Talk:Claudette Colbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Claudette Colbert article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Coincidence?

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)

[edit] Article Issues

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] First name

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)

I removed opinions without the source, and unified duplicated texts.　I already explained Maria DiBattista and Jeanie Basinger. -- Braghis (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Recent changes

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Response

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)

I have directed the user to discuss these issues on this page as requested several hours ago. The page has been protected from editing due to the above issues. I was in mid edits when the protection was granted. At this moment, the mention of Fredric March and Colbert's joint efforts, as well as her work with her first husband are located in the sequential portion of the article as well as the (now titled) critical section because I had only had opportunity to restore it to the sequential section, as consensus had determined and did not have the opportunity to remove it from the critical section. This article was ordered in career sequential order, with a section at the bottom which discussed essentially the reception and reaction she received from her peers. The article was re-structured extensively with no notice or discussion with editors who have worked and labored over the article.

Braghis, if your reasoning for the move of the March/husband material was because it was "the better place," allow me to suggest that this is your point of view, not a logical reason. When you removed the part about March, apparently because it contained a mention of a review, you left half a paragraph hanging with no lead-in. It coldly went from one paragraph to introduce March by saying:

...She appeared opposite Maurice Chevalier, who commented of her, "She was lovely, brunette, talented and a delicious comedienne, and her English was perfect."[10] These films were popular with audiences.

She was briefly paired with March, and they made four films together, including Dorothy Arzner's Honor Among Lovers (1931), which fared well at the box-office...

I want to also go on record to say that the majority of what was done to this article was misrepresented as being POV, opinions, unsourced or speculation, when in fact, what happened was that the article was mostly re-arranged and had POV removal of cited material. To that end, another newer editor was brought in to revert the changes and avoid a 3RR issue, all based solely on the changes made by Braghis being POV removal. To this point, the only POV I've noted from the changes was one sentence - "the most lasting appreciation from critics." There may be a few other snippets, but removing cited and published material based on the reasoning by the editor that a book published by a Princeton professor and chairman of that University's Committee on Film Studies wasn't valid for inclusion because "Maria DiBattista is not a film critic" and that a quotation from Colbert's Kennedy Honors ceremony wasn't acceptable because the author of The International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers, from which that quote was taken, "is not a celebrity" is indefensible. Other changes that were made included undoing proper wiki-formatting of section sub-headings, removing the (cited) place of birth and others too numerous to mention. When this editor is prepared to discuss these issues here, openly and in the spirit of collaboration, we will be ready. Otherwise, as Pinkadelica suggested, we can all go to dispute resolution. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DiBattista

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)

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)

Please do not continue adding wrong source. Reliability of Wikipedia will be lost sometime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braghis (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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)