Talk:Claudette Colbert/Archive 1

message: While not widely talked about, Claudette Colbert was a known bisexual to her intimates. Her affair with Marlene Dietrich is mentioned on that page and she had a long standing relationship with Verna Hull who had an adjacent house to hers in Barbados. So far only anonymous users have removed these items. It would be appreciated that before removing them again the person would identify themselves and state their reasons. I knew the persons involved. Doc 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Doc.  It wasn't me that removed them, however I am in favour of removing them.  I appreciate that you knew the people involved and I've read of Colbert described as bisexual, so I'm not disbelieving it.  The issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Obviously nobody is going to dispute the other things in the article about her movies and what-not, but her bisexuality is another story - if a published source could be cited that would greatly improve the situation.  I'm sure you appreciate that a lot of gossip and innuendo has attached itself to various Hollywood celebrities past and present - without verification there is nothing to distinguish this from various other lies and half-truths that are scattered throughout numerous biographical articles. Rossrs 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If that comment is directed at me : no I do not want to say in Colbert's article that Colbert was a bisexual.  Do you realize that you are replying to comments that were made more than a year ago? Doc is not part of this discussion, so he is not likely to reply.  Neither is User:Chandler75 who you have replied to below.  You keep bringing my name into things, do you realize that I agree with you that it should not be added?  You say it should be left here - it is left here.  You are the one that can't leave the subject alone.  As you are the only one still making comments about this old discussion, would you like me to archive this section so that it no longer appears on this page?  It is obviously bothering you.  We can't delete it, but we can move it so that it is no longer visible.  Would that help?  Rossrs 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take that as a "no". Rossrs 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish that I knew of a source other than first hand knowledge. I knew Verna Hull rather well and worked with her. I met Claudette a time or two with Verna and many intimates knew of their relationship and adjacent houses in Barbados. Neither made a show of it, but in the 1960s it was an accepted fact among their good friends. Doc 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You might try "The Sewing Circle" by Axel Madsen but I don't know if she's in it. Though Rossrs states, "Without verification there is nothing to distinguish this from various other lies and half-truths that are scattered throughout numerous biographical articles", as far as Wikipedia is concerned, trash between the covers of a book is all that's needed. Madsen's piece of junk should do just fine, focusing as it does on Mercedes de Acosta, Garbo, Dietrich et al. As someone once said of de Acosta's book, "Here Lies the Heart," - "and lies and lies and lies." Forget the typos, the misspellings, the inaccuracies - this is what Wikipedia calls a great reference and should suit your purposes.  As far as an affair with Garbo, I worked on the Garbo bio by Barry Paris and don't recall any such thing being the case.  Paris is extremely thorough, with fastidious source notes, and is highly regarded as one of the best biographers ever.  You probably don't see him quoted much on Wikipedia.Chandler75 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boze Hadleigh also wrote about Colbert -- I think his work is unfairly disparaged.  I've lived in Hollywood for 24 years and have met many people who confirm Hadleigh's facts from first or second-hand knowledge -- which is a lot better than most accepted history.  A few people seem to require a higher standard -- almost impossible to meet -- for the bisexual/homosexual information, and they seem to be on a mission to cleanse all of it from Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.11.178 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 August 2006
Boze Hadleigh, a journalist, interviewer and writer primarily of gossip about homosexuals of Hollywood.--Wbrz 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When writing about people's private lives, a higher standard is required than just hearsay or interviews where there are no tapes or that have been published after a person's death when they can't deny them and can't sue. If you're going to write that some people at Wikipedia don't want to put unfounded statements in an article, you should sign your message.Chandler75 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How does this work, a direct quote from Chapter 11 of The First Lady (a re-release of "April Ashley's Odyssey" by April Ashley by Duncan Fallowell (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982, ISBN 0-224-01849-3): "And I visited Verna Hull who often came to AD8 when she was in London. She lived next door to Claudette Colbert with whom she'd shared a house for many years. But they'd fallen out and despite living only feet apart they didn't speak at all." Also, in an article about Colbert that was published in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo in 2006 is the following information: "mantuvo una larga relación con una mujer llamada Verna Hull, su vecina en la isla caribeña de Barbados". 204.126.250.112 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After Colbert's death, her purported bisexuality was explored most deeply in a well-reviewed book about gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in Hollywood, which was written by William J. Mann. I have added it to the article, though carefully using qualifiers re her sexuality, which remains unknown, or at the very least, unproven. But since the book was well-reviewed and considered by most critics I've found on LexisNexis and ProQuest as well researched, it merits inclusion in the article.204.126.250.98 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced edits

message: Vanity Fair did a article on Colbert a few years back and researched the bisexual/lesbian rumor and came up with nothing proving it or no one who knew her who would confirm it so it's apparently not true. User:209.124.229.184 03:25, 2 March 2006
:Not correct, don't know who Vanity Fair talked with, but not the ones in the know if that was their conclusion. Do you know the date? I'd like to read the article. As stated above I met her and knew her longest standing lover Verna Hull who was very open about their relationship in the 1970s. Doc 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity Fair

message: As per Wikipedia's general attitude towards trivia (WP:Trivia) I am going to attempt to remove the section by either absorbing relevant information into the article, and removing anything that is either irrelevant to a general appreciate of Colbert's life and career, or contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  I am recording my views for each point here, as I expect disagreement. I would welcome discussion here if anyone disagrees with edits related to this section. 
 
*Relations between her mother and grandmother were poor. Colbert was closest to her grandmother. needs citing, but maybe somewhat relevant and could easily be added into the article
::has been added to article. Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: has been added to article Rossrs 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to get rid of most of the trivia, but since you're already on the job, more power to you. I agree with nearly all of your comments (I don't think an unwritten book merits inclusion though). Clarityfiend 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: It Happened One Night → Greatest Success? There are pros and cons in the United States about this movie. Therefore, you should not praise it blindly.--Wptfe 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right in saying that there are pros and cons for the movie. I'm not saying the movie itself was a "great success" but I am saying it was "one of her (Colbert's) greatest successes".  I think that is fair - for Colbert personally it was a success, she won a lot of recognition, plus her only Academy Award, for it.  Also, the film was made 73 years ago and is still one of the films she is most remembered by.   Rossrs 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't require your permission for any edits I might make, and my edits are all attributed to source material - there's no guesswork. Rossrs 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''It Happened One Night'' → Greatest Success? 

message: "worst picture in the world", covered in New York Times 07-31-1996, p. D21, Don't remove perfectly notable information on the stars of her films. Don't see any facts in the article.--219.104.2.21 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want information removed then cite your source.  Don't expect other editors to be able to read your mind. That's all you have to do.  Cite it the way the other quotes are cited. Rossrs 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "worst picture in the world"

message: Seem to be the standards of the last edits. One hardly knows where to begin to correct the "English" used. It looks like a war has been declared by the last two editors to see how puerile and unintelligible their additions can be. I, for one, think it pointless to intervene. I don't know if the page can be protected again, but that would be a boon. Orbicle 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is important enough to Colbert's career to warrant discussion.  The rest of the article could be expanded to include more detail as it's all very vague and brief right now.  I see the It Happened One Night section as now being sufficiently covered, and I think it's the rest of the article that needs work.  In any case, it wasn't Orbicle who added the It Happened One Night information, so as usual, you are accusing the wrong editor.  Rossrs 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism, gibberish and illiteracy

message: What is Jack Warner? It is an irrelevant story to Colbert.--219.104.2.21 12:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and please do not continue removing this information just because you don't believe it is relevant.  The film was one of the turning points of Colbert's career, so to explain how she came to make a film that she didn't want to make, but which she is still remembered for 72 years later, is significant.  Colbert had a great career, but it needs to be placed into some kind of historical context instead of the endless gushing praise that is being spread through this article.  It's relevant and it's sourced.  Please read WP:Consensus and if you want to remove it, wait until you have reached a consensus.  There is no agreement to remove it, only your opinion.  If you look at other Wikipedia Featured Articles, this kind of related discussion is considered normal as it places the subject, in this case Colbert, into a broader context that helps understand her better.  Rossrs 13:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Jack Warner?

message: moved → Trivia section : extraneous Jack Warner's detail better suited for Jack Warner article. This article needs to be specific to Claudette Colbert.
moved → Trivia section : Myrna Loy's extraneous  detail better suited for Myrna Loy's article. This article needs to be specific to Claudette Colbert.--219.104.30.196 13:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, these comments are more related to Colbert, than they are to either Warner or Loy.  Just because the comments were made by Warner and Loy doesn't mean they are important to them.  Why on earth would they be put into the Warner or Loy articles?  They directly affected Colbert.  Your edits confuse me.   For one thing you changed Loy's comment before you put it in the trivia section.  What is this nonsense about films on a bus?  That is not what Loy said.  That was a sourced quote and you replaced it with something unsourced.  You can't do that.  You also kept the references to the other 3 actresses but removed Loy?  Why?  Where is the logic?   Rossrs 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Myrna Loy?

message: I think it's amazing that in the space of a few short hours three editors come along and make the same revert. (here, here and here) I'm surprised that Claudette Colbert appears on so many watchlists.  So what's the problem?   Why do you keep removing a piece of information that is sourced and relevant.  I also think it's really funny that anyone who would purport to know more about cinema and how a cinematic article should be written, than other editors, would put an edit summary such as "whoever Agee is".  If you are so uninformed as to not have heard of James Agee, you could always find out who he is by looking at his Wikipedia article.    BTW .... when you remove something from an article BUT leave the cite that followed it, the cite then appears to cite whatever information preceded it.  This is wrong.  You've got to be more careful when editing.   Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coincidence?

message: I just tagged this article for multiple issues for, well, multiple reasons. There are a few instances where the actress is referred to by her first name. I changed some of them, but due to the article being basically full of citations placed in the middle of sentences (another problem), I gave up on it. Evidently there's some misunderstandings or disagreements regarding this article, but one thing's for sure; all the edits by different people is leaving it virtually unreadable. There are half finished sentences, incorrect redirects, and (again) citations placed in the middle of sentences. If possible, please put citations at the end of a sentence. There's way too many places where they're stuck in the middle and, believe it or not, it's distracting. Another problem is the "Opinion" section. IMO, this seems like a trivia section that was renamed "Opinion" so it can be kept in the article. None of what is there is really needed. Unless someone's opinion of a person somehow enriches the article or proves a point, it needs to be left out. I tagged this page instead of fixing it all myself to give whomever wrote this a chance to fix it before I have at it. Everything is sourced, which is great, but the way it reads now is confusing and downright sloppy. Pinkadelica (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced a re-inserted non-English reference with one that contains the same information in English. For any questions regarding this, please see WP:CITE#When to cite sources for discussion regarding non-English citations. In addition, I changed the year of US immigration to reflect the official record shown at the Ellis Island National Park website. This source would take precedence over any other website using secondary sourcing and as such, should remain in the article. Finally, there is no need to cite identical material twice in an article, and especially not in an infobox. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the last few days have seen an improvement in the article, by correcting some of the poor English and removing POV and poorly sourced material etc.  I think the article has a good skeleton, but not much on the skeleton.  I think there is too much "In 1937 she made X film" and "In 1938 she made Y film", which to me, is just a padded out version of Colbert's IMDb filmography, but gives little insight into Colbert, how she was perceived, and whether or not she was an influential figure.  I think it deserves to be expanded, and although previous efforts to expand it have been met with all kinds of hostility and revisions, this is the normal style to aim for rather than the exception.  I think all articles should aim towards the standard of featured article, although realistically most will never get there.   Examples of featured articles that I believe have the appropriate level of depth are Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Angelina Jolie, Eric Bana, Cillian Murphy, Diane Keaton and Jake Gyllenhaal. Actually all of the media related biographical featured articles have depth, context and perspective, all of which are currently lacking here.  Even formerly featured articles such as Humphrey Bogart and Henry Fonda, despite their faults, have a suitable level of depth.  There are many more articles that could be given as examples, the point being that this is the community-accepted standard.  This is achievable for this article also, and I believe it should be the aim.  In the past, things such as critical quotes have been removed, incorrectly stating them to contravene our WP:NPOV policy, however each of these featured articles contain critical quotations.  They are important, and I'm giving that just as one example of the type of expansion needed.   This can be a WP:GA and it can be a WP:FA.  Rossrs (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, this is a skeleton of an article which is a direct result of me cleaning it up. Presenting bare facts was a better alternative than some of the content that was originally included. Since Colbert's career was so varied and her fame spanned many decades, I do believe more attention should be paid to her impact on films and the industry in general. I found a few items about her personality (ie shrewd business woman, etc) that can be included, but in the interest of presenting something "passable", I omitted them. Admittedly, I know little about Colbert's life which is another reason why I chose to not delve into that side. I'm all for the addition of relevant, neutral and sourced information. If anyone else has an issue with the addition or removal of information, they should address the issue on the talk page in a mature manner instead of reverting it. If any new users pop up, I think they should be pointed to this page to discuss any matters that they disagree with before removing content in small intervals in an attempt to get their version included. Lastly, anyone that is hostile or rude simply won't be tolerated. No one has to be insulted by someone else over the internet over a Wikipedia article. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your points, and I think that the article had to be stripped back to skeleton form, so that it can be built.  It's a great beginning.  I also will not tolerate any more of the personal attacks, rudeness or blatant dishonesty that have surrounded any attempts to edit this page.  Rossrs (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have completely rewritten this article in line with the comments made by User:Pinkadelica, and using the articles I've named in the paragraph above as models, given that they have all been assessed as meeting Wikipedia's guidelines to the highest standard.  I do not by any means think the article is complete or perfect or anything like that.  I do think it is improved, and although I obviously can't list here, every editorial decision I made, I am willing to discuss any point that might be made, as I can explain and justify pretty well every single word in the article.   Because this article has been the subject of so much disagreement, it is essential that any subsequent edits are accompanied by an accurate edit summary.   As with all articles, this page should be used to discuss disagreements or possible changes in a friendly, open and constructive manner.   Rossrs (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS I'm not happy with all the "career" headers, but I had to put something.   Any suggestions?  Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Issues 

message: I happen to live right next to the house where Claudette Colbert was born, and the tablet (made by the city of Saint-Mandé, which must have the official birth registries) only mentions "Emilie" as a first name. "Lily" was most likely a nickname. Wedineinheck (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh ! "Lily" is very seldom used as an actual birth name. Anyway, here is a source and another and another. The Larousse Encyclopedia (first link) is a very much reliable source. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. It took me a while to do so, but I just posted an image of Colbert's commemorative plate in Saint-Mandé, which, BTW, proves that her first name was Emilie. Wedineinheck (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First name 

message: Okay, here's the deal, Braghis. If you disagree or feel that something is an opinion, then the standard approach is to ask for citations for things or tag it as POV and allow editors who have already worked on the article an opportunity to address it. You did much more than remove opinions. You also removed sourced material and in some cases, just simply removed material for no reason. The article states clearly that she adapted the name Claudette. It was not her birth name. You removed the place where she is buried from the infobox. You cut partial sentences that weren't opinions, but were lead ins to referenced material in paragraphs. As far as Jeanie Basinger, I added the publication from which the quote was taken, which is referenced and is therefore valid. Maria DiBattista may not be a critic, but that's not a requirement to author a book on the topic of female actresses. DiBattista is a professor at Princeton University who authored Fast Talking Dames and has chaired the Committee on Film Studies at Princeton. That's enough qualified for the other editors on this article. Finally, I added a template saying the article was "in use" which asks for editors to respect it and avoid editing while the template is in place. You mass reverted the edits I was making when you did that. That's poor form and bad manners. If you want to make such massive changes to this article, I suggest you broach such large changes here first for discussion, not just say "I changed this." In the future, please respect tags that are in place. They are there for a reason. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since three editors spent time rewriting this article and reached a consensus about the content, I think it is unfair for someone to pop up and add/remove things that haven't been discussed first. We've had this problem before and it's not going to start again. These recent changes weren't just small changes, but large, questionable changes to style & content. Since this article has already been reverted twice, one more revert will result in a 3RR violation. Any battles over content, sources, etc need to be discussed first. If another editor feels this is unfair, open a mediation discussion and all four of us will go from there. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that it's strange to continue adding unneeded POV without enough sources by three only consensus. There is already the opinions enough. Please do not make up the article only by comment.　-- Braghis (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to take each item, point by point, and open them for discussion, then by all means, do so. No one is continuing to add anything, only attempting to retain material which is sourced such as the DiBattista material and the quote from the Kennedy Center Honors, both of which have valid sources and therefore aren't validly removed except that you don't like them. However until these points are discussed, you are avoiding the spirit of collaboration by engaging in the behavior you are displaying at the moment. If you want to work on this, then by all means, discuss. We can start with the infobox. Meanwhile, I think it's strange that a user who has only been on Wikipedia for 3 days has determined what is and isn't consensus that was already established weeks ago. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: User:Braghis wrote on my talk page:
Critical reviews located in Claudette Colbert#Comments and critical reviews. (duplicated material introduction of co-star F.March and earlier film with first husband) I moved it to the better place. -- Braghis (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Braghis, you are going to have to discuss your issues with Maria DiBattista on this page. First, you removed her book from the bibliography and any use of her work, with the rationale that she is not a critic. That was addressed above. Her book is a reliable reference as determined by WP policy. Now you've come back and went to the trouble of adding the words "Professor Maria DiBattista claims" which is totally extraneous and non-necessary to the Colbert article. The real problem with your change is that you did this under the edit summary of "Hispanic Maria DiBattista is NOT a critic." It's not clear what you mean by this summary, but as I noted here before, on your talk page, and above, her status as a critic isn't relevant, although it could be argued, given her status in the academic world in film studies, that she could be considered one. More troubling is your reference to her ethnic heritage. You then returned the same phrase to the article by suggesting her name is being hidden, when the material based on her book is given proper citation, and her book was returned to the bibliography list. I consider this arbitrarily contentious behavior and you are now in danger of violating the 3RR rule as well as disrupting the article to make a point. The other editors on this page are not in agreement with your changes. Either discuss it here or stop editing the page until we can request dispute mediation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to engage this editor on this page and I have approached him or her on the user talk page, all to no avail. Braghis refuses to respond to requests to discuss his or her rationale for edits  and language usage that have been made which tend to diminish the qualifications or weight that this author's work contributes. Saying that a Princeton University full professor who chairs that university's Film Studies program lacks the ability and qualification to render commentary and critique on a film actor's work is simply being contentious for the sake of contentiousness. To bring into an edit summary the ethnicity of that person is racist. When those points were made, then he or she charged that the name was being hidden if it weren't mentioned in the body of the article, although the paragraph utilizing DiBattista's published commentary was properly referenced. The wording which Braghis keeps returning is less polished and poorly phrased, and by using the word "claimed" in the phrase, implies the critique and commentary is invalid. And in fact, in the 3rd reversion Braghis made in the last 3 hours, it is worded in such a way that it disputes what the paragraph says. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim regarding the problem with this phrasing. This is POV pushing to the extreme. Finally, since Braghis won't respond, I have no choice but to interpret this as bad faith behavior and contentious editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Braghis, because you personally do not like what a reliably published source says does not mean it is "wrong." If this is your only attempt at discussing any of this, then by all means, find a reliable source to refute it. Don't just remove it and say "it's wrong." It would actually be even better if you tried discussing it first rather than set out on a contentious edit war. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DiBattista

message: Colbert's plate in Saint-Mandé says that her parents managed a pastry shop. I guessed that maybe her father wasn't a BANKER, but a BAKER. Yet, many sources mention her "banker father", so I'm keeping this info after all. If anyone has reliable info about her background, be free to edit. Yet, it is established that her parents owned a pastry shop, so we'll have to assume so far that it was her mother who managed it. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Father's profession

message: I know there is a school of thought which holds that images should be placed in articles in thumbnail form, without hardcoding the size, which allows registered users to control the image size by setting the thumbnail size in his or her preferences, but I think this is antithetical to providing the encyclopedia's users with a good article layout, and also work against the long-term interests of the project.
My primary concern (as always) is with the user, and specfically not with registered users and those who are familiar with Wikipedia, but with the users who come to Wikipedia as a reference source without knowing, or wanting to know, anything about the project. They're not here to edit or register for yet another website, they're here to find out something about a particular subject. These people are our target audience, because if Wikipedia seems to them to be a good source of reliable information which is well-presented, they'll come back again, and perhaps, at some point, get more involved in the project, and they'll reccommend the site to others.
It's the "well-presented" angle that I'm aiming at here. The naive user will come to Wikipedia with no specific preference settings, and what they'll see if the images are not hardcoded with a specific size are tiny postage-stamp sized pictures which are often hard to see or difficult to make out what's in them, which, in that state, hardly contribute at all to a well-presented article - if anything, they can be said to distract from it.
If an image is included on a page, it should be shown at the minimum size necessary to make it visually comprehensible without overwhelming the text. In short, it should enhance the text, and neither pull focus nor appear to be an afterthought. This requires that editors take some care in the placement and arrangement of the images, as well as in their size, and speaks against leaving them in their raw thumbnail state.
I appreciate that those who want images to remain uncoded for size are doing so in the spirit of individual choice, but I think they're overlooking the fact that if Wikipedia is to be a success and become the first choice for immediate online information, it needs to serve not only the people who hang around and know its ins-and-outs, but also all those who may come by only occasionally just to dip into the well.
For these reasons I have restored the hardcoded image sizes in the article. Please do not remove them, instead discuss your thoughts about this issue here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is the product of the cooperative work of several involved editors who have not had issues with discussing and working together productively to resolve differences and implement changes. The last couple of days, changes have been forced into the article arbitrarily and with no regard for the productive process, including removing material recently tagged for citations, arbitrarily changing image sizes which have been placed to account for image viewability and article balance, and finally, engaging in edit warring to try and enforce these changes. There obviously are at least three editors who are in agreement on these issues and thus, changes should be discussed here, rather than reverting tenditiously and with no cooperative effort. This needs to stop and dialogue be initiated instead. Please discuss any and all changes here prior to implementation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of images and other recent changes 

message: With regards to a few recent edits about Colbert's role in the film Royal Affairs in Versailles (such as this), it is wrong to draw a conclusion that Colbert's age, or the size of her role was a consequence of her being no longer an "A-list" star.   There is also no relevance in her age, relative to that of the other performers, or whether she played the title character.    The film was made with a large cast of well known French performers who all played cameo roles.   Colbert playing a cameo role was not a reflection upon her status, because the notable French performers were doing likewise.   In fact, if conclusions are to be drawn, I personally find it interesting that in a French film, she was the only person with an established history in American films, with the exception of Orson Welles.    Perhaps, just perhaps, her inclusion says something positive about her status, rather than something negative.   I won't add my suppositions to the article, but neither should any one else.   Further, if you look at the cast listing for the film, it's in alphabetical order, not in the order of importance that is often the case.  This usually suggests an equality among the participants, and alphabetical order is generally considered a way of listing the performers neutrally.   Colbert's position in the cast list is because her name started with "C".  If it had started with "A" she'd be top of the list and "Z" would have put her at the bottom.   Again, no drawing of conclusions please.   I've expanded the sentence so that that there is mention of the French cast, and it would be interesting to expand upon this, especially as it is an oddity in her career, but not without sources.   Rossrs (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I added a "cite needed" tag.  I'm happy to reword the sentence, so that it is grammatically (and perhaps factually) accurate, if another editor strongly feels that it should be included, but perhaps that other editor will oblige by providing a suitable source.  Rossrs (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be quite happy with actual discussion on this page, since I find it quite difficult to actually carry on a dialogue on edit summaries. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Affairs in Versailles

message: This edit restores information about Colbert's alleged sexuality based on comments in the book Hollywood Babylon with the edit summary "It says it comes from Hollywood Babylon, let readers decide the reliability".  This attitude of including information just because it's cited to a published source and allowing readers to decide for themselves is at odds with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which says in part, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors..."   The key word here is reliable.  WP:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  Again the word "reliable" appears.   I have no way of knowing whether this information about Claudette Colbert is true or not, nor do I particularly care, but there is much to support the notion that Hollywood Babylon is not "reliable".  Kenneth ANGER (not Kenneth Aggler) has been well and truly criticised since the book was published and our own article on Hollywood Babylon notes this and also blames/credits him for urban legends that have sprung up about some people since the book was published.   The last thing we should be doing is perpetuating that.    An encyclopedia should not be reporting rumours as alleged facts and then allowing readers to decide whether it's reliable or not.  Readers have the right to expect that every word they read on Wikipedia is reliable and when it's clearly not reliable it should be removed.   The onus is on the person adding the material or restoring the material after it's been challenged to adequately address these points and support the inclusion.  Letting readers decide for themselves is a very weak rationale for including dubious material.  Rossrs (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, well said.  I was going to say something about this too but I couldn't have said it as well as you do above.  I totally agree with everything Rossrs says above.  This material should not be readded to the article.  --CrohnieGalTalk 10:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that certain users get to declare, without giving any sources, that particular books are unreliable? Shouldn't editors have to demonstrate with reliable sources that this book not be used? And shouldn't this be a consensus decision (and by "consensus", I don't mean prior agreement by the WLH cabal)?—Chowbok ☠ 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, another editor was confronted with a similar situation once upon a time. I'll just quote her, because I couldn't have said it better myself: "[Just] because you personally do not like what a reliably published source says does not mean it is "wrong." If this is your only attempt at discussing any of this, then by all means, find a reliable source to refute it. Don't just remove it and say "it's wrong." It would actually be even better if you tried discussing it first rather than set out on a contentious edit war."—Chowbok ☠ 15:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)No, that's not how it works at all.   The person adding the material is responsible for ensuring its integrity and proving so if challenged.  I mentioned that above.  Chowbok, as usual you make it personal and that is not acceptable.   I've challenged the suitability of this material based on the source provided, and the onus is on the person wishing to add the material to establish its validity.  And also as I said above, our own article discusses the view that the material is unreliable.   It's not my responsibility to prove that the material is unreliable in order to remove it.  That's a backwards approach.   You have to establish that it's reliable if you wish to include it.   Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources?  The section about "Questionable Sources" is relevant.    Another sentence worth reading is "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."  Do some research please.  You haven't done enough research to even correctly identify the author.   Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed the typo, I actually do know who the author is. I even have Fireworks and Scorpio Rising on DVD.—Chowbok ☠ 16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: As for your second comment about "another editor" for one thing you seem to have missed that it also includes the word "reliable".   Quoting from an unnamed editor without providing context doesn't carry any weight.  If you're going to quote at me, please quote from policies and/or guidelines as I have done.   Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So the editor I quoted was incorrect in suggesting that the burden of demonstrating reliability falls on the editor removing the source?—Chowbok ☠ 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Rossrs (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not enough to be published. To repeat part of my earlier comment "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which says in part, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors..."   Our guidelines make it clear that being published is not enough.   Hollywood Babylon has a reputation for gossip and innuendo and the author has been criticised for it.   That's contained in our own article about the book.   We can't really have an article that says a book is unreliable and then quote from it in other articles.   Like all things in Wikipedia it's up to the person seeking to include information to support it.   If something can be provided to confirm that the book is reliable, we don't have a problem, but a quick Google search shows that the book is described as "tabloid" or "gossip" almost every time it's mentioned.  Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, I did.  I didn't mean to step on your toes there.  Regarding the explanation - you're welcome.  And thanks.  Rossrs (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Here's sources on this rumour that may help illuminate the debate:   This is the pic that gave the rumour legs: Fences&Windows 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting picture but what's more interesting is the way it looks if viewed in isolation.  It is actually one of several pictures taken at a "Fun Fair" fundraising event at Santa Monica in 1935.  Some other photos are published in a Carole Lombard book.  The setting is the same, as is Colbert clothing.  The photos show Lombard and Colbert/Lombard, Dietrich, Cary Grant and Jack Oakie, Lombard and Cary Grant, Jean Harlow, Toby Wing, and Jock Whitney.  Similar poses, clearly not an orgy, and clearly a bunch of people clowning around (except for the Jack Oakie one which is a bit lacking in the clowning department).  Looking at only the Dietrich/Colbert picture, it can easily be interpreted as something else.  Just mentioning this as a point of interest.  Rossrs (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Hmm, sounds to me that this is actually sourced enough to be reported in the article, even leaving aside Hollywood Babylon. Mann's book even has a writer going on record about it. It should be made clear that it's disputed, but I think it should be in there. Thoughts?—Chowbok ☠ 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be fine.  It's just the Hollywood Babylon source that is dubious.  If it was written in such a way as to make it clear that it's not an absolute fact that would work.  Rossrs (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At least two of those do not confirm it at all and essentially say that it was a vicous rumor. That would be the New York Daily News and People. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969 treats is as a unfounded rumor. A lot is based off that picture, although a picture doesn't prove anything unless it would actually show sex in action. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented on the photo above.  I love the photo and it's interesting to see how it is perceived when looked at alone.   As for the sources, we really only need one that's reliable.  I looked at Mann's and was prepared to accept it as I couldn't see anything to make it appear unreliable.  I think it's ok.  I know we don't report rumours but if the rumour grows legs off its own, that becomes notable in itself. I don't know if that applies here.  Maybe it does.  Rossrs (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Hollywood Babylon'' as a reliable source

message: Substituted at 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment