Talk:Katharine Hepburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katharine Hepburn article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Katharine Hepburn has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents 1 Edit War 2 early stuff 3 Gay Icon Project 4 Bryn Mawr 5 Recent change 6 Protection 7 Changes under discussion 8 Changes under discussion, 2 9 RfC 10 Changes under discussion 3 11 Awkward sentence 12 Location links 13 Katharine Hepburn 14 Intro photo 15 Oooo, spooking floating ghost head of doom! 16 Recent edit war 17 Romance with Tracy a fable? 18 Height 19 picture 20 Conflicting Info 21 Good quality article

[edit] Edit War

Enough with the edits; she was an atheist, the words came from her mouth, get over it already. Ckessler

[edit] early stuff

I've added some of the stage work that had been ommitted and eliminated the really offensive and undoubtedly untrue statement by Anne Edwards.

Donna

I notice that there are two entries, one under "Katherine" and one under "Katharine". Would someone who is a fan of Ms Hepburn like to sort out the muddle? user:Deb

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Hepburn,+Katharine clears it up. Koyaanis Qatsi

Katherine Hepburn was born on May 12, 1907. Nonetheless, one finds frequent references to her celebrating her birthday in November. This was in fact the birthdate of her beloved younger brother, Thomas, who hanged himself at age 15. Following his death, Katherine often substituted his birthdate for hers. -- Someone else 08:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hepburn was actually born on May 12, 1907. To those who say her birthday was in November, see [1]. Here is the relevant paragraph from the LA Times article:

Several records, including the Film Encyclopedia, cite her birthday as Nov 9, 1907, and place of birth as Hartford, Conn. In fact, she was born on May 12 that year. The confusion was created by Hepburn herself, who for many years claimed the birthday of her brother, Tom, whom she had found hanging from the rafters in a house they were visiting. She was 14 and he was 16, and it was "Kath" who cut him down. The family could not accept that he might have committed suicide and never mentioned Tom after the day of his funeral. But in her 1991 memoir, "Me: Stories of My Life," Hepburn revealed that his death had always mystified her.

-- Minesweeper 08:08, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

She's listed on the page for November 8. Should I leave it, take it off, or explain it there? (Sorry, I'm new-- and is it November 8 or 9? IMDB says 8.) --Galaxiaad 19:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've changed her birthdate to May 12, as many sources list her birthdate as such. The November explanation listed here should resolve this issue. -- Vic Troy 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been steadily expanding the KH article, and some anon user keeps basically deleting huge swaths of the information. Anyone can guess from my username that I'm a huge fan of hers, so I readily admit that I am not the most unbiased person on the planet, but I think the information I've included is all fair and perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedic article, considering her enduring fame. I really wish whoever this anon user is would stand up for his or her continuing disruptions. Katefan0 17:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryn Mawr

She was educated at Bryn Mawr College, receiving a degree in history and philosophy in 1928 < !-- check... Katharine Hepburn's mother got a degree from BM in history and philosophy; can this be a mistake? other sources say her degree was in drama-- >,

For what it's worth, the Bryn Mawr page doesn't list Drama as an offered major. —wwoods 02:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Appreciate you trying to help! but 1928 was a long time ago, and offered degree programs change more often than you'd think... it might actually take a call to BM to figure this one out. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent change

Hey LeoDV, I appreciate what you were getting at, but the article isn't about their romance, it's about Hepburn herself, so I think her achievements are just as important as her romance with Spencer Tracy, maybe more so. I put the information about her awards back up in the lead paragraph, but also added in something approaching what you wrote. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Okay, I've protected this article. Sort it out here on the Talk page. —wwoods 05:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We seem to have something like mutually-acceptable compromises, if not consensus, so I'm removing the protection. Who wants to update the article?

—wwoods 06:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes under discussion

If you such a Hepburn fan, than you should realize that there are many errors in your biographical materials on her.

They are not only mine; an article is a conglomeration of efforts. If you see an error, fix it by all means -- but also source it. Deletions or changes by an anonymous user with no source materials supporting those changes will pretty much always be reverted. I'm glad you came to talk, that's the first start down the road toward us both being happy with the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Her husband got a U.S. divorce in 1942 because he didn't think the Mexican divorce was valid. He then remarried a few weeks later.

Do you have a source for this? · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely no evidence that she and Luddy separated after three weeks or that their marriage was platonic. That's rubbish.

I have several sources that say just that. Do you have a source that says something different? Also, please avoid phrases like "that's rubbish" -- we're all here for the same reason, to build a good encyclopedia, and Wikipedia:Civility demands that we treat each other with basic respect. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Leland Hayward was Hepburn's agent. He was never a film director.

I don't know that the article says he was. In fact I think it says he was her agent. I'll look again though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I caught the ambiguous bit. Fixed! · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy and his wife were married in 1923.

Do you have a source for this? · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kate still holds the record for most nominations for the best actress Oscar because Meryl Streep has three best supporting actress nominations and only ten best actress nominations.

Do you have a source for this? · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only person who ever said that Scott Berg's book was authorized is Scott Berg. Family and friends of Hepburn all objected to the book. His book is, in fact, badly written and full of errors.

I hadn't heard that, but it doesn't mean it's not true of course. If you have a source you can summarize talking about the book being disputed, by all means let's see it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

As for Hepburn being listed as a gay icon, she quite is. Try Googling "Katharine Hepburn" and "gay icon" and see what you come up with. My own sexuality is irrelevant, particularly since it wasn't my addition. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Corse

I've been trying to fix your entry but you keep deleting my fixes. Who voted you the keeper of the Kate Hepburn site on Wikipedia? It should be maintained by someone who actually knows a lot about Katharine Hepburn. And by the way, while you're asking for my sources, where are your sources?

First, nobody "owns" an article on Wikipedia; I just happen to be interested in the article so I have it on my watchlist. I'm not its keeper any more than, say, you are; everybody on Wikipedia watches certain articles they're interested in, and everybody is free to edit here. That I seem to be the only one interested in Hepburn enough to watch the page is a function of circumstance. If you have difficulty having your information or additions challenged, this may not be the place for you (if you'll notice, at the bottom of every page there is a warning that says If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. But I hope that's not the case, as the ultimate goal here is making a good encyclopedia, and as such a plethora of editors almost always end up together making a better article in the end.) Also, once again, please avoid uncivil remarks -- it's prohibited here at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. To suggest that I don't "know a lot" about Katharine Hepburn is a little insulting, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; Wikipedia also demands that we Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy from here on out.

I reverted your "fixes" because you hadn't/haven't backed them up with sourcing (well, some of them at present writing). As I explained before, sometimes anon changes get extra scrutiny, for good or ill. Anyway, we're talking now, so what's the use of butting heads and being insulting about nothing? Let's work together to make the article better. As for my sources, many of them are listed in the "references" section. I'd be glad to provide you specifics for any information you are curious about! One of the things on my WP "to do" list is to add inline references where proper, since I'd like to see it eventually made into a featured article off the main page. Unfortunately I'm away from many of my materials until Monday, so some of it may have to wait. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

(1) The Kate/Luddy divorce: New York Times September 18, 1942. Luddy got a divorce in Connecticut and Kate's father appeared in court on her behalf. New York Times: September 28, 1942: Luddy married Elizabeth Albers.

This doesn't necessarily contradict that KH went to Mexico, though. I have a couple of printed sources that say just this. I'm sure there's some way we can work together on a paragraph that incorporates all the salient points, in the spirit of wikipeace and WP:Wikilove. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

(2) Kate/Luddy marriage: There is absolutely no evidence that they separated after three weeks. She certainly never said that they did. They appear in the 1930 federal census living together in Manhatten. There is no reason whatsoever to think that their marriage was platonic. KH said he was the first man she had sex with. Why would anyone think they didn't continue to have sex. It's absurd. Do you think Anne Edwards was privy to their sex life?

Again, try to avoid comments like "it's absurd." Also, your personal opinions about whether they had sex or not and whether this proves anything about their marriage are irrelevant. I have several sources saying that their marriage, after a short time, was platonic. I'd be glad to dig them up for you, but don't have them at my fingertips currently. Until we can resolve this, I'd ask you to stop inserting what appears to be your personal opinion. If you can find a source that says their marriage was not platonic, in contradiction to mine, then we can list it as a disputed item within the article. There's room for all views, if they are relevant and sourced properly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

(3) Spencer Tracy and Louise Treadwell were married September 12, 1923, Cincinnati, OH. One source among many is Spencer Tracy by Larry Swindell.

Let me see if I have a conflicting source or not, this one I'm just not sure about. I think the marriage year was already in the article when I became involved. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

(4) Meryl Streep's Oscar nominations:

From the AMPAS site:

1978 (51st) ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- The Deer Hunter {"Linda"} 1979 (52nd) * ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Kramer vs. Kramer {"Joanna Kramer"} [statuette] 1981 (54th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The French Lieutenant's Woman {"Sara Woodruff/Anna"} 1982 (55th) * ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Sophie's Choice {"Sophie"} [statuette] 1983 (56th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Silkwood {"Karen Silkwood"} 1985 (58th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Out of Africa {"Karen"} 1987 (60th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Ironweed {"Helen"} 1988 (61st) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- A Cry in the Dark {"Lindy"} 1990 (63rd) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Postcards from the Edge {"Suzanne Vale"} 1995 (68th) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The Bridges of Madison County {"Francesca Johnson"} 1998 (71st) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- One True Thing {"Kate Gulden"} 1999 (72nd) ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Music of the Heart {"Roberta Guaspari"} 2002 (75th) ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Adaptation {"Susan Orlean"}

Hmmm. Well, that's good enough for me. I think that this perhaps was an error spread by some of her obits; I believe that's where I originally pulled that information from. 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

(5) Objections to the Berg book: A good source is Liz Smith who beside being a columnist is very good friends with Cynthia McFadden, friend of KH and executor of her estate. Liz Smith wrote about Berg's book:

August 3, 2003

"WANT TO READ one of the funniest things ever? Go online to The Hartford Courant for July 27, the column of Colin McEnroe, titled "Me, Kate and Me" - a satirical takeoff on the Scott Berg "memoir" about Katharine Hepburn.

McEnroe's satirical irony rises to James Thurber and S.J. Perelman heights. We can't do it justice in our small space. But, here is McEnroe, mocking the way Berg writes about his so-called relationship with the actress: "That's the way she was. Utterly insistent on her own rules. I'm a bit that way myself, which is why Kate Hepburn came to worship and depend on me."

Along with the trenchant critical review by Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times, McEnroe nails Berg for the presumptuous presentation of himself as Hepburn's only confidant. He dispatches the turgid, boring book that came out as a result. In my own humble opinion, Berg's work is self-promoting fakery, and Hepburn would have despised it and his betrayal of her friendship."

Interesting! I don't often read Liz Smith. Anyway, but I don't see her here saying that the family disliked the book; she's saying she (and a NYT reviewer) disliked the book, and speculating that in her opinion Hepburn would have as well. We can say something in the article if you like about how reviewers (including Smith) disliked it, but that's quite different from saying someone from the family said it was false or that they disliked it. And perhaps they did, I don't know -- but we need a better source than that if we're going to assert such a thing definitively. Maybe we can work together to find some. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. If you could, please begin signing your comments with four tildes ~~~~. It makes communication a lot easier because it can be difficult to sort out who said what without it. Another formatting point, please don't use hyphens to make lines; it somehow makes WP's processers work harder, so WP policies generally prefers the use of section headers (which look like this: == Section header == or, for a bolded phrase without the line break, === Segment header ===. One final thing -- on talk pages, new comments are generally added at the bottom, not the top. I'm going to move this down to the bottom of our section head, so it doesn't get confusing for anybody else following this page. Cheers! · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you removing information on The Aviator? It's relevant to the article. Also, why completely remove information about Berg's book? It's also relevant, whether you agree with it or not. If you can find critical information that is sourced and relevant, feel free to cite it, but don't scrub Berg from the article because you dislike it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see you've once again deleted factual and relevant material and inserted unsourced material despite my requests here on the talk page. You've now reverted material four times today -- you can be blocked for such an offense, please read Wikipedia's policies at Wikipedia:3RR. I'll be reverting your changes once again. We can go around like this if you like, but it's really better if we can talk out some sort of amicable compromise. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Congratuations. You have convinced whoever runs Wikipedia to let you run rough shod over the site. Your posting about Katharine Hepburn is full of errors which apparently the Wikipedia people want to perpertuate. Go for it gang. I guess this comes under the heading of you get what you pay for. [anonymous]

No one's in favor of perpetuating errors. If you see some, point them out, with corroboration, as was done with Hepburn vs. Streep.

—wwoods 06:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, it is not my article about Hepburn, although I've certainly expanded it greatly. But nobody has ownership over an article, not even Wikipedia's founder. Wikipedia is a collaborative process -- editors work by seeking consensus, not by fighting over versions of an article (read Wikipedia:Edit war) or insulting one another; this isn't Usenet and users are expected to be civil to one another. Where there are errors, by all means point them out, but also back up your assertions with sourcing. That's all I've asked; read Wikipedia:Cite sources. Where you've provided sourcing, I've happily acceded -- I'm just as interested in having the best article possible! Please, if you would, answer the questions about sourcing so we can come to some sort of amicable compromise (you might also read Wikipedia:Accountability, which suggests that users register for an account before making substantive changes to existing articles). Also, please stop deleting verifiable and pertinent material, such as the quotes from her, information about Berg's book and the reference to The Aviator. At the very least, explain why you think they should be removed. Do you contest them too or do you just dislike them? There's an enormous difference, but I can't read your mind. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

First, Katefan0 should be required to provide sources for every sentence in her article. I see no reason why I should be required to provide sources and she doesn't. If she had sourced her article there wouldn't be so many errors. Why is there a double standard here?

Second, I have provided sources for several items and she has chosen to ignore them. I don't see what more I can do. It's not so much her ignorance, which is profound, but her arrogance about her ignorance which is mind boggling.

The information that I have deleted is misleading and irrelevant to the life of Katharine Hepburn. The first item is the reference to The Aviator which is wildly inaccurate as it relates to Katharine Hepburn's life. There's simply no reason to inclue any mention of the film on the Hepburn site since it has nothing to do with her life. The second deletion relates to the book by Scott Berg which he incorrectly claimed to be an authorized biography. It clearly was not authorized at all and more than that is a very shoddy piece of work. The Hepburn Wikipedia site shouldn't be promoting this book for him. I have tried to add two very good books about Hepburn to the reference list. They are Tracy and Hepburn by Garson Kanin and Knowing Hepburn by James Prideaux. I assume that Katefan0 has not even heard of either of these books. Instead she is sticking by the Berg book and a very inadequate early biography by Charles Higham. If any of you know anything about Kate Hepburn, you would realize how absurd her selections are.

I have tried to add some missing film work for Hepburn. Needless to say, Katefan0 objects to that too. She also, apparently, objects to external links to sites that are actually currently active.

ArielS

Now we're getting somewhere. If you could, please begin signing your comments with four tildes ~~~~. It makes communication a lot easier because it can be difficult to sort out who said what without it, and the shortcut will be easier for you too. Another formatting point, please don't use hyphens to make lines; it somehow makes WP's processors work harder, so WP generally prefers the use of section headers (which look like this: == Section header == or, for a bolded phrase without the line break, === Segment header ===, or you can use a colon to make an indent for threaded comments (like this one). And, I'll ask one last time, please refrain from making rude remarks (please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks), of which repeated violations are a blockable offense. We're all here to make Wikipedia better, and rudeness and presuming ill will (read Wikipedia:Assume good faith) don't help that goal. If you question something specifically inside the article I'd be glad to provide sourcing, providing I was the one who added it. Items must be sourced, or at least sourceable, no matter who is doing the writing, but not all of the information was added by me. However, I'd also caution you to familiarize yourself with the policy Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Okay, policy unpleasantness aside, can we take what you'd like to see changed bit by bit? If we can work out a compromise acceptable to us both on the talk page on each item, then we can unprotect the article and paste in what we've decided together. I'm willing to consider the slate wiped clean in terms of our personal interactions and I hope you are too, so that we can instead focus on improving an article we both obviously care about. Remember that this isn't me vs you (or anybody else); we aren't in an information war. We both want the same thing, but that may mean a little bit of compromise on both sides, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

To answer your points -- you have in fact not provided sources for information you're seeking to add or change, save the items that have already been retained. It's a simple thing -- just tell me what publication you're getting the information from, and what it says substantially. If you're using Kanin's and Prideaux's books, I'm afraid that I don't have a copy of them in my library (I've long been meaning to get both, but just haven't run across copies), so you'll have to tell me what they say in the portions that are relevant to the changes you're seeking. If it conflicts with other published information I have (reflected currently in the article), we will probably have to note that inside the article. Wikipedia editors take no sides when there is disputed information; rather, we present all pertinent and verifiable viewpoints and let the reader decide. But the good news is that there's room for this here, and the article will end up being better for it.

That you feel The Aviator is inaccurate as it relates to Hepburn's life is largely irrelevant in terms of whether some information on it should be included in the article or not. The Aviator was a popular movie that featured Hepburn and as such the article should treat it in some fashion. That doesn't mean we can't point out the inaccuracies, though. I would argue that scrubbing the information from the article does the article a disservice because that means we pass on the chance to describe how the movie was inaccurate. It would be informative for readers who might not otherwise be familiar with her life, perhaps even only informed by that movie, to know how it was inaccurate, don't you think?

Similarly, that you feel that the Berg book was flawed and not truly authorized doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the article somewhere. The fact remains that it was published and is about Hepburn. In fact, I think the article should be expanded a bit to treat that point -- with some criticisms from various sources. I think it again does a disservice to simply not mention it; scrubbing information is never a solution -- I'd rather see it explained, so people reading it will know that it was criticized for various reasons.

If in reverting your deletions and unsourced additions I also reverted the addition of the Kanin bio to the reference section, or information on other film works, that was really inadvertent and purely a technical matter and it should be easy to add that back in once the disputed items are resolved. I don't think we have a disagreement there. Thanks for reading my thoughts.

· Katefan0^(scribble) 16:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide sources for each "fact" in your article.

And I'm still trying to figure out why you think you own this topic.

Re: The Aviator - there are so many errors that it would require an entire additional article to include them all. If you really think there's some reason to include it in the article, state that the film is highly fictionalized and does not present the Hughes/Hepburn relationship as it happened and that any mention of Spencer Tracy in the film is exploitive and totally inaccurate.

re: Scott Berg - I still don't know why you think his book should be included. There's been 30 books written about Hepburn. It's obvious you haven't read them all or probably any of them. I have read them all. I know which ones are good and which aren't. The majority of them are crap including Berg's book. Either leave it out all together or say that it's a fraud. By the way, have you ever seen one instance where anyone connected with Hepburn stated that they approved of the book?

re: your quote "Not everyone is lucky enough to understand how delicious it is to suffer." had no connection to the box office poison episode. Why do you think it does? (Still waiting for those sources).

re: Hepburn's degree - she did major in History and Philosophy. It's at the Bryn Mawr site.

re: The Philadelphia Story - Hepburn and Hughes were not lovers when he loaned her the money to buy the screen rights to TPS. They had already broken up.

re your comment about Tracy and Hepburn: "Though Hepburn and Tracy were virtually inseparable and essentially lived together when they were in the same city, they maintained separate homes to keep up appearances" - this is not really true. They spent a great deal of time apart when they were working on separate projects and frequently when they weren't. And, of course, they didn't live together until the last few years of his life.

re your comment about Howard Hughes: "At one point, Hepburn and Hughes were engaged to be married, but at the last minute Hepburn called off their engagement." Neither Hughes nor Hepburn ever said they were engaged. This is just incorrect.

re Ogden Ludlow: I still don't know what you know about him. Do you agree that he got a second divorce in 1942 and that he remarried soon after? Are you aware that he had two children with his second wife? Have you given up the ridiculous idea that his marriage to Kate was platonic or that they separated after three weeks?

68.121.66.48 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk, despite the continuing rudeness. I never said I own the topic, any more than you do -- what makes it okay for you to try to force your side into the article any more than anybody else? At least I'm trying to engage you in a discussion that will result in a better article in the end. Also, this is not a war between who is a bigger fan, so please stop making rude comments. I've been polite so far, but this is really my last time asking such a thing.

Back to the point -- yes, the article does need to treat The Aviator. It doesn't have to be a large mention, but it needs to be something. As for the inaccuracies, it would be an easy matter to generalize what they are. Something like:

Hepburn figures in Martin Scorsese's 2004 biopic of Hughes, The Aviator. However, the movie is a highly fictionalized portrayal of Hepburn and Hughes' relationship, and many portions of the movie involving the relationship are inaccurate. The actress was portrayed by Cate Blanchett, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for the role. Blanchett, who thanked Hepburn during her acceptance speech, carried one of Hepburn's silk gloves in her purse during the Oscars for luck. As noted in the film, Hepburn did not leave Hughes for Tracy (Hepburn and Hughes split up years before, in 1938). How's that? It's concise, informative, and treats the issue fairly. As for how the movie treated Spencer Tracy, it's only relevant to this particular article insofar as it relates to his relationship with Hepburn, which is mentioned in the last sentence. Any more criticism related to Tracy should probably be included in the article on Tracy, though I'm open to other suggestions.

Regarding the Berg book, it should be included because it exists. You say there've been many books written, which is true -- I say they should all be included in the "Further reading" list. This is intended to be a reference work, so the more information on where people can go to learn more, the better. That's the beauty of a wiki -- anybody with that knowledge can add it, building on what's come before. Again, your personal opinion on which books are good and which are "crap" is irrelevant. We aren't here to pass judgment on which things are right or wrong or better; we're here to summarize properly sourced, pertinent sides. Read Neutral Point of View. I'm fine with including properly sourced criticism of the Berg book. Why must you present everything as some sort of war between us? I think we will end up agreeing on more than we disagree with, if we can ratchet down the rhetoric a little bit and instead focus on content. As to whether anyone connected with Hepburn stated they approved the book, it's generally difficult to prove a negative, so if you want to say in the article that they disliked it, we really need a source saying that definitively. Otherwise we're just speculating. I've done a bit of searching around, including through the Hartford Courant's back issues, and can't find anything suggesting the family has been critical of the book. Can you point me to some indicating such a thing?

How about this: The book Kate Remembered, by A. Scott Berg, was published just 13 days after her death; it documents the friendship between the actress and Berg. According to the book, the work had been completed some time before its publication, but Hepburn had stipulated that she did not want it released until after her death. The book bills itself as an authorized biography, but that has been called into question by the New York Times [2]. Berg was also criticized for inserting himself into the book too much, including by a columnist for the Hartford Courant. Liz Smith of the New York Post and a friend of one of Hepburn's confidantes, called the book a "self-promoting fakery," and suggested that Hepburn "would have despised it and his betrayal of her friendship." [3]

Must close now, but will answer your other questions as soon as I can. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming to this from a more unbiased approach. I am a Kate Hepburn admirer but not a huge fan. I think that having the information about the movie The Aviator and it's criticism should be included as well as books and their reviews. I thought that the movie portrayal was correct until I read differently here. Now how is one to learn the truth if viewpoints are suppressed? JMO. maltmomma 20:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This situation is really impossible. The Wikipedia people have given control of this article to someone who has extremely limited knowledge of Katharine Hepburn. I have better things to do with my time than to try to fix something that Wikipedia clearly does not want fixed. Maltmomma. the only advice I can give you is to avoid the Katharine Hepburn article on Wikipedia and, based on my experience here, you should probably avoid the site entirely. It's simply not reliable. ArielS 02:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has control of the article. As you can see, it's closed to editing while we all work out a compromise that's acceptable to everyone. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes under discussion, 2

So, where do things stand?

• The Aviator. [Kate's fan] has proposed
  • Hepburn figures in Martin Scorsese's 2004 biopic of Hughes, The Aviator. However, the movie is a highly fictionalized portrayal of Hepburn and Hughes' relationship, and many portions of the movie involving the relationship are inaccurate. The actress was portrayed by Cate Blanchett, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for the role. Blanchett, who thanked Hepburn during her acceptance speech, carried one of Hepburn's silk gloves in her purse during the Oscars for luck. As noted in the film, Hepburn did not leave Hughes for Tracy (Hepburn and Hughes split up years before, in 1938).

Does anything need to be added, subtracted, or changed? (Personally, I'd lose the sentence about Blanchett carrying Hepburn's glove, as not relevant to this page.)

I wouldn't object to it being removed; I just thought it was an interesting bit of color. But I wouldn't oppose anybody who felt differently. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Remove the entire section. The film has nothing to do with the life of Katharine Hepburn. Just because she's occasionally portrayed in film or on TV is irrelevant. She's been used as a character before, you know. Are you going to list those films? 63.202.232.68 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion for the reasons listed above. Maltmomma concurred with me. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on mentioning this film, I propose the following.

• • Hepburn is a character in Martin Scorsese's 2004 biopic of Howard Hughes, The Aviator. The movie is a highly fictionalized portrayal of Hepburn and Hughes' relationship, and many portions of the movie involving the relationship are inaccurate. The actress was portrayed by Cate Blanchett, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for the role. ArielS 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• The Berg book. [Kate's fan] has proposed
  • The book Kate Remembered, by A. Scott Berg, was published just 13 days after her death; it documents the friendship between the actress and Berg. According to the book, the work had been completed some time before its publication, but Hepburn had stipulated that she did not want it released until after her death. The book bills itself as an authorized biography, but that has been called into question by the New York Times [4]. Berg was also criticized for inserting himself into the book too much, including by a columnist for the Hartford Courant. Liz Smith of the New York Post and a friend of one of Hepburn's confidantes, called the book a "self-promoting fakery," and suggested that Hepburn "would have despised it and his betrayal of her friendship."

[5]

Does anything need to be added, subtracted, or changed? (The last sentence should be rephrased, say, "NY Post columnist Liz Smith, a friend of one..." unless there are two people involved. Also, being a friend of a confidante sounds awfully close to the urban-legendary FOAF.)

I have no idea if the confidante bit is true or not, but ArielS said it was, and I was trying to be accommodating. But I wouldn't mind if that bit were excised. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Remove all reference to the Berg book. It's just one among dozens and it's a lousy book. 63.202.232.68 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose for the reasons listed above. Maltmomma concurred with me. If the book has been controversial, which it appears that it has, then the article should mention it since it's so recent if for no other reason. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you must mention Berg's book, I propose the following:

**The book Kate Remembered, by A. Scott Berg, was published just 13 days after her death. The book bills itself as an authorized biography, but that has been called into question by the New York Times [6]. Berg was also criticized for inserting himself into the book too much, including by a columnist for the Hartford Courant. Liz Smith of the New York Post and a friend of one of Hepburn's confidantes, called the book a "self-promoting fakery," and suggested that Hepburn "would have despised it and his betrayal of her friendship." ArielS 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hepburn's degree. The Bryn Mawr website does indeed say, "Hepburn majored in history and philosophy at Bryn Mawr."

I noticed that on the BM site, too -- but some of her obits say it was Drama, and since her mother also got a degree in history and philosophy exactly from Bryn Mawr, it made me wonder if maybe somehow it's gotten tangled up in history. It was a quite long time ago, after all. I don't have a problem listing it as history and philosophy given the BM site, but it's something I'd like to investigate further. I haven't seen any printed sources (bios or autobios) that mention specifically either way. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hepburn got a degree in History and Philosphy. The fact that her mother did is probably why she did as well. 63.202.232.68 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Entirely possible! I remain curious, though, about where some of those obits got that she had a degree in Drama. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where Katefan0 is with this. Hepburn did, in fact, get dual degrees in History and Philosphy from Bryn Mawr. The Bryn Mawr site is the best source. ArielS 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Books, movies, and websites. Does anyone object to adding the following?
  • Tracy and Hepburn , Garson Kanin, Viking, 1971
  • Knowing Hepburn, James Prideaux, Faber and Faber, 1996
  • The Spencer Tracy Legacy (1986)
  • Katharine Hepburn: All About Me (1993)
  • Katharine the Great (fansite)

Not at all. I would suggest, though, that the katethegreat.net site be added, not substituted for the other fansite, which is quite thorough. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The http://www.katharinehepburn.net/main.htm is virtually dead. The person who put the site has closed down the message board and hasn't added anything to the site in months.

Be that as it may, it's still a well-done site with good information and, after all, Wikipedia isn't paper, which means we have more than enough room for both. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Berg book should not be listed for the reasons I've already given. 63.202.232.68 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Gay icon" doesn't seem to still be in dispute.

I object to Kate Hepburn being listed in a Gay Icon category. By the way, does Wikipedia have a heterosexual icon listing? It's simply dumb to make a separate list of Gay Icons. Why not Left handed icons or color blind icons? 63.202.232.68 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you dislike the category, you can go to the category page to dispute it at Category:Gay icons. But it does exist, and this isn't the proper venue to talk about whether it should or not. Talk here as it relates to the category should be about whether Hepburn belongs on it or not. I'm a little ambivalent, personally -- Google returns about 150 hits, not an overwhelming number. But there are some. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I can't do anything about the Gay Icon category however pointless it is. The best solution is to not have a link to it in the Hepburn article since no one belongs on a Gay Icon list. 64.169.232.117 02:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Obviously some people here feel that having a gay icon category is good. To argue that she shouldn't be on it because you don't like that it exists is not good enough. We have to figure out whether she should be on it or not; that's the only question that needs to be answered here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Who get's to decide who is a Gay Icon? It's just such a meaningless designation. I still strongly object to this. ArielS 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hepburn's love/marital life. ???

I have pointed out several errors on the page about Hepburn's personal life. I'm right in each instance. 63.202.232.68 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

—wwoods 07:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

It appears as if User:ArielS (formerly anon -- curiously familiar with procedures for one so new!) has opened an RfC on the matter, which I welcome. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Not that new. ArielS added the photo of Hepburn last fall. —wwoods 07:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right. I just assumed from the strident tenor of some of his or her comments that he or she was fairly new and not familiar with WP's policies. BTW, that picture might have some copyright issues we should try to resolve. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I know how to read. I can figure out procedures although I will say that the Wikipedia instructions are wildly unhelpful. As for the picture I uploaded, take it down. I don't mind. ArielS 15:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It may not be necessary to take it down, it's a nice shot. We just have to figure out whether anybody has a copyright on it still or if it can be considered fair use so we can tag its copyright status properly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes under discussion 3

Okay, attempting to tackle the other questions. The quote about suffering -- I don't remember adding that, it's possible it was me but I don't know. Regardless, I did a little searching and it appears to have been lifted from a CNN obit, I think here. That obit juxtaposes the quote with the "box office poison" info, though I agree that the link, if you read the text, is shaky. I am not opposed to removing it, but I'd prefer to see the information retained somewhere, Wikiquote would be a natural place to put it.

Putting it in Wikiquotes is fine with me. ArielS 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hughes. Yes, I think you're right that they were no longer lovers at that time. But you didn't change "was her lover" to "had been her lover," you just deleted the entire paragraph, which I dispute. Instead, I propose: With the help of Howard Hughes, who at one time had been her lover, she purchased the rights to the play and turned it into a hit movie. The movie was very important to her career and it's an interesting and pertinent detail that Hughes was so involved in helping her make it a reality. I certainly don't want to perpetuate errors, but let's talk about how to fix them instead of just deleting information wholesale.

OK ArielS 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hepburn and Tracy's living situation -- what would you suggest instead? How about something like... Hepburn and Tracy were undeniably a couple, but only lived together regularly until the last few years of Tracy's life. Even then, they maintained separate homes to keep up appearances.

I don't see any point in either the original sentence or the revised sentence you propose. Their living arrangement doesn't tell us anything more about what you've already written. In fact, the sentence we are disputing is simply redundant. Leave it out.

ArielS 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Their living arrangements are an interesting part of their relationship. If I were reading the text as a casual observer, it's a natural question I'd ask. How did they manage things, if he was still married, and yet they were a couple? · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This sentence is simply a restatement of the prior sentence. It's redundant. It is also vague and probably isn't particulary true. ArielS 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Re the Hughes/Hepburn engagement -- I believe there was a NYT article that announced their engagement, or announced that it was off, but I haven't had time yet to find it.

There was no N Y Times article about Hughes and Hepburn being engaged. There was no public announcement of any engagement since they never admitted they were even a couple. ::: ArielS 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Still haven't found it. Give me until the end of the week; if I can't find it, then we can take it out. But I do remember having the source at one time! · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

There is no source. ArielS 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Re Hepburn and Smith's marriage, from Higham: The marriage was a disaster. Kate had such a horror of domesticity that the whole experience was a nightmare. She evidently realized that she had married on a whim and that marriage was totally incompatible with her need for absolute freedom of thought and action. Three weeks after the marriage took place, the couple separated. Faced with the fact that he had a failed marriage, Luddy sensibly decided to continue with Kate on a platonic basis. She remained legally married to him for several years. Do you have something that refutes this? I'd be glad to source it specifically to Higham in the text of the article if you like.

Katefan0^(scribble) 16:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is take Higham's book and throw it in the trash. Next read Hepburn's autobiography, Me: Stories of My Life which I gather you haven't read. Kate lived with her husband from the time they were married until she went to Hollywood in 1932. There is absolutely no evidence that they had a platonic relationship. Kate certainly didn't say that. She said that Ludlow was the first man she had sex with. There's absolutely no reason to think that their relationship was anything other than the normal relationship of a husband and wife. How could Charles Higham possibly know they had a platonic relationship? Keep in mind that this is the same writer who claimed that Howard Hughes and Cary Grant were lovers. Higham is typical of most celebrity biographers who just make it up as they go along.

Incidentally, do you really believe everything you read? Do you have no ability to filter out the bullshit? ArielS 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have read both of her autobios; once again, please stop making assumptions about me. I'm glad that we're starting to work together a little bit, but your tone really makes me not want to. I think here we have come to a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the way Wikipedia works. We don't pass judgment on conflicting information or information that is under debate; our opinions on conflicting information are irrelevant. We summarize all sides, as long as it is pertinent and sourced. (Read WP:NPOV). I'd be happy to see the addition of information talking about what she said in Me -- something similar to what you said. However, in Me (etc), Hepburn said they lived together until she went to Hollywood in 1932 and never suggested that their relationship was platonic. If you have another source that's critical of Higham then we can maybe say something like ... "(But some have criticized Higham's treatment)", but otherwise we're just inserting our own opinions. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You have this exactly backward. You are using an inferior source, Higham, and then you expect Hepburn to rebut it. Higham is not credible. Do you think if someone wrote that Hepburn had an affair with Claudette Colbert (as someone, in fact, has said), that it is up to sources from Hepburn to disprove it? Why are you hung up on what Higham alleged? Throw his book in the trash. HE IS NOT CREDIBLE. That Hepburn lived with her husband is not anyone's opinion. It is what Hepburn said she did. Why would you think she was lying? The alternative should be:

"A banner year for Hepburn, 1928 also marked her nuptials to socialite businessman Ludlow ("Luddy") Ogden Smith, whom she had met while attending Bryn Mawr and married after a short engagement. During the marriage Hepburn insisted he change his name to S. Ogden Ludlow so she would not be known as "Kate Smith". They were divorced in Mexico in 1934. Fearing that the Mexican divorce was invalid, Ludlow obtained a U.S. divorce in September, 1942 and ten days later remarried."

Katefan0: By the way, you do know who the other Kate Smith was, right and the point about why Kate didn't want to be called Kate Smith? Do you agree that Ludlow got a second divorce in 1942 and that he remarried soon after the second divorce? ArielS 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have something that says that Higham is an inferior source, or is this just your personal opinion? · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why do you think that Higham is a better source on the life of Katharine Hepburn than Katharine Hepburn? Why do you think that Higham knew what Hepburn and her husband were doing in their bed? What do you think was his source for this information? I can tell you that he doesn't provide any sources in his book. These are serious questions and I'd like an answer. ArielS 15:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to add a statement of refutation providing it's sourced. But we don't just pick and choose which information gets presented based on our personal opinions. So do you have something that says Higham is an inferior source? If you don't, your personal opinion is not enough to scrub it out of the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

There have been millions of words written about Katharine Hepburn. You are obviously picking and chosing what is included in this article. I don't know how to get through to you. Higham is just one more guy who wrote a book about Katharine Hepburn. There have been over 30 books written. He has no special knowledge about her. He really doesn't know more about her life than she did. Why do you think he does? Why have you chosen him above all those other people who have written about her as an authority on her life? Please answer these questions. Your stubborness is getting really annoying. Write something coherent. ArielS

I've repeatedly invited you to add properly sourced refutations. That's just the way Wikipedia works; sorry if that's frustrating you. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I can see I'm dealing with a person of limited intellect. Let's break this down into simple concepts. Please answer the following. Just answer yes or no to each question.

1. Do you understand that Hepburn is the primary authority on her own life?

2. Do you understand that Charles Higham doesn't know as much about Hepburn's life as she did?

3. Do you understand that Hepburn never said that she had a platonic marriage?

4. Do you understand that the presumption of marriage is that the married couple are having sex with each other?

5. Do you understand that Hepburn said that the first man she had sex with was Ludlow?

6. Do you understand that Higam provided no source for his claim that Hepburn's marriage was platonic?

7. Do you know where Higham got his information that Hepburn's marriage was platonic? If you do, tell us.

8. Do you understand that there have been all kinds of contradictory things written about Hepburn?

9. Do you understand that the job of someone writing an article about Hepburn is to sift through the conflicting stories to find the best and truest version?

10. Do you understand that Hepburn is the primary authority on her own life and thus the best source of information on her life?

11. Now look at Hepburn's book, Me. On page 151 she say " Back in New York [after filming Bill of Divorcement] I thought we [Ludlow] needed more room. Luddy and I found the house I'm now in. If was for rent furnishd - $100 a month. So we moved in and moved in the little furniture we had . . . " Do you understand this section?

12. Now look at page 152 of Me. On page 152 Hepburn says: "When I left Luddy and went to Hollywood on July 4, 1932, it turned out to be the beginning of the end of our marriage."

13. Do you understand that this means that Hepburn was married and living with her husband for the first four years of their marriage and that there is no evidence that it was anything other than a normal marriage? ArielS

[edit] Awkward sentence

The article contains the following sentence:

Hepburn in all filmed nine movies with Tracy, including Adam's Rib and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, for which Hepburn won her second Best Actress Oscar.

This might be better:

Hepburn eventually appeared in a total of nine movies with Tracy, ...

Atlant 16:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Hepburn appeared in a total of nine films with Tracy. . . " ArielS 23:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Location links

What is "ugly" and "overzealous" about changing "Hartford, Connecticut" to "Hartford, Connecticut"? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 08:50Z

It seem terribly unnecesary to me, personally, and as such it's annoying to have mass changes on this level. But that's just me.--Sean Black ^(talk) 09:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find it useful. It may not be as interesting for people in the US, but consider encountering a link like "Rehburg-Loccum". Wouldn't you rather it be "Rehburg-Loccum, Lower Saxony, Germany", with each article linked? Anyway, even if you find it unnecessary, is there any disadvantage to having it linked? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 10:06Z

It's exactly as I described it -- useless and overzealous (Is anybody really going to click on Connecticut by itself when there's a link to Hartford, Connecticut?) Additionally, having two wikilinks smack together -- particularly when they serve no real purpose -- is an eyesore. No offense, just my opinion. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in clicking on Connecticut. And I don't see anything wrong with two wikilinks separated by a comma. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 22:42Z

Well, I'm linking to Hartford, Connecticut. If you click on it, Connecticut is linked in the very first line, so there's no reason to link to it from this only periphally related article.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine Hepburn

Dear Sean:

Pls. explain what "errors" I made in editing Hepburn's page.

Thanks!! 216.194.2.125 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro photo

Well, I'm not crazy about the Song of Love photo, but it was the only one I could find that's very clearly a studio-released publicity shot from her younger years. If someone else can find another one that's as obviously a publicity shot that's a little better photo, I'd be eager to see it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oooo, spooking floating ghost head of doom!

The current main picture, Image:KatharineHepburnStageDoorCanteen.jpg, is unflattering in the extreme, making this beatiful actress resemble a ghostly and blurry floating head. Perhaps it could be swapped with Image:Khlioninwinter.jpg, or any better photo. 69.170.37.75 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps not. The image you suggest is copyrighted and the floating head of doom image is public domain. Yes, it's unflattering but the challenge is on now to find a good public domain image to use in it's place. Rossrs 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this one is better. I think it is. Rossrs 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit war

Could we perhaps look at the quality of this article rather than just continuing on with this edit war? We're going back and forth and getting nowhere, and the bottom line is the article could be better. There are snippets of information masquerading as facts, that need to be attributed to a source. Just deleting them without consideration is not the answer, but restoring them without comment is also not entirely constructive. The article is sorely lacking sources and references - would it not be more constructive to work on improving these? I feel like sticking ^{[citation needed]} at the end of a lot of paragraphs here, because the way the article is written, we're being asked to accept too much at face value. Maybe that's a way to start getting this fixed. Are there any Katharine Hepburn experts out there that can help with this? Rossrs 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romance with Tracy a fable?

Should this article include the recent rumor that she and Spencer Tracy were not romantically involved, and it was just a fable that she created to hide their bisexuality? This is according to the latest biography about her: "Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn." 66.251.84.28 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. If the books presents it as a rumour, it would be wrong to discuss it. I think the suggestion that she was bisexual has been reported in enough different publications over a period of time that to mention it is fine, but if this new book takes the rumour to another point, that has not be "reported" elsewhere, I think we should be cautious. I think it also should be noted, that there is no denying the stength of the relationship, regardless of the motivation, and it's not for us to explore too deeply into the sexual side of it. Even if they never had a sexual relationship the emotional relationship is still very significant, and I wouldn't call it a fable. Rossrs 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height

If we decided to remove her height from the infobox due to lack of citation, why is it still present (in the trivia section)? Biruitorul 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the infobox talk page was basically that we shouldn't put a height into the infobox unless we had a reputable source. Having it in the trivia section is different, because a lot of information is held there pending its verification and merging into the article. I've put a "citation needed" tag on it, and hopefully someone will find a source in due course. Thanks for pointing it out though. Rossrs 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Biruitorul 07:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture

The picture looks squeezed, like an anamorphic DVD that a player isn't reading as an anamorphic DVD. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture is awful. Kate deserves much better. I will have to read up on the image/copyright rules and find something better unless someone beats me to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.135.63 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I added the awful picture and I agree it was not good (but it had to do until another free image could be found). I have changed it to Image:Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story trailer.jpg, also a public domain image, which I think is a lot better. Rossrs 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Info

It is sometimes claimed that Audrey Hepburn and Katharine Hepburn were related. This is in fact not true. Katharine and Audrey were of no blood relation whatsoever. It has also been claimed that Audrey chose the last name Hepburn in honor of Katharine when she became an actress; however, the record shows that it was part of her family name for some time before she entered show business.

From the Audrey Hepburn page: The future actress's father later appended the surname of his maternal grandmother Kathleen Hepburn to the family's, and her surname became Hepburn-Ruston.[3] [...] She was a descendant of King Edward III of England[4] and James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell[3], from whom Katharine Hepburn may have also descended.[5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krazykenny (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I was just about to point out the same discrepancy. -Phoenixrod 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good quality article

Good quality article! On the whole. Just coming here for the first time, browsing, reading it through... Thanks for all the good work from all the contributors over the years! -69.87.204.133 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)