My Favorite Wife (1940). Which would mean that even if his British citizenship was successfully revoked, he was still a British citizen when he became a star. His already having achieved stardom is of course what attracted Hutton to him in the first place.... Given all the circumstances, I'd say British/American is the best way to approach it in both places. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you have already changed the article, what's the point in continuing the discussion?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I mentioned the opening paragraph smacking of American arrogance I was talking about the piece itself rather than any specific individual. Referring to Cary Grant as American does smack of American arrogance. (But this is beside the point.) Yworo has agreed with me above and saved me the trouble of replying. I think British/American is probably the best compromise on this Spudbynight (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, to revisit the MOS, MOS:BIO#Opening paragraph actually says "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable (emphasis added). Cary Grant was a notable actor prior to becoming an American citizen. I don't particularly think that referring to him as British-American is correct, either. To me, this passage indicates that it should remain British, with perhaps an additional comment that he later became an American citizen. I'm American here and honestly, I think this has nothing to with "American arrogance" and I find that claim offensive. This has to do with not clearly interpreting what the entire MOS says about citizenship and notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should be referred to as British and that is my interpretation of the wiki rules. Spudbynight (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the first to change "British actor" to "British-born American actor" and I'm Swedish, not American. Not a surprise, though, that a smug Brit would start speaking about "American arrogance" if someone (God forbid) referred to an American citizen who lived most of his life in the United States as an (gasp!) American. Stefan PJ (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) He was born in Britain to British parents - that makes him a little bit more than 'British Born'. Spudbynight (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just spotted that Greta Garbo is listed as a Swedish actress despite taking US citizenship in 1950. Why is she not referred to as a Swedish-American actress? Spudbynight (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Greta Garbo isn't mentioned in this article; you'd probably be better discussing that here. Rodhullandemu 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because Garbo didn't become naturalized until after her entire acting career, while Grant was naturalized during his acting career? Yworo (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Greta Garbo being referred to as Swedish but my point was merely to point out a lack of consistancy rather than question her nationality. Spudbynight (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no lack of consistency as I see it. Grant became known while British, but became much more well known after becoming a naturalized American. Thus, both nationalities should be included. You need to compare to other subjects with the same conditions, for example Peter Lorre, who became known (for his role in 'M') while still an Austrian citizen, but became much more well known after becoming a naturalized American. His article describes him as Austrian-American, paralleling the usage on this article. Yworo (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New section on citizenship

User:Bzuk argues that in 1942, the US government maintained strict standards such that it would have been impossible for a naturalised immigrant like Grant to maintain dual citizenship. This is incorrect; as far as the question of who held British citizenship goes, whether today or in 1942, the American government's view is irrelevant. One nation simply doesn't get a say in who another nation considers a citizen. This is especially true if Grant never did anything to act on his British citizenship, such as renewing his British passport (if he ever held one in the first place—he immigrated before a passport was required for a voyage between Britain and the United States) or attempting to vote in a British election. If he hadn't fulfilled the British government's criteria for rescinding his citizenship after 1942, he'd have still been a British citizen. But he did lose his British citizenship when he became a naturalised American. Any British subject naturalised by a foreign state between 1914 and 1948 lost their British citizenship automatically under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. It wasn't till 1949 that the British Nationality Act 1948 created the status of "British citizen", a status that is not lost when its holder is naturalised by a foreign state. This is why Alfred Hitchcock, who wasn't naturalised until 1956, retained his British citizenship, while Alistair Cooke, naturalised in 1941, did not. There's a good discussion of this at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock or one of its archives. Also, it's not true that the British government doesn't allow the renunciation of British citizenship; the form to apply to renounce your British citizenship is available on the Home Office website.

Having said all that, "British-born Hollywood actor" seems perfect to me for the lede. Binabik80 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

new discussion

I have changed his nationality from English-American to English/American. English-American denotes an American with English ancestry. Cary Grant was born in England to two English parents. This is certainly more than English ancestry. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but the way you did it didn't link to the right articles., and I disagree with your interpretation of English American, since Grant clearly falls within the definition IMO. We're splitting hairs here, I feel. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps placing "... with dual citizenship of both countries" may be appropriate ? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

From the wiki page on english-americans it defines them as "citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England." Cary Grant was much more than this. He was english born with two english parents who only became an american citizen in 1942. He had made over half his films before he took US citizenship (surely enough to regard his as notable) I don't think it is splitting hairs. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly by the definition of English American, Grant qualifies, and I see no gradation or scale within that. He either is, or he isn't, and try as I might, I cannot think of a terminology that encapsulates this without being clumsy beyond concern for our readers. We say he was born in England, and we say he worked in USA and later became a US citizen. Without being silly, what else can we do? The alternative English/American, even if disambiguated correctly, is unhelpful, because nobody has any idea what "/" means. If it means "or", it's simply wrong. If it means "and", it's confusing because it implies a nonexistent simultaneity. If it means anything else, it's just "undefined" and equally, if not more so, unhelpful. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also on the page on "English-Americans" the following people are given as examples. William Byrd II · George Washington · Ben Franklin · Betsy Ross · John Quincy Adams · Francis Scott Key · Abraham Lincoln · Clara Barton · King Camp Gillette · Ransom E. Olds · Laura Ingalls · Oliver Hardy · Ernest Hemingway· Jayne Mansfield · Bill Gates · Justin Timberlake · Britney Spears. All of them are born in America to American born parents. They may have some degree of English ethnicity but Cary Grant stands out as completely different. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and you need to justify this as a "special case" not to apply long-accepted guidelines. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And there in lies the problem, ethincity vs citizenship.

Often the American way is to consider everyone as "XXX-American" denoting ethnicity. For example see Catherine Bell - here the British part is demoted to simply a mention of her "British born" status whereas in the UK we would normally consider that she would be classed as "British American of Anglo-Iranian descent"

It is something that we have to deal with and understand rather than start raising issue at something which has been much discussed and an agreed on compromise has been implemented (see above discussion)

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to open up a can of worms on this but why is he not just listed as a British actor? Its been clarified on the article.. "MOS:BIO — Nationality: the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable". He was certainly British when he became notable - the majority of his films were made before he took US citizenship. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC) And the reason why I think this doesn't read right is that calling him English-American detracts from the fact that he is certainly more British than anything else. English-American takes a very US-centric position on this. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC) So any case to not list him as British? 78.105.154.28 (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Is it OK to change him to British actor then? 87.194.162.141 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Article has been stable in its present version for a long time, and I think you would need to obtain a new consensus to make that change. Rodhullandemu 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) His nationality was changed from English–American in August last year without any consensus. I have reverted to this. It is a subtle change but one which has been discussed above since November without resolution. 87.194.162.141 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I am somewhat puzzled by all this. The change in his nationality was made without consensus to its current status. This has been argued above without resolution. When I tried to revert it to it's previous state the edits were undone. Surely some sort of balance needs to be applied here? The other user above posted three months ago without response. I personally feel that the current status is inaccurate. I believe that under Wiki guidelines he should be listed as British. (He only held British citizenship when he became notable) Certainly calling him English-American is contrary to the view that he was a British actor. There is disagreement on this factor and English–American seemed to be a logical compromise, acknowledging that he was both a British and an American citizen. 87.194.162.141 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I still believe this to be open. I like the other user User:78.105.154.28 feel that English-American is an inaccurate status for Cary Grant. It is fine for someone who is American with British ancestry but it fails to reflect the fact that some editors believe he was not simply American. As has been stated above wiki guidelines state that nationality listed should be that when the subject became notable. I am not disputing that Grant's star was still in the ascendance when he became a US citizen, but to say that having acted in roughly half his films before this point, he wasn't notable is just puzzling. This status is something which there is still not consensus on. The subtle change I mention above (I have registered for an account now) while subtle is significant. It was made quietly without consensus and there has been significant opposition to it above. This has been challenged for over 4 months without any reply. Sue De Nimes (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The link to English American, as the article has it at this moment, seems like the right way to go with this, as it gives an explanation, as opposed to linking to English and American separately, which doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on that. Certainly if Cary Grant had been born in America to a family that was ethnically English then maybe. As I understand it wiki policy is to state nationality not ethnicity (please correct me if I am wrong). The current English American reflects a nationality of American along with additional information on ethnicity. The question mark here from myself (and other editors) is whether he should be listed as American, British or both. For someone who was born in Britain to two British parents and spent nearly half his life with no nationality other than British to be listed as something that does not reflect it seems flawed. I see the following points as open at the moment (i) He was initially listed English–American and then in August last year changed to English American. This change was made without consensus and still seems to be in disagreement. With this in mind it should be reverted to English–American until such consensus is formed. (ii) Cary Grant was only British when he became notable. As per Wiki guidelines he should thus be listed as British. I have read the notes above and haven't seen anyone suitably address why this guideline should not be followed. There are several editors in support of that view. (iii) As an improvement on the current status I believe that British born Hollywood Actor is something which may act as a safe middle point. Sue De Nimes (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC) This has been left as "English" for some time now. I would like to propose the following change which I believe reflects the facts clearly. "Cary Grant was an English actor who later took American citizenship" Sue De Nimes (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the article back from "English American" to "English". The English American article is about Americans who had English parentage or ancestry. That clearly doesn't describe Grant, who was born in and grew up in England and didn't become a US citizen until the 1940s. Since there seems to be some disagreement and confusion over his nationality, we should consider looking at other sources and see how they describe him. I looked him up in some film reference books and on the Allmovie/AllRovi website, and they all refer to him as "British-born" without claiming him as American, so perhaps we should follow this example as a compromise. Jay-W (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jay-W. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear that we use the citizenship held at the time the subject became notable. We don't change or hyphenate it because they changed their citizenship after they had already become notable, even if they subsequently became more notable. The intent of OPENPARA, which I helped to write, has always been that there should be a clear single unhyphenated nationality in the lead sentence. We don't get to appropriate as somehow "American" a Brit who became notable as a Brit. Yworo (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that line of reasoning completely ignores the fact that he spent most of his life as a US citizen and lived even longer in the Us than in England. We need to stop with this pointy Bull Shit and leave well enough alone.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone agreeing with you here, you have no consensus for change. Yworo (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read every single statement in this or the preceding section about Grant's citizenship. But I'm about to make it longer. Because I have personal experience of the process and legality of various issues, I decided to add my two penn'orth. I'll refer to him as "Grant" even though there was a time when he was Leach. I will not attempt to explain the why or wherefore of the situation of citizenship, but it's necessary to acknowledge what actually happens.

It was stated that the US did not allow dual citizenship at the time of Grant's naturalization. That is correct. It is also correct that the US does not allow dual citizenship at the time I write this (April 25 2015); I do not believe that it has been otherwise in the last 100 years.

However... the US does not compel a person to renounce whatever citizenship that the person already has. That may seem to contradict the law, but it is nonetheless a fact.

The United Kingdom allows dual citizenship. Note that there are six different kinds of British nationality today. They include citizen, subject, national, etc. It might be simpler in the USA, perhaps. But the USA has never had a Commonwealth, for starters.

The result of this - to some, confusing - situation is that it is possible for a British person who is naturalized as a citizen of the United States to possess two valid and legally correct passports: one US passport and one British passport. Indeed, it is possible to travel between the two countries utilizing the appropriate passport to facilitate a much simpler and faster progress through immigration than would otherwise be possible. I hasten to add that it is rare that a naturalized immigrant views his or her citizenship trivially. I would say that all of them treat their citizenship with a high degree of responsibility. Therefore, to argue the point as if it is a mandated requirement for an immigrant to renounce original citizenship before becoming a "real" citizen is, plainly speaking and in the impersonal uncritical meaning of the word, ignorant. Surely the important thing is how Grant identified himself..... he might have said he was a Colonist.... 74.242.161.176 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality

This section was mostly insubstantial smoke and mirrors; what other people say about him or his lifestyle is irrelevant. Even if people are dead, we don't out them without incontrovertible evidence; Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for rumours or speculation. Accordingly, as is my right as an ordinary editor here, I require reliable sources; not rumours, not innuendo, and certainly not "well he must have been"-type additions. This is 2009; Grant's sexuality doesn't matter any more; compare and contrast with Van Johnson, where it is more or less reliable sourced. No more nonsense, please; it's irrelevant. --Rodhullandemu 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious--will you be taking the same approach to the Randolph Scott article? I'm not opposed to it (though I suspect you're going to get a lot of disagreement here). At any rate, if you're going to delete the Grant stuff, it seems only right to delete the Scott stuff from his article as well. I'm not inclined to take my own action, but since you moved on this article, perhaps you want to move on that one, too. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To 92.12.243.26: You don't get it. Your edits aren't being deleted because of content, they're being deleted because you're a banned editor. Your edits will be deleted forever, whether you have a good citation or not. You should get used to it. Had you behaved yourself according to Wikipedia guidelines, many of your edits might stand. But as a banned editor, not even your discussion page edits will be allowed. Now please save your "everyone you ever admired is a homo" raging for someplace else. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LSD

Some mention should be made of Grant's extensive use of LSD under the supervision of a psychiatrist in the 1950s and 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.53.35 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Accent & personality

"With his distinctive yet not quite placeable Mid-Atlantic accent, he was noted as perhaps the foremost exemplar of the debonair leading man, handsome, virile, charismatic and charming."

Fan written much???--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

English Not ? This Is 86.132.222.65 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And/or lifted from someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's weak. No sources. Noted by whom? "Charismatic" and "charming" are much the same. There should be a semi-colon or perhaps even a colon after "leading man". The more I look at it, the more I have the words "renowned curator" floating in my mind. In fact it should be deleted and rewritten as "With an accent described by SOURCE as DESCRIPTION, he was a popular leading man, appearing in box-office hits (SOURCE) such as FILM, FILM, and FILM. Writing in DATE, HIGHBROW FILM HISTORIAN JOHN DOE described him as QUOTE handsome etc". Given the autistic mind-clash about the picky details of whether he should be British-American or British-born American I suspect that the article will never progress to featured article status until the current generation of Wikipedia's Cary Grant fans have retired. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original name

so is it Alec or Alexander?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.163.80 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources are ambiguous and second-hand. Let's put it this way: if someone will pay for me to go to Bristol Register Office and the £7.50 fee for an extract from the births register, I'll happily scan it and post it here as a public document. That will put an end to this tawdry debate. Rodhullandemu 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected an administrator to be aware that that would be original research. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing a public document is "original research"? That's a a new one on me. Certainly satisfies WP:V, because any other editor could do the same. There's nothing in WP:V to say that the process of verification should be inexpensive, just that it should be "possible". Rodhullandemu 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well he himself said it was Alexander in his bio. Anyway I 'm addressing the problem here at wiki. It says Alexander on the left side, but on the right side it says Alec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.163.80 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've checked on Find My Past and he was registered as Archibald Alec Leach Libby norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who says?

The article says Grant was once considered a maverick as he was the first actor to "go independent," effectively bucking the old studio system...

Then later in the article it says "one of the" not THE first actor to go independent. "One of the the first actors to go independent" would be much more likely and not as specific and as the article stands it has both THE and ONE OF THE so it's not consistant.

I would have easily made that simple change to keep it consistant but it is locked for some reason.

Consider this little change mr. or miss or mrs. or ms. lock out person. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.158.137 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

The filmography has been updated with more detail. These details are taken from a separate and soon-to-be deleted filmography page. Jimknut (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is was such an extensive filmography moved from its own dedicated page? It takes up four screenfulls for goodness sake.  Skomorokh  05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed it be re-split, per filmography conventions.  Skomorokh  06:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The filmography was moved here because when it was on its own page it became labelled as an "orphaned article" that was being considered for deletion. Better, then, to have it here rather than no where.Jimknut (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

His infobox image

I have cropped the original image to his face, taking out the large screen text of his name. It now looks more like just his picture, rather than a trailer screen shot. I believe it looks better cropped, as are a lot of other pages of actors that their main image cropped. It looks better. Please discuss your opinions below if you wish. 21yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've expressed this opinion before, and you've said you don't like the look of the trailer image with the name on it. That's your preference, and one that I don't necessarily share. Some of these images are suitable for further cropping and in some cases a stronger "portrait" can be created. This is not one of those, because to crop away the lettering, you need to also crop away the bottom of Cary Grant's chin, and the result is not balanced. It also makes the image very small so that placing it in the infobox diminishes its quality. The answer may be to find a better image. This one is not that great, although I think it's the best of a fairly mediocre bunch. Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with this picture instead of the current one? All the classic stars seem to be using a studio portrait, and I'm not sure why it isn't so for Cary Grant?

P.s. (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

His 5th wife

I noticed there is no page on Cary Grant's 5th wife, Barbara Harris. There are articles on all 4 of his other wives. Maybe there should be an article started on her? 21yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If the other 4 wives were notable enough to merit articles for reasons other than being Mrs Grant at one time or another, they should and do have their own article. If Barbara Harris is notable only for being a Mrs Grant, then an article for her would not not be needed. Each individual needs to be looked at in terms of her own notability. Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notability is not inherited. Jim Michael (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Betsy Drake's comment

Cary's third wife Betsy, had once made a statement disproving his homosexuality and saying she didn't know what he did, he lived 43 years before I met him, and maybe he was bisexual, but we were busy fu**ing. Now, what I want to know, is, should language be censored or not, some user in the edit descriptions said that wikipedia is not censored, but can anyone confirm? 21yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this: WP:NOTCENSORED Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Singing

I believe there are at least 2 films in which Grant sings. One of them is Madame Butterfly (1932 film). I believe the other is also from his early career. Does anyone know which it is - and think it's worth mentioning in the article? -- kosboot (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he also sings a duet with Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby. -- kosboot (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, he sings early in the first "Topper" (before his "death", of course.). I don't remember at all if Constance Bennett sang with him but I believe it was Hoagy Carmichael at the piano.141.157.196.69 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He also sings very well to Jean Harlow in "Suzy" and also in "Night and Day," the Cole Porter picture. Grant was a superb singer from his extensive music hall days and it's a shame he turned down the Sky Masterson part in "Guys and Dolls" even though the edited Brando singing (reconstructed syllable by syllable in the sound department) fascinates in that no pauses for breath are ever evident, as Brando delightedly pointed out in that "Morituri" publicity film, "Meet Marlon Brando." Upsmiler (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

King's Medal

The article claim's that Grant was awarded the King's Medal for services. There is and was, as far as I know, no such medal. Acorn897 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have the section on his politics?

As noted, Grant was not a political activist, indeed made a point of shying from politics. Which makes it particularly odd that we devote so much column space to it here. It is not relevant to his impact on acting, film, culture; it is not part of his career and, apparently, a minor part of his personal life. So why an entire section devoted to it? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include just the opening sentence (about how he was a Republican, but disapproved of actors making political statements) of this long section in the personal life and leave it at that? this really seems to be the accumulation of trivia that adds little to that pithy opening. TheCormac (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include just the opening sentence (about how he was a Republican...."

The opening sentence does not seem to me to say or to intimate in any way that Grant was a Republican. It does seem odd to have a section called "Politics" in which we go on at some length about how the subject was actually not very political, but it would be much worse to reduce it to a single sentence if that sentence were misleading. Apparently Grant was not very overtly political, but the article does gives four instances of possibly anti-Republican stances (attacking McCarthyism, defending Chaplin, supporting gun control, supporting the Kennedys) and one possible pro-Republican stance (introducing Betty Ford), thus qualifying the opening sentence (that is, he occasionally took political stances, usually in support of friends). TheScotch (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture references?

I'm just wondering is the Archie the Leech in The Man with the Golden Torc a reference to Cary Grant? Perhaps it's just a coincidence but given the books use of some other familiar popular culture ideas I'm now wondering. If so are there other reference out there? 203.25.1.208 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea. You'd have more luck searching the internet than looking here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably a safe bet that "Archie the Leech" is some sort of reference to Grant's real name if not to Grant himself. It's probably the most famous real name of any actor since it runs so utterly counter to his image or the name that he chose. (A lot different from "Bernie Schwartz," which fits Tony Curtis much better than his stage name in some ways.) Upsmiler (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Upsmiler (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't mentioning "A Fish Called Wanda" where John Cleese's character's name was Archibald Leach be appropriate? Jtyroler (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Images of fan letter responses

Can someone present a good argument for the continued inclusion of responses to fan letters regarding Grant's death? As far as I can see, a fan wrote to various celebrities about Grant's death and got some very succinct and not particularly informative responses which now fill up the bottom of the article as if they had intrinsic value to understanding Grant. I fail to see what value they add, except perhaps in the eyes of the fan who presumably provided the letters. They're certainly not encyclopedic inclusions. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Tribune section I think it should be removed due to we are not a memorial. It's not encyclopedic and should be removed. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the person adding them would be the one to offer an argument. I agree that they say nothing about Grant and serve no purpose here. If there was something worth saying it could be quoted without showing a copy of the letter, but there's really nothing in the comments. Hepburn, Stewart and Sidney give a polite and essentially dismissive response to a fan, that does not give any insight into Grant's life or Grant's death. I also question the legitimacy of the public domain claim. Sidney's for example is clearly noted as copyrighted, and the other two assert "some" rights. Should be removed from this article, and should be removed from WP for the dubious public domain claim. Rossrs (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have come here but didn't think to. After two of the images were deleted I went ahead and removed all of the tribune section. I don't think it should be added to the article like this. I also think that more of the images are up for deletion. If you have a problem with my removing the section please comment. Thanks Rossrs and Monkeyzpop for your comments about this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the section as it was before the letters were added. The part about the erection of the statue is a long-standing part of the article. Yworo (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As Yworo notes, the statue has been there for a while, and it's different. It's a direct honour to him in a place closely associated with him. Not many men are represented by a statue in his hometown, so that's notable and it's worth including. The letters, not so. Rossrs (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. I can think of only very narrow circumstances where "fan letters" would have any encyclopedic value to any article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Parents' photos

Does anyone know if there are any photos of Grants parents or his early life in England.I get the impression that his British years have been air-brushed out of his biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.11.150 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Correcting talk page headers?

What is this obsession with redoing talk page headers? That is not considered: 1. Important 2: Necessary 3: A sign of anything other than pickiness (you don't have to correct others' mistakes on a talk page; it's a talk page and messing about with other entries is best left to the author of the statement...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Large changes in any article that engender controversy and in this case, an edit war, need to be discussed first. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

One revert is hardly an edit war and reformatting a filmography table is not what I consider a "large" change. I left a note on the editor's talk page further explaining my edits which I doubt they have yet to see. While I don't appreciate my edits being labeled as vandalism when I am merely following the MOS that is implemented on various biographies throughout the project, this issue didn't require someone stepping in and telling two people who have yet to communicate on the matter to go to their respective corners. If this became a huge issue, we probably could have worked it out amongst ourselves on our talk pages. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear, however, a 3,000+ KB change does tend to raise an antenna. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

If an edit raises someone's antenna, they should at least look at the edit summary of the edit (which I left) and perhaps take a peek at the edit history of the editor making said edit. A blind "this is vandalism" revert is unhelpful hence my talk page message to the editor that reverted. That said, I don't care enough about this to go further so both of you can do whatever you like. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Bzuk. "Reformatting" a filmography table is one thing but the wholesale and cavalier deletion of so much meticulously useful information from an article is certainly quite another, speaking as the contributor who spent several hours making that contribution. That having been said, I'm glad that the issue is resolved and of course I certainly bear no adversarial stance toward anyone. Upsmiler (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting a Cary Grant movie??

Someone has tagged the 1935 Cary Grant/Myrna Loy movie Wings in the Dark for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't fulfill the Wikipedia grounds of notability! I need some help here! Upsmiler (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting "obscure" titles

Not changing it, but you guys who deleted None But the Lonely Heart and Penny Serenade from the list of Grant's most prominent films do know that those are the only two films for which he received Oscar nominations, don't you? Lonely Heart had four nominations and one Oscar win, and was chosen best film by the National Board of Review. Just because you aren't very familiar with something isn't reason to presume it's obscure to knowledgeable people. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

They may be the only ones he was nominated for, and may have been successful at the time, but they are far from his best known films. I consider myself a big film buff, talk a lot about films with other film buffs online, and those two films are not regarded as classics. It has nothing to do with my personal tastes either, I added The Awful Truth and I don't even like that film, but the fact is that it's a classic. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who added these films to this list, I have to concur with Monkeyzpop that these absolutely remain two of Grant's most towering classics. Just have a look at them. I'm not sure about the age or breadth of knowledge of the people with whom you discuss films online but there's a good reason why None But the Lonely Heart, written and directed by Clifford Odets (do you know who he was?) and Penny Serenade secured Grant's only Oscar nominations despite Grant's not being tethered to any specific studio in a time when the studios controlled the prize-giving. These are Grant's two richest and most compelling performances and are more often discussed within my circles than any of his others. The scene in which Grant begs the judge to be able to keep his adoptive child channels his ungodly onscreen power into a direction not seen before or since, and None But the Lonely Heart was so tailored for Grant that he actually spoke with his original accent, pure Cockney, and it's a hard-edged drama glittering with intensity. To excise these films from Grant's Wikipedia article would appear criminal to those who appreciate his work. Upsmiler (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Look I'm saying absolutely nothing about the quality of the films, and I'm not saying they're obscure either (that was another editor) but the sentence mentions his "best known films" and those two are not widely loved, enduring classics. Just look at Grant's most voted on films at IMDB, Penny Serenade is almost half way down the list, and None But the Lonely Heart doesn't even have 1,000 votes. The latter also has a pretty low score, only 6.4. I know IMDB isn't the most reliable example but it's a good indicator and completely backs up what I already thought, and I really do think I'm knowledgable about film history. I'm speaking completely objectively as well, if it were up to me we'd be mentioning Monkey Business and I Was a Male War Bride, easily two of his funniest films and best performances IMO, but I know that they don't have the same popularity of the others. Let's just include PS and NBtLH in the next paragraph when it mentions his Oscar nominations? --Lobo512 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I should think votes in IMDB's contests only indicate the preferences of those who vote within IMDB, which I imagine remains largely restricted to a certain age group to whom None But the Lonely Heart and Penny Serenade remain almost utterly unknown despite featuring Cary Grant's two most lauded performances. I certainly have no problem whatsoever with mentioning them in the next paragraph instead, however, and actually prefer that because it singles them out in a different light, which is entirely appropriate. I think you suggested the ideal outcome and thank you for resolving this. Upsmiler (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in this topic, both films are shown on Turner Classic Movies with a degree of regularity, though Penny Serenade seems to be broadcast more frequently than None But the Lonely Heart. Therefore, they are both well known to fans of older films. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"particularly for comedy"

I only just noticed that my edit that Grant was known "particularly for comedy" is no longer there. Why did it get removed? It is obviously the case (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it), and the lead is meant to give a clear introduction to Grant for people who want to find out about him. And don't say 'because it's unsourced' because the current sentence is also unsourced. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A summary doesn't need cites as long as everything in it is taken from the body (where, of course, everything should be cited).

I disagree that Grant was known especially for comedies. Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey are clearly known primarily for comedies, even though both have done a few dramatic roles. Judy Garland and Fred Astaire? Primarily musical stars, despite Judgement at Nuremberg and On the Beach. Without counting but at first glance comedies make up the largest single bloc of Grant's work, but he did too many famous dramatic and romantic films (Destination Tokyo, his Hitchcock work, Gunga Din, An Affair to Remember, etc.) to be considered primarily a comedic actor. Ylee (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? I definitely think he's primarily known for comedy, it's the reason he is so loved. His Encyclopedia Britannica entry makes a point of singling out his "flair for romantic comedy" in the very first sentence. He did do a lot of dramatic roles as well, and I had included that (my edit said "noted particularly for comedy but also for dramatic roles"), but I think it is accurate and useful to single him out for his comedic talent. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

acting ability

I remember the remarks when Cary Grant died about him likely being the best movie actor ever. There's also a quote in this article about him being the best and the most-important film actor. Most-important, perhaps, but it would be easy to name at least a half-dozen better actors. I've seen a few films in which he walks through the part, something no "good" actor does. I'm not dumping on Cary Grant -- his best performances are wonderful and beyond criticism -- but the article needs a more-balanced assessment of his abilities. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well those are direct quotes coming from respectable people. You can't argue with them really: it proves the high esteme with which Grant is held. He was the ultimate movie star. If you can find a quote (from someone worth quoting) that speaks negatively of Grant, by all means add it to provide a balance. But I certanily don't think the current ones should be removed. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lobo512 on that one, the critical esteem in which he's held remains unique for sound era screen leading men. Upsmiler (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxx 24.72.176.240(talk) 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[expletive-laden insult by 24.72.176.240 to the previous speaker removed]

File:Cary Grant Commutative Stamp 2002.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cary Grant Commutative Stamp 2002.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a phoney entry. I've seen exactly the same entry, even down to the exact wording, in another, totally unrelated, thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.65 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Peculiarity

Why "...Known for his transatlantic accent, debonair demeanor and "dashing good looks"..." ?

Why not "...Known for his transatlantic accent, "debonair demeanor" and dashing good looks..." ?

Or "...Known for his "transatlantic accent", debonair demeanor and dashing good looks..." ?

Or how about "...Known for his "transatlantic accent", "debonair demeanor" and "dashing good looks"..." ?

I've got an idea. How about just this: "...Known for his transatlantic accent, debonair demeanor and dashing good looks..." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.65 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Early Career: Shurely shum mishtake?

According to this article, Master Leach performed on a two-year tour from the age of 16 to 18. Nothing much is said of the next nine years except that he toured as part of the the Vaudeville world. So far, so good.

But then, wait for it, all within the space of one year, 1931, at the age of 27, Mr Leach "...performed on the stage at The Muny in St. Louis, Missouri, in such shows as Irene (1931), Music in May (1931), Nina Rosa (1931), Rio Rita (1931), Street Singer (1931), The Three Musketeers (1931) and Wonderful Night (1931)..." He then (still, take note, in 1931) appeared "...in several musicals on Broadway under the name Archie Leach...", before, finally, "...Grant went to Hollywood..." and this, still, "... in 1931...".

[My bolding.] At least, what, 8? 9? 10? shows in St Louis. Rehearsals. How many performances of each? Several musicals in NY. Rehearsals. Performances. Then off to LA. That sounds like a pretty unlikely roster for just one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.65 (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Picture of the day

Actor Cary Grant (1904–86) in a publicity photo for Suspicion (1940). Known for his transatlantic accent, debonair demeanor and "dashing good looks", Grant is considered one of classic Hollywood's definitive leading men. During his 34-year career he acted in over 50 films, including The Eagle and the Hawk, Bringing Up Baby, and North by Northwest.Photograph: RKO publicity photographer; Edit: Chris Woodrich

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 Wikipedia: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 [1] 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#New section on citizenship, 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 #Sampling of versions since July 2011) 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 ^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 ^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 ^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 #Sampling of versions since July 2011. 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 ^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 ^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))

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

Year	Title	Role	Notes
1932	This Is the Night	Stephen	With Lili Damita, Charles Ruggles, and Thelma Todd
	Sinners in the Sun	Ridgeway	With Carole Lombard and Chester Morris
	Singapore Sue	First Sailor	Musical Comedy short subject
	Merrily We Go to Hell	Charlie Baxter	UK title: Merrily We Go to _____ With Sylvia Sidney and Fredric March
	Devil and the Deep	Lieutenant Jaeckel	With Tallulah Bankhead and Gary Cooper
	Blonde Venus	Nick Townsend	With Marlene Dietrich
	Hot Saturday	Romer Sheffield	With Nancy Carroll and Edward Woods
	Madame Butterfly	Lieutenant B.F. Pinkerton	With Sylvia Sidney and Charles Ruggles
1933	She Done Him Wrong	Capt. Cummings	With Mae West and Noah Beery, Sr.
	The Woman Accused	Jeffrey Baxter	With Nancy Carroll
	The Eagle and the Hawk	Henry Crocker	With Fredric March and Carole Lombard
	Gambling Ship	Ace Corbin	With Jack La Rue and Glenda Farrell
	I'm No Angel	Jack Clayton	With Mae West
	Alice in Wonderland	The Mock Turtle	With W. C. Fields and Gary Cooper
1934	Thirty-Day Princess	Porter Madison III	With Sylvia Sidney and Edward Arnold
	Born to Be Bad	Malcolm Trevor	With Loretta Young (Heavily censored by the Hayes Office)
	Kiss and Make-Up	Dr. Maurice Lamar	With Helen Mack and the WAMPAS Baby Stars of 1934
	Ladies Should Listen	Julian De Lussac	With Frances Drake and Edward Everett Horton
1935	Enter Madame	Gerald Fitzgerald	With top-billed Elissa Landi
	Wings in the Dark	Ken Gordon	With top-billed Myrna Loy
	The Last Outpost	Michael Andrews	With Claude Rains
	Sylvia Scarlett	Jimmy Monkley	Directed by George Cukor With Katharine Hepburn
1936	Big Brown Eyes	Det. Sgt. Danny Barr	With Joan Bennett and Walter Pidgeon
	Suzy	Andre	With Jean Harlow and Franchot Tone
	The Amazing Quest of Ernest Bliss	Ernest Bliss	US title: Romance and Riches Alt title: The Amazing Adventure
	Wedding Present	Charlie	With Joan Bennett
1937	When You're in Love	Jimmy Hudson	UK title: For You Alone With Grace Moore
	Topper	George Kerby	With Constance Bennett
	The Toast of New York	Nicholas "Nick" Boyd	With Edward Arnold and Jack Oakie
	The Awful Truth	Jerry Warriner	Directed by Leo McCarey With Irene Dunne and Ralph Bellamy Introduced the "Cary Grant persona"
1938	Bringing up Baby	Dr. David Huxley	Directed by Howard Hawks With Katharine Hepburn and Charles Ruggles
	Holiday	John "Johnny" Case	Directed by George Cukor With Katharine Hepburn UK title: Free to Live
1939	Gunga Din	Sgt. Archibald Cutter	Directed by George Stevens With Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.
	Only Angels Have Wings	Geoff Carter	Directed by Howard Hawks With Jean Arthur, Thomas Mitchell and Rita Hayworth
	In Name Only	Alec Walker	With Carole Lombard and Charles Coburn
1940	His Girl Friday	Walter Burns	Directed by Howard Hawks Remake of The Front Page With Rosalind Russell and Ralph Bellamy
	My Favorite Wife	Nick	Co-written by Leo McCarey Directed by Garson Kanin With Irene Dunne and Gail Patrick
	The Howards of Virginia	Matt Howard	UK title: The Tree of Liberty With Martha Scott
	The Philadelphia Story	C.K. Dexter Haven	With Katharine Hepburn and James Stewart
1941	Penny Serenade	Roger Adams	Nominated—Academy Award for Best Actor Directed by George Stevens With Irene Dunne and Edgar Buchanan
	Suspicion	Johnnie	Directed by Alfred Hitchcock With Joan Fontaine
1942	The Talk of the Town	Leopold Dilg aka Joseph	With Ronald Colman and Jean Arthur
	Once Upon a Honeymoon	Patrick "Pat" O'Toole	Directed by Leo McCarey With Ginger Rogers
1943	Mr. Lucky	Joe Adams/Joe Bascopolous	With Laraine Day and Charles Bickford
	Destination Tokyo	Capt. Cassidy	With John Garfield and Dane Clark
1944	Once Upon a Time	Jerry Flynn	With Janet Blair
	Arsenic and Old Lace	Mortimer Brewster	With Priscilla Lane and Peter Lorre
	None But the Lonely Heart	Ernie Mott	Nominated—Academy Award for Best Actor Written and directed by Clifford Odets With Ethel Barrymore
1946	Without Reservations	Himself (cameo)	With Claudette Colbert and John Wayne
	Night and Day	Cole Porter	Directed by Michael Curtiz
	Notorious	T.R. Devlin	Directed by Alfred Hitchcock With Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains
1947	The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer	Dick	UK title: Bachelor Knight With Myrna Loy and Shirley Temple
	The Bishop's Wife	Dudley	With Loretta Young and David Niven
1948	Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House	Jim Blandings	With Myrna Loy and Melvyn Douglas
	Every Girl Should Be Married	Dr. Madison W. Brown	With Betsy Drake
1949	I Was a Male War Bride	Capt. Henri Rochard	UK title: You Can't Sleep Here With Ann Sheridan
1950	Crisis	Dr. Eugene Norland Ferguson	With Jose Ferrer
1951	People Will Talk	Dr. Noah Praetorius	With Jeanne Crain
1952	Room for One More	George "Poppy" Rose	With Betsy Drake
	Monkey Business	Dr. Barnaby Fulton	Directed by Howard Hawks With Ginger Rogers and Marilyn Monroe
1953	Dream Wife	Clemson Reade	With Deborah Kerr and Walter Pidgeon
1955	To Catch a Thief	John Robie	Directed by Alfred Hitchcock With Grace Kelly
1957	The Pride and the Passion	Anthony	With Frank Sinatra and Sophia Loren
	An Affair to Remember	Nickie Ferrante	A same-script remake of Love Affair (1939 film), both directed by Leo McCarey With Deborah Kerr
	Kiss Them for Me	Cmdr. Andy Crewson	Directed by Stanley Donen With Jayne Mansfield and Suzy Parker
1958	Indiscreet	Philip Adams	Nominated—Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Directed by Stanley Donen With Ingrid Bergman
	Houseboat	Tom Winters	With Sophia Loren
1959	North by Northwest	Roger O. Thornhill	Directed by Alfred Hitchcock With Eva Marie Saint, James Mason and Martin Landau Famous scene of Grant being chased by a biplane
	Operation Petticoat	Lt. Cmdr. Matt T. Sherman	Nominated—Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy With Dina Merrill and Arthur O'Connell
1960	The Grass Is Greener	Victor Rhyall, Earl	Nominated—Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Directed by Stanley Donen With Deborah Kerr, Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons
1962	That Touch of Mink	Philip Shayne	Nominated—Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Directed by Delbert Mann With Doris Day and Gig Young
1963	Charade	Peter Joshua / Alexander Dyle / Adam Canfield / Brian Cruikshank	Nominated—BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Actor Nominated—Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Directed by Stanley Donen With Audrey Hepburn, Walter Matthau and James Coburn
1964	Father Goose	Walter Christopher Eckland	Directed by Ralph Nelson With Leslie Caron and Trevor Howard
1966	Walk, Don't Run	Sir William Rutland	With Samantha Eggar Remake of The More the Merrier

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

@Dr. Blofeld: 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)

@Dr. Blofeld: 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)

@Dr. Blofeld: 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)

Cary Grant in 1973

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)

@Dr. Blofeld: 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)

@Dr. Blofeld: 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)

@Dr. Blofeld: 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 ^Hutton 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Other issues: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". All Hallow'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

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

Needs refs ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC). 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)

@Ssven2: 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)

References

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."

References

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^Talk 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Higham/Moseley Reviews

This article is very heavily sourced to [2] (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[3]

The NYT review[4] 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[5] 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 ^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 ^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)

Status of trailer screenshots

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#Personal_life 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)

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)