Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

List of spouses in infobox?

A recent edit removed the list of Grant's spouses from his infobox, stating that it isn't relevant to the subject. So I'd like to start this discussion to see what other users think, and if there is a consensus on whether or not the mentioning of Grant's spouses in his infobox should stay omitted or not? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted, the listing of spouses does not seem to be a key feature of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the wives really shows up the value of the infobox. Incredibly useful and necessary...₪ Encyclopædius 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think to have his dates and places of birth and death together is a great asset of the infobox, also the list of his achievements. (Can't believe that I had to add that.) I'd rather read about private life in prose. Compare Beethoven. Some awards are fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know Gerda, you surprise me to say that.₪ Encyclopædius 09:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting ;) - I suggested Beethoven - as concise as can be - during the efficient workshop phase of the 2013 arbcase. It was installed by the arb who wrote the case following community consensus. I don't understand why the socalled infobox wars didn't end right then, with the compromise of a small infobox that Brian Boulton called identibox, also in 2013, - see Percy Grainger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Standards, please

their lifestyle prompted debate over Grant's sexuality and was common knowledge in Hollywood at the time that each was bisexual in behavior

Seriously? Wikipedia goes by it was common knowledge now? By whom? What about the many, many women Grant dated that stated the rumours were untrue? What about David Niven, who lived next door to Scott and Grant and stated in his autobiography they were both womanizers? It wasn't common knowledge to them, it seems. If we go by well, it's common knowledge in Hollywood, we might as well call everyone there gay. No, this was never commmon knowledge. Please, please, let's keep Wikipedia credible, because it's becoming more ridiculous. We cannot write it was common knowledge they were bisexuals any more than Marilyn Monroe was killed by the Cia...it was common knowledge, you see. Sources, please. Common knowledge by whom? It was speculation then, and it remains speculation now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.204.212 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality

I did re-insert Arthur Laurents' quote about Grant being possibly bisexual in the personal life section, and added Betsy Drake's view that he wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Scotty Bowers, who knew them both, wrote, 'I don't know if their wives ever knew what was going on between them.' After Grant's death, Bowers made a claim in his autobiography Full Service to have had sexual affairs with both Scott and Grant."
Yes, indeedy, and the world is flat, the holocaust never happened, the Apollo moon-landings were faked, Elvis is still alive, and there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you at a great price. In other words, only a blithering idiot would believe any of the garbage that a bald-faced liar like Scotty Bowers had to say. I'm amazed - and appalled - that Wikipedia gives any credence to someone like him. Jimknutt (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no wp:RS stating he is homosexual, unless I've missed something. I have therefore tagged the article with a NPOV template. This should be discussed, and/or proven. Opinions don't count. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree GenQuest but please don't tag the whole article for neutrality, please restore the sexuality section to what it was before when I wrote it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I restored it to the previous, I haven't examined the other edits yet.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Names of spouses and children in the infobox

@Nikkimaria: I'm not fully convinced by your explanation as to why the names of his wives and daughter need to be omitted from the infobox. I was hoping that maybe you could point at a previous discussion where a consensus was reached, but I assume that is not the case (let me know if it is). It is a common practice to include the names of relatives in the infobox, especially if they are notable. It is certainly done for actors and celebrities (Elizabeth Taylor comes to mind). If you have an issue with its length it can be added in the form of a collapsible list. Otherwise, I personally don't see a problem with including them. I was wondering what your point of view was. Keivan.f^Talk 05:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There was historically no consensus on that inclusion, but some of the broader commentary in this archive is relevant - while one user in that archive was supportive, others raised the concerns that this data does not contribute to an understanding of what is key about the subject but does contribute to bloat. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair enough. Let's see if this section attracts any people who might be interested in commenting on the issue. Because these names appear in the lede and in the body of the article, so why exclude them from the infobox then? I agree that adding the names would make the infobox rather lengthy, but I think the collapsible list is the best option. Maybe others could have the same view. Keivan.f^Talk 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Multiple partners/spouses adds a lot to the understanding of an article subject. The list should remain. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)