Talk:Lizabeth Scott

message: The episode of "Burke's Law" featuring Lizabeth Scott was "Who Killed Cable Roberts," which originally aired October 4, 1963. She played Roberts' second wife, Mona. 68.109.18.173 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for 'Burke's Law' appearance 

message: The literature on Lizabeth Scott's ancestry is contradictory. The parents are various described as coming from Czechoslovakia or Slovakia, and that the parents are Rusin. (Rusin or also called Ruthenian people live by the eastern border of Slovakia) But in a video interview, Scott stated she was Russian. Did she mean Rusin? I'm leaving the information on Mary intact, though it may be dubious. Mary's ancestral town of Ungvar or Uzhhorod was part of the Austria-Hungary Empire till 1919, when it became part of Czechoslovakia. Scott was born in 1922, so did Mary come to the US just after 1919? Or was Mary born in the US in the first place? Jamesena (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The area is historically distinguished as Carpathian Ruthenia.  It was part of Austria-Hungary, which would also be accurate, but only in the way calling a Bavarian German, or a Welshman British would be accurate. Between WWI and WWII it was part of Czechoslovakia.  It declared its independence, and was then occupied (the next day!) by Nazi-allied Hungary.  Plenty of Rusyns call themselves Russian as a matter of convenience, especially to people who will never have heard of Ruthenia, as the words both originate from the Rus'.  We can trust Magocsi as a very reliable source on her Rusyn nationality.  μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it helps that I am Ruthene, have a huge crush on Ms. Matzo, and that my grandparents, who called themselves Rusnaks, and who came over to the US before WWI, studied what they called po-Moskowski (Moscow Russian) in grade school, while speaking what they called po-naszomu ("our way") at home.  Thanks for the thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about Mary Matzo

message: "On the train to Boston" is a turn of phrase, not a literal fact.  If it is the source's verbiage it needs to be reported as a quote (i.e., simply be put in quote marks), per WP:ATTRIBUTE. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On the train to Boston" 

message: Of all of 1940s actresses, who is "The Voice" in "She's a Threat, to the Body, the Voice and the Look"?  Sometime Lauren Bacall is named that, bit it's usually the "The Look." Jamesena (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Voice

message: I'm quite impressed by the amount of information in this article.  However, it could use a bit of pruning to make it a great article.  Example: Except for Ms. Scott's parents I think adding the birth and death years of other people is absolutely unnecessary.  The filmography should list only the character names that Ms. Scott played and not her leading men.  The footnotes needed to be redone as well.  Some are not citations at all but simply bits of trivia (i.e. 193. The first color film noir was Leave Her to Heaven (1945).)  Plus I would not use writers such as Marc Elliot and Boze Hadleigh as sources of information. Jimknut (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jimknut, this article is a bit too long, and could benefit from some judicious editing. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's the answer, Jamesena.  All the actor filmography pages I've seen (e.g. Peter O'Toole filmography, Clint Eastwood filmography, Tom Cruise filmography) are lists of films, not places for extraneous narrative.  I rather think that lots of things need to be removed and edited, not merely moved.  I can tell, Jamesena, that you like the subject and have worked quite hard on this article, but it is quite tedious to read.  TuckerResearch (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed, 8 months later and this article is still way too long. An  encyclopedic biography does not need every detail of a person's career. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article that needs some pruning

message: Medeis, we've gone over this issue before. Other researchers, including credentialed professors at US universities, have asserted non-Rusyn origins for Lizabeth Scott. The academic consensus is that Scott is not Rusyn. These sources are cited in the article and cannot be called "falsifying sources" or "opposing consensus." Magocsi is included in the cites. To be objective, we must include multiple points of view, not merely the Rusyn one. You appear to have an ethnopolitical agenda to promote—but Wikipedia is not a venue for Rusyn nationalism. 
Jamesena (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Content Dispute

message: Scholar Paul Robert Magocsi describes Scott as Rusyn.  Other sources describe her as Slovak, and Austro-Hungarian.  Scott herself refere to her own "Russian blood" offhandedly in one interview.  But this usage is explained as a simplification for those unfamiliar with Transcarpathian Ruthenia, or the Rusyn people.  This article long described Scott as Rusyn, a nationality west of Ukraine and divided from Great Russia by the entirety of Ukraine.  Should the article call Scott Russian, regardless of sources calling her Rusyn, Slovak, or Austrohungarian? μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have the right of the situation and it certainly seems that you've made a thorough review of the sources, but the problem is that most of your conclusions cannot be added to the article itself without running afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS.  I think your compromise solution of removing mention as to the ethnicity by and large may be the best path forward given the current state of sourcing.  If there was discussion of these many conflicting accounts, it would almost certainly necessitate an independent section in order to lay out the various claims, within which great care would need to be taken to keep the information well contextualized and useful to the reader without veering into original research. Given the fact that the article's length already strains at the limits of summary style, I'm not sure this is advisable.  I personally don't think that an encyclopedic understanding of the actress and her work is really hindered much by simply referring to her as American in the lead and leaving it at that.  We could also say something along the lines "The exact nature of Scott's ethnic heritage has received mixed commentary, with publicity sources, scholars and Scott herself variously describing her as Russian, Russyn, Ukrainian, Slovakian, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and English."   But truth be told that strikes me as less than terribly useful to our readers. Snow talk 04:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Snow.  Either elide this discussion, or give it a section laying out what the source indicate, without engaging in synthesis as to how to interpret those sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Lizabeth Scott be described only as "Russian"?

message: Medeis disapproves of the phrasing "her deep voice and smoky sensual looks" in the older version of the leading text, saying "women have "husky", not deep voices, "smoky" is an editorial comment, and she had a look, not "looks"." "Deep voice" is a common film historian description of Scott: "She had a very sultry, deep voice, blonde hair and blue eyes..." (from Ronald Schwartz's Houses of Noir). Or looking at another actress: "Most shocking, of course, was her voice: when Zarah Leander opened her mouth a rich,sultry, mellifluous, and extraordinarily deep voice escaped that left Marlene Dietrich sounding like a scratched record." "Smoky" is a standard description of Scott as well: "...sultry Lizabeth Scott, the thirty-four year old smoky voiced heroine of countless films noirs, strolled in during a take..." Or "The heavy-lidded, smokey-voiced ambiance of Lizabeth Scott." "Smoky" in the contested sentence, however, refers to the eye makeup that Scott and other actresses playing femme fatales worn in film noirs. As one makeup artist pointed out: "If you want to cover the whole upper lid (with eye shadow), be aware that this can create a smoky look, which is generally an evening look." Of course most of the action in noirs take place at night, where the femme fatale must look at her seductive best to lure the hero to his doom. "Smokey look" is a standard term used by cosmetologists, as a survey of cosmetic texts will attest. Scott also had several looks—not just one—smoky or not. However, the use of "looks" in our example is idiomatic US English, as in "She has great looks." The rewrite doesn't sound like a native speaker of English. Since 50.53.42.170 has asked for cites to the rewrite, I will revert back to the original wording as it has been sufficiently explained here. Regarding "film noirs", 12.233.147.42 insists that we must follow French convention and spell it "films noir," despite "films noirs" being the normal French plural and "film noirs" being normal English one. The Wiki film noir article that 12.233.147.42 linked to uses "film noirs" 21 times. Also see this link on the English and French plurals of film noir. But in the interest of not offending 12.233.147.42 any further, I will shortened the plural to simply "films" and move the noir link farther down in the leading text.
Jamesena (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One each point individually: 
# "Deep" is certainly a commonly used and acceptable way to describe a voice (feminine or otherwise), as is "husky"; if there's a difference of opinion on which is approrpiate -- and honestly guys, this is getting pretty nitpicky -- then we should be using the term which is most common to the sources, not the option which suits any specific party as particularly semantically apt. 
# "Smoky" is acceptable if it was used commonly in sources to describe her look.  I will say though that it's not a very common term to describe a woman in modern parlance and it may not be the best way to differentiate her appearance in an encyclopedic context.  
# Clearly both "look" and "looks" are used broadly in English and have essentially the exact same idiomatic function.  Is this really a detail worth bickering over, guys? 
# By clear community consensus, we are meant to be using the common English construction (including syntactical/morphological conventions) for any terminology we employ in a mainspace article.  That's a matter of well-established and long-standing policy for en.Wikipedia and the only exception would be if the article in question were a linguistic one, wherein the discussion of the original French usage would be relevant -- but that's clearly not the case here.  That being said, all three of the options being debated ("films noirs", "films noir", and "film noirs") are incredibly awkward sounding in English, the first being a French construction and the second two being kinds of back-formations that do not follow usual English conventions for nouns in this context.   I think was is called for here is clearer language along the lines of "works of film noir" or "films in the noir genre", with appropriate Wikilinking just to make the subject being referenced that much more explicit and less prone to generating confusion.   After-all, we don't use French word order in describing other genres of film "films action" or "movie mystery" and its confusing (and I'd say grammatically inappropriate) to do so in this case just because we are using French-derived term that already has the word "film" loaded into it.  Better to arrange the noun phrase so that the pluralizing suffix attaches to a separate noun which references the genre by way of a prepositional construction.  That's how one adapts a noun phrase which uses French word order into an English statement without it turning to gobbledegook.  However, I'm quite certain that it must be the case that the less elegant "films noir" and "film noirs" have been used commonly in English sources, so if you guys insist upon one or the other of them, probably you should just n-gram both options and use the one that has more hits.  But using a Wikipedia article as evidence that one form or the other is the appropriate one is not really an argument with an policy traction, being a kind of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Snow talk 05:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoky looks and film noirs

message: The recently created subarticle Lizabeth Scott (criticism) seems needlessly separated. Why not simply incorporate the critical commentary into her biographical article? If the resident film biographers see fit to keep it a stand-alone article, it should at least be retitled something more precise like Critical reception of Lizabeth Scott. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Why the heck a criticism article? Cary Grant doesn't have a criticism article. To be honest the Liz Scott article is way over-long and could easily be cut in half and this criticism subarticle deleted or incorporated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree. Most of the article isn't about her specifically anyway. A paragraph about Crowther's dislike, another from the acting style section and a few odds and ends could be merged here. I'm going to nominate the criticism article for merge and deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rephrasing my comments at the AFD: The length  of Lizabeth Scott can be addressed by editorial choices. Much of the coverage of particular films, for instance, can likely be moved to the respective film articles, and additional biographical information can be condensed and summarized by relying less on individual newspaper articles (which by their nature reflect isolated moments in time), and more on secondary/tertiary sources like biographies or encyclopedias which synthesize and contextualize info. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lizabeth Scott (criticism)]] - why a separate article? 

message: I notice one of the categories for Lizabeth Scott is "Actresses from Pennsylvania," while another one is "Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania."  Did she have a sex-change operation I wasn't aware of?  I always thought that an "actress" was a woman who acted, while an "actor" was a man who acted.  Have I been misinformed somewhere along the line?  If I haven't been misinformed, shouldn't the category "Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania" be corrected to "Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania?"   HaarFager (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: I see one of the categories is "Actresses from Pennsylvania," while another one is "Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania."  These seem to be describing a female, in the first instance, and then a male in the second instance.  Isn't there something wrong about that?  Lizabeth Scott was a female for her entire life.  HaarFager (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories are somewhat inconsistent, as "actors" can mean actresses as well. :Category:Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania includes actresses and there is no category for Scranton actresses, which you could have easily discovered for yourself. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I also now see that your :Category:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania was merged to the actors category recently. This is not the place to try to overturn that verdict. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Quick Question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizabeth Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140526043826/http://www.otrsite.com/logs/logf1007.htm to https://www.otrsite.com/logs/logf1007.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: She plays the role of a singer in a nightclub run by a criminal in at least three films: Dead Reckoning, I Walk Alone, and Dark City. The roles are almost identical. 92.3.61.115 (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typecast as nightclub singer 

message: While many sources cite 1922 as Scott's birth year, I came across this interesting article from the Los Angeles Review of Books where the author writes that Scott suggested she was actually a year younger than she truly was, and that she maintained this throughout her life. The author of the article, who interviewed Scott's friends and had access to many of her possessions via her executor, writes that she viewed Scott's passport herself, and that her birthdate was listed as September 29, 1921. Is this worth looking into further? --Drown Soda (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year