Talk:Lee Grant

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of this incident?  For a good while over the years--before I came to think of her first for her memorable turn in the memorable "In the Heat of the Night"--I must admit that this was the first, and pretty much only, thing I would think of when hearing the name Lee Grant.
I don't know all the details, but my usually-pretty-reliable recollection is as follows:  she appeared on "The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson" a while after a sitcom in which she starred--which I presume but don't know for a fact was "Fay" on NBC--had been cancelled.  Now, I never saw a "Fay" episode, nor did I watch that edition of "Tonight", and indeed can't even confirm it was Carson, rather than one of his various guest hosts, that she was talking to that particular evening. In any case, the conversation on "Tonight" somehow came around to her recently-shuttered show. It was then that she uttered one of the most famous off-air quotes in TV history, attributing its cancellation to an unnamed "mad programmer" at the network.  (While I didn't see "Tonight" that evening or in repeat--though I doubt it was ever repeated by NBC, given its notorious nature--I did read about it a day or so later, and then would see frequent references to it for several years thereafter.) Supposedly the outburst made her persona non grata throughout the television industry for years at least, which is understandable, especially if "Fay" was the sitcom in question, given that "Tonight" was also an NBC property. Can anyone add any details to this? Thanks in advance. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN
*Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKBc_zJ65qA User:JCHeverly 05:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mad programmer" comment

message: :: HAPPY 87th BIRTHDAY, LEE. Be glad you're alive and healthy. (My father would have turned 87 this year had he not died in 2009.) Quis separabit? 22:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 10/31/2012

message: This article states, and Ms Grant stated to Robert Osborne on TCM in a guest programmer segment (7/30/2014), that she had been blacklisted for 12 years.  Isn't that incorrect???  She was "outed" in Red Channels magazine in 1952 and did not appear on the screen, at least, until 1959 in "Middle of the Night."  Did she appear under a stage name???  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_Night  I think the article needs more factual research.User:JCHeverly 16:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Blacklisting. 

message: In one of her many book interviews this summer, Grant said she had three children and two were step sons.User:JCHeverly 05:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of children??? Comment 

message: Being that the reliable sources have her dob as being between 1925 and 1928, I suggest rather than having the article look silly with no birth date, we include a reliable sourced one, note the differing cites, and add a note explaining the others. We can let the reader decide. I'll add one to the infobox pending further consensus or debates, and do we really care?--Light show (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise age? 

message: These links: http://www.familytreenow.com/search/census/results/image/lr4snn600n0
http://www.familytreenow.com/search/census/results?first=Lyova&middle=H&last=Rosenthal&state=NY&rid=0s0&smck=ULmAoibGO4nwrcmj0g9R7w indicate Lyova Rosenthal was 14 years old in April 1940 (age provided as of last birthday, i.e. 10/31/1939), showing that 1925 is the correct YOB, just for the heck of it. Quis separabit? 15:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that her correct age of birth according to available records indicates she was born in 1925, which means she is turning 90 in 2015. IMBD also uses 1925. HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. But she is denying it and OTRS directed that the wording re year of birth be changed. Quis separabit? 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Further re year of birth

message: :::::Happy 90th birthday, Lee!! Quis separabit? 12:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  She always lied about her age; her autobiography is not going to be any different. Census records are clear. Quis separabit? 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  She always lied about her age; how could Douglas know except what she told him. Quis separabit? 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  She is obviously very uncomfortable about that, so please just let it go. Why do you insist on this? Also this really isn't a topic for discussion.Radiohist (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 90th birthday

message: *Robert Vaughn. Only Victims: A Study of Show Business Blacklisting. 1972 p 227
*:Her HUAC testimony is primary and not independent. Still, it was under oath. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifying 1926

message: *Roberts, Jerry. Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors, Scarecrow Press, 1st edition (June 5, 2009), Amazon Digital Services, Inc; ASIN: B009W3C7E8
*Katz, Ephraim. The Film Encyclopedia, Harper Perennial (1998) p. 552  
*:removed with Roberts(2009) (above)  --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifying 1927

message: * 
*:Currently used in the first note. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources that provide a range of years

message: *We consider the extensive investigation by Muzilon, who concluded none of the above. Then we all go back to the stacks and find out if she was in fact really born or actually exists. --Light show (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find birth records and didn't find anything because the records are difficult to access. I cannot verify what Muzilon found. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And unlike some other jurisdictions, New York State birth certificates are private and are available only to the person named on the certificate, his/her parents, or else by court order. I believe this restriction is relaxed for births that occurred over 100 years ago, but we have a few years to wait for that. Muzilon (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

text:  There appears to be 0 evidence to back up the 1924 birth year. Same goes for the 1930 and 1931 birth year.Radiohist (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Other - 1924?

message: I've been looking for the year. I've not found a source that specifically gives it, but the facts seem to all point to '31. I think it would be OR to include it without a source clearly identifying the year, but it's worth looking for as such early life details are good indicators of actual birthdates. I'll track down and list a few of the sources I'd previously found. There are multiple sources quoting that she was either 3 or 4 when she debuted. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Met Opera debut in 1931

message: Lee Grant is a famous actress who was born on October 31, some time between 1925 and 1931 according to secondary and tertiary sources, and 1925 and 1928 according to primary sources. It is the year that is contentious. Census records state she was 4 in 1930 and 14 in 1940. We can independently corroborate that Grant made her stage debut in November 1931, and in her autobiography she claims to have been 4 years old at the time (her debut was just a few weeks after birthday). She was nominated for an oscar in March 1952, at the age of 24 according to her autobiography. She was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and promptly blacklisted for refusing to testify against her husband. At her hearing she gave her date of birth as October 31, 1926. She lost ten years of her career and after resuming it undertook a deception in regards to her age to obtain work. She admits to persuading the mayor to alter her date of birth on her driving licence to knock five years off her age. In some recent interviews the year given has been 1928, although such a date is inconsistent with the ages she gives in her autobiography. The question I put to the community is How should Grant's date of birth be presented in the article? Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! 1927 is fine with me, since the only issue I've ever cared about was having a date, any date. In fact I'm now rummaging through my own stuff to double-check on my age. I think Boswell would have been impressed, since he wrote, "Let me only observe, as a specimen of my trouble, that I have sometimes been obliged to run half over London in order to fix a date correctly." BTW, I never considered any of the sources as being "proof" of her age, only a RS. Maybe you can strike all those old "proof" statements. --Light show (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

text: The original arguments against selecting a single year still stand. All this does is affect some of the choices in the RFC i.e. option 2 should be tightened to 1925–1927, while the third option should be changed from 1928 to 1927. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Light show. Since the "24 years old in 1952" sentence has been documented, we should put 1927 as her year of birth. And at the same mention all the others years cited.Radiohist (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All the dates in contention here have been documented. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I can only repeat that the three primary editors of the article discussed the issue for a long time, and there was agreement by two of them to include a single date and put the other cited dates as a note. Your unilateral "bold" revert soon after joining the comments was improper IMO. You and Betty Logan rammed the change through without a reasonable discussion. And all the subsequent comments digressed from the original issue, of whether a single date was better than having a range of dates. I assume that if there were multiple spellings of her name, she would have also been nameless in the article. --Light show (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person who rammed anything through was you, when you claimed a 2-1 majority as a "consensus" despite the objections of the editor who opposed you. No matter how you dress it up a 2-1 majority is not a consensus. If it were then we would not be having this RFC. The date you installed in the article was not even consistent with your own sources, so you are in no position to lecture us. Prior to your changes the article had a date range and that format has been temporarily restored to the article until we have a more permanent solution. As for the RFC, the emerging consensus seems to be to use "mid-1920s" but I would let it run the full recommended 30 days and then request a formal closure. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 days takes us to February 22, if I'm counting correctly. Fine with me. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about Lee Grant's date of birth 

message: *Mid-1920s with 1925–1927 as my second favorite solution. I prefer the "mid-1920s" soultion because this is something we can explicitly source using the SFGate article so satisfies WP:V. It also provides a rationale for the confusion over the date and along with the 1925–1927 option is the solution which best satisfies WP:DUE. It is clear that Grant is inconsistent–especially post-HUAC–and even public records are tainted since she has used her standing to have them altered. I find the 1925, 1926 and 1927 dates the most compelling. Census records (dating back to April 1930) suggest 1925 if they were filled in correctly, but her mother was a Russian immigrant so it is entirely possible they were not. Grant states she made her stage debut at the age of 4 and the date of her debut can be independtly corroborated as November 1931, which was just after her birthday. This would suggest a date of 1927, although given the proximity of her birthday (i.e. possibly 4 going on 5) 1926 is plausible too. She was nominated for an oscar in the spring of 1952 and Grant has said she was 24 when she was nominated, which would again put her year of birth at 1927. She testified under oath to Congress (at her HUAC hearing) she was born October 31, 1926, and this would have been prior to the incident which caused her to fabricate her age. In her autobiography she states the age difference between her husband Arnold Manoff and herself was 16 years, which would put her year of birth at 1930, which is very unlikely given that we know for a fact she made her stage debut in November 1931. The exact year is impossible to pin down so I think "mid-1920s" is the most appropriate solution. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have been looking at the two interviews that Light show has been repeatedly bringing up as "proof" that Grant was born in 1928, and have discvered he has been misrepresenting the contents of the sources, namely the two interviews with TCM's Robert Osborne and an interview with Gilbert Gottfried. I will reproduce them here for convenience:
*
*
Here are some observations:
#Let's start with the obvious. Neither interview provides 1928 as Grant's year of birth (at least not at the timestamps Light show provides). Both interviews reiterate the claim that Grant was 24 at the time of her Oscar nomination and Cannes win for Detective Story (1951 film) (corroborating the claim from her autobiography). The 24th Academy Awards (the iteration that Grant was nominated in were held in March 1952) while the 1952 Cannes Film Festival was held during April & May 1952. Clearly if Grant was born October 21, 1928 she would not have been 24 at the time of her win, she would have been 23. She would have turned 24 until October 1952. If we accept October 31 as her correct date of birth Grant's age would imply that 1927 is her year of birth.
#The claim by Light show that Robert Osborne is "independent" is inaccurate. Osborne is interviewing Grant, and as you can see from the citation above it is Grant herself that provides her age. In this capacity the interview is a primary source and is in no way independent and should be treated the same as all other primary sources.
#Light show's claim that Gottfried's interview counts as a secondary source holds water (since it is Gottfried that supplies the age in the interview and not Grant) but nevertheless it corrborates Grant's age at the time of her nomination and Cannes win (24) not the year of her birth.
#I explicitly pointed out that Grant's age of 24 at the time of her oscar nomination in early 1952 implied that 1927 was her year of birth, not 1928. Nevertheless Light show subsequently used Grant's claim from her autobiography about her age at the time of the nomination as "proof"  for 1928. I really don't know what to make of this action. I had already pointed out his math was incorrect but yet he ignored this and misrepresented Grant's claim about her age to suggest her year of birth was 1928.
The very basis of Light show's assertion that Grant was born in 1928 is flawed. Both the interviews and her autobiography state she was was 24 when she was nominated for an oscar and when she won at Cannes. Even aside from the fact Grant is not a reliable source for her date of birth, taken at face value Grant's claims we can mathematically conclude she was born before May 1928 (either early 1928 or some time in 1927). I guess we could have saved ourselves a lot of time by checking Light show's sources, but I hope now he will give up on this doomed crusade to install 1928 when his own sources imply a 1927 date! Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! 1927 is fine with me, since the only issue I've ever cared about was having a date, any date. In fact I'm now rummaging through my own stuff to double-check on my age. I think Boswell would have been impressed, since he wrote, "Let me only observe, as a specimen of my trouble, that I have sometimes been obliged to run half over London in order to fix a date correctly." BTW, I never considered any of the sources as being "proof" of her age, only a RS. Maybe you can strike all those old "proof" statements. --Light show (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

text: The original arguments against selecting a single year still stand. All this does is affect some of the choices in the RFC i.e. option 2 should be tightened to 1925–1927, while the third option should be changed from 1928 to 1927. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Light show. Since the "24 years old in 1952" sentence has been documented, we should put 1927 as her year of birth. And at the same mention all the others years cited.Radiohist (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All the dates in contention here have been documented. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I can only repeat that the three primary editors of the article discussed the issue for a long time, and there was agreement by two of them to include a single date and put the other cited dates as a note. Your unilateral "bold" revert soon after joining the comments was improper IMO. You and Betty Logan rammed the change through without a reasonable discussion. And all the subsequent comments digressed from the original issue, of whether a single date was better than having a range of dates. I assume that if there were multiple spellings of her name, she would have also been nameless in the article. --Light show (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person who rammed anything through was you, when you claimed a 2-1 majority as a "consensus" despite the objections of the editor who opposed you. No matter how you dress it up a 2-1 majority is not a consensus. If it were then we would not be having this RFC. The date you installed in the article was not even consistent with your own sources, so you are in no position to lecture us. Prior to your changes the article had a date range and that format has been temporarily restored to the article until we have a more permanent solution. As for the RFC, the emerging consensus seems to be to use "mid-1920s" but I would let it run the full recommended 30 days and then request a formal closure. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 days takes us to February 22, if I'm counting correctly. Fine with me. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lee Grant. 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/20110724120329/http://www.wif.org/past-recipients to http://wif.org/past-recipients
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) 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not to rehash a topic that has clearly been discussed to death, but I came across an on-camera interview from April 2017 where the reporter asks Grant is asked what year she was born to put the question to rest, and she tells him she was "outed" as being born in 1925, and confirms that as her birth year. If the previous years she's given were to purposely make her seem younger, I cannot think of a reason why she would admit she was born in 1925 (as it dates her the oldest) if it weren't true. The link is here:  Not sure if it's worth anything, but I thought I'd put it here for consideration/documentation. It may prove useful at some point. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: My mistake; I just now realized in the clip she says she's 90, but that her birth year is 1925, which does not make sense. Just more complications. Yikes. Discard the above I suppose --Drown Soda (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thankyou, that video is interesting and par for the course with Grant. Various public records seem to imply the 1925 date. However, Grant herself testified to Congress that she was born in 1926, and that was before she started to lie about her age. In her autobiography from 2014 she stated that she was 24 when she won her oscar, which would put her dob in 1927. And in that video her age (90) would indicate she was born in 1926 and yet she states 1925. Unfortunately I don't think we can really put much stock in what she says on this subject. She was almost certainly born in 1925 or 1926, with 1927 an outside possibility, but I am not sure we will ever pin her exact age down. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  further to our discussion near the top of this page, I have updated the "primary sources" endnote with the fresh evidence from the New York City birth index, which also supports the 1925 date. If someone wants to open a new RfC, that's fine by me.--Muzilon (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So one more primary source for '25, plus an interview that's inconsistent? I wish we had more... --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not interested in the video; it falls in the same catgeory as all the other dates Grant has given. She is not a reliable source for her dob. As for this birth registration/certificate, if we have a physical record from 1925 then that would be definitive IMO. A census from 1930 or a ship mainfest from 1940 can get the dates wrong, but an actual record dating from 1925 would settle the matter more or less. We really need to see the scan to assess its authenticity before moving forward with another RFC. If we are going to pin down an exact date we have to be sure we are right. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Please note that the NYC birth index just gives the name, date of birth, and NYC certificate registration number. (See here for an example.) The full certificate itself is not on Ancestry.com. As I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, New York birth certificates are protected by privacy laws for (I think) 100 years.--Muzilon (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2017 on-camera interview: Grant states she was born in 1925 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lee Grant. 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/20140502211533/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a to http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a
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) 12:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The records show she was born in 1924. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be more specific than that. Most of the public records indicate 1925 as the birth year, with some others suggesting 1926. 1924 was looked at but no evidence was found: Talk:Lee_Grant#Other_-_1924?. If you can point is in the right direction then they will be considered. Betty Logan (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Her birth was registered in 1924. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in 1924 

message: *Her birth was very clearly registered in 1925 (see screenshot - third name in first column). 
*She was 4 during the 1930 Census and 14 in 1940 United States Federal Census - both took place in the spring, prior to her birthday. 
*Finally, in 1933, her birthdate is recorded as 31 October 1925 on an immigration form when re-entering the United States while traveling with her mother. Document is very faint, but if you look at it, it is clear it is 1925. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC above has gone over all of this. Yes, 1925 is the most likely year and the best supported by the evidence and on a personal level I believe it was 1925, but none of this is conclusive: the New York Birth Index confirms that a Lyova Rosenthal was born in 1925, but it does not provide enough secondary information to conclusively identify the subject of the article. As for the census this could have be filled out incorrectly and the immigration document estimates her year of birth. The best approach is the one decided by the RFC above which utilises a note that details all the evidence for the different years. It is not Wikipedia's role to mount an investigation and uncover Grant's true age. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in 1925 

message: A stray keystroke jumbled some of the filmography grid. Please help when you have a moment. Thank you :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwottring (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography

message: An IP editor removed mention of Grant's awards and nomination from the first paragraph in the lead. The edit was subsequently  reverted by  on the grounds that it is part of her notability.
While I agree with Hipal that it is indeed part of her notability and should definitely be mentioned in the lead, it is worth noting that her awards are already mentioned in the second and third paragraphs (with the exception of the DGA directing award), so essentially the IP was simply eliminating some redundancy. I am of the opinion that the awards do not need to be mentioned twice in the lead. A good template for incorporating awards information into the lead can be seen at Laurence Olivier. I would suggest reinstating the IP's edit and adding in mention of the DGA award to the third paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out Laurence Olivier. If that's the general consensus for such articles, then fine by me. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards in lead 

message: Re the reversion of my addition to the Factbox (31/1/21), it came from the Wiki page for Joseph Feury: He and Grant are the parents of Belinda Fioretti.  -  admittedly unreferenced. Valetude (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are not considered valid sources for use of information in other WP articles. If you can find a reliable source, then the information can be added again. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second daughter 

message: Hi  and welcome to Wikipedia. I am enquiring about the latest edits you have made to this article. In the future, please note that if you change the content of an article, it is customary to add an edit summary explaining why in detail. In addition, it is very important to always cite (WP:CITE) reliable sources (WP:RS) when you add information to an article, especially when you are working on the biography of a living person. Here are a the edits I would like to ask you about:
*  and : could you provide a detailled source for her marriage date?
* : could you explain why you changed the occupation of her mother?
* : could you explain why you removed the "mixed reviews" info?
Thank you. JBchrch (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the assertion that reviews were mixed came from the accompanying citation then it should not be replaced by your own appraisal of the reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various recent edits 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: consensus against move.  —usernamekiran (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 June 2022 

message: There has been several recent edits to the infobox (,  & ) which can only be described as unconstructive. Grant has had a long, eventful, and notable career; she is primarily known for being an actress who has had a string of high-profile film and TV appearances, so narrowing her notability down to just a single film is not particularly helpful. If Grant had never made Shampoo she would still be an actress of some note.
Also, invoking the "awards" parameter in this manner is not consistent with how the parameter is used in other articles. It is generally used to link to standalone lists if one exists. You can see an example of its usage at Kate Winslet and Scarlett Johansson. Just because the parameter is there does not mean it has to be used. You need to consider how helpful the information is to the reader. For this reason it is better to stick to established precedents. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox edits