Talk:Claudette Colbert/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unsourced edits 2 Vanity Fair 3 Trivia section 4 Mrs. Pressman 5 It Happened One Night → Greatest Success? 6 "worst picture in the world" 7 Vandalism, gibberish and illiteracy 8 What is Jack Warner? 9 What is Myrna Loy? 10 moved → Trivia section 11 Revert & Protect 12 Question(s) 13 Barbados image 14 Origins 15 Dramatic actress 16 Minor edit 17 Recent edits 18 Remove comment irrelevant to this article 19 Another irrelevant comment needs to be removed 20 Reverting of recent edits 21 Images 22 All About Eve edit

[edit] Unsourced edits

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)

Who is Verna Hull? Woman of fictitious?--Wbrz 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'll take that as a "no". Rossrs 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people testify about Laurence Olivier having been a bisexual. He suggested a thing like it with his autobiography. Who testified that Colbert was a bisexual? her husbands? her friends? Please lead a conclusion from a cause. Please do not give top priority to a conclusion.--Wbrz 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Her husband was still alive in 1960's. Did not her friend have to live in the neighbor with her? Are you a delusion maniac? --Wbrz 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

It is a thing heard of for the first time that Colbert has met Greta Garbo. Are not they your ideas at all? Were not the celebrities only combined by force?--Wbrz 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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".[1] 204.126.250.112 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Vanity Fair

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)

Please write not the rumor going around town but the source. Please write not your guess but evidence. How did the person who knew her during the lifetime make a remark for her? Or please write the fact that the third person watched her.--Wbrz 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

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)

*She worked as a stenographer, a salesclerk in womens' clothing, and a tutor, in order to pay her expenses at the Art Students League of New York. could easily be added into the article

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

*For the Love of Mike (1927) is a lost film; the print no longer exists. relevant as her film debut and could easily be added into article

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

*Colbert made ten films at Astoria Studios in Queens, New York. maybe relevant, could be added if the right place in the article is determined.

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

• She co-starred three times respectively with Herbert Marshall and Melvyn Douglas. irrelevant

*Ellie Andrews of It Happened One Night (1934) was a part refused by all other actresses in Hollywood. really? every single one? so if Marie Dressler had wanted to do it, they would have let her? Even Colbert accepted only on condition that the salary be doubled and that the picture would take only four weeks to make. significant film, interesting comment, could be added, needs source though.

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

• She did not attend Academy Awards at first in 1935, because she thought that Bette Davis would win the Oscar. However, she was taken to the hall by the academy staff afterwards. of minor relevance
• Her first marriage was originally kept secret; she and Norman Foster did not even live together. this point is covered in the article slightly. the comment as it stands here is irrelevant as it does not attempt to answer the most important question - why did they do this?
• Mary Pickford also was an actress who did not allow to take the photograph only from the left side as well as Claudette Colbert. irrelevant
• She got sick during production of Tovarich (1937). Therefore shooting of the film was prolonged. irrelevant. she also injured her back and missed playing in All About Eve - much more significant
• Production of Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) cost a large amount of expense. almost every film "cost a large amount", what's so special about this one? irrelevant.

• Scenes showing Colbert's face from the right show she was equally lovely from that side, but such shots are hard to find. then wait until one is found and then quote someone of repute declaring her to be lovely. Wikipedia should not be presenting this opinion, just the facts.
• Colbert had talent of business. this comment means nothing without further explanation.

• There was no romance between Colbert and men other than her husband. this is outrageous. how would anybody but Colbert know this?

• She had used the house in Palm Springs as a second home when she was living in Los Angeles. irrelevant
• She worried about becoming overweight and was careful about not overeating. most actresses had the same fear if they wanted to keep working. irrelevant.

• Claudette did not work overtime. irrelevant without further context/explanation. how is it significant?--218.217.206.18 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

*The idea of a villa in Barbados came to her following a visit to Noel Coward's house in Jamaica. could be mentioned in the article, though it's not particularly important it would be part of an exisiting paragraph.

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

*In 1963 she appeared in television commercials for Maxwell House coffee. should be put into the article

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

*Although in 1969, Colbert said that she intended to write a book entitled "How to Run a House" for her friend's Bennett Cerf's Random House Press, this was not to be. She never even published an autobiography. should be put in article - but needs a source

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

• She kept two dogs in the active times and kept a cat in later years. irrelevant Rossrs 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Mrs. Pressman

The first sentence called her "Mrs. Pressman". I removed that, since it's rather odd and doesn't exist in any other articles in Wikipedia. It was re-added and my edit called vandalism. It was a good faith edit, not vandalism. I'd appreciate input from others on this topic. Corvus cornix 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wbrz is repeatedly calling my edit vandalism and is now issuing threats to me on my Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling her Mrs. Pressman is very unusual and not in keeping with the style of Wikipedia, there's probably a guideline in the MOS somewhere. You can remove that message from your talk page as it appears to be issued in bad faith. John Reaves (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Another editor has removed it. Corvus cornix 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Colbert had two husbands. She divorced the first husband immediately. She lost the second husband. Therefore, she was a widow. Spouse(s), Norman Foster (1928-1935), Dr. Joel Pressman (1935 – his death in 1968), She was interred beside her second husband.

Because it erased a public fact for a personal thought, is not it destruction?--Wbrz 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this Mrs Pressman silliness! She was Claudette Colbert. There is ample reference made to her marriage to Dr Pressman in the section "Marriages". If there is a place for this reference, that is where it belongs, not in the first sentence of the article. Orbicle 12:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is nothing but silliness. "Claudette Colbert" is the name she made famous. And this, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names states it plainly and clearly :

"But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under. Elizabeth Taylor, even though she was married eight times, would not be referred to under those other surnames." (my emphasis. I don't think I can state strongly enough that this applies to all cases.) Rossrs 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Read my earlier comments carefully - I do not want to say Colbert was bisexual or lesbian or heterosexual. I don't want to say she was anything but an actress. I said earlier that I thought the comments should be removed. How could you misunderstand that? All articles must follow Wikipedia's guidelines. It was decided long ago that a person should be referred to by the name they are best known for. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about actresses - the only one I have ever seen where the name was followed by "Mrs .....", is this one. Not Elizabeth Taylor, not Zsa Zsa Gabor, not any other married actress, just Claudette Colbert. We are not going to make a special rule for Claudette Colbert just because you are bothered by it. You are making a huge leap if you think it somehow means I want to suggest that Claudette Colbert was bisexual. I do not know or care about her sexuality. OK? Click on this link and read it please :Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. Read it through a few times so that before you comment again, you know exactly what you are talking about.

The bit you need to read is this ""But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under. Elizabeth Taylor, even though she was married eight times, would not be referred to under those other surnames." Rossrs 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that would be you, as you've made it clear that you doubt she was bisexual. You obviously haven't bothered taking my suggestion, so I'm not going to try to help you any more. But as you're leaving, I guess it doesn't matter. Rossrs 14:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It Happened One Night → Greatest Success?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] "worst picture in the world"

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)

[edit] Vandalism, gibberish and illiteracy

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)

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)

[edit] What is Jack Warner?

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)

[edit] What is Myrna Loy?

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)

It's not "Roy" it's "Loy". You haven't even attempted to answer my questions. A discussion is not about you telling me what to do. Rossrs 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved → Trivia section

Large sections of the article which contained very apposite information about Colbert have been perfunctorily moved to a Trivia section. THEY DO NOT BELONG THERE. In fact, the general idea is to get rid of trivia sections as much as possible, not to create them. How can the references to All About Eve/Margo Channing, especially the Colbert quote about crying for years be considered Trivia? Orbicle 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About State Of The Union, All About Eve and A Streetcar Named Desire. Those movies were not her Later Careers. It is not Vandalism. Never write !! --Wptfe 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Orbicle. This is the same point I have been trying to make. User:Wptfe and his multiple anon IP's seem to think that as soon as a name other than "Claudette Colbert" is mentioned, it is irrelevant and gets moved to a trivia section, which should not be there anyhow. It seems to be personal judging by the comments on this user's talk page, and there is also a problem with me being Australian (where we speak fluent English BTW). I have suggested more than once that this user read WP:Consensus. So : User:Wptfe and your gaggle of anons, please note - I am going to remove the trivia section again. DO NOT REVERT THIS unless you have a CONSENSUS. If you do, it will be considered as VANDALISM and reported accordingly. Rossrs 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rossrs wrote: "... me being Australian (where we speak fluent English BTW)..."

No way! Who knew? I thought the national language was Strine. ;-) Orbicle 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, my mistake. I speak Strine, but (I try to) write English! ;-) Rossrs

[edit] Revert & Protect

I've reverted the article and protected it. The previous version had rather major POV issues and was basically written like a fansite. For example:

"With her heart-shaped face, lively wide eyes, charm, aristocratic manner, and flair for light comedy as well as emotional drama"

"Colbert's elegant, musical voice was one of her best assets."

This is unsourced opinion, apparently on the part of the editor adding it. This goes against WP:NPOV. The current version has none of those problems. I'm leaving it protected for a bit because I want to see discussion here, not reverts on the article.--Isotope23 13:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

reverted again... the deletions were absolutely explained: the birthplace changes are unsourced and the name changes go against WP:NAME.--Isotope23 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question(s)

"Georges Claude Chauchoin (1867-1925), a banker" in English Wiki,(TIME refers to him as "a minor bank functionary"); in French Wiki, he is referred to as a "patissier" (a pastry maker). Not very important, but it would be good to get it right. Any clarifications?Orbicle 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbados image

I have removed Image:Mini moke.jpg from the article. Although it is a Commons image it serves no real purpose. It would be more significant (in fact it would be very good indeed) if it showed Colbert's home. But it doesn't - it shows a random section of beach. I understand it's meant to illustrate where Colbert spent her final years, but that's unnecessary. We could just as easily include images of the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty and Hollywood Sign to illustrate the time she lived in Paris, New York and Los Angeles, and no, I am not suggesting we do that. I don't think the image helps the article at all, and is purely decorative. It has nothing to do with Colbert. Rossrs 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

{{editprotected}} It is described that Colbert was French-American in summary and category of this page, but Paris-born is not necessarily the French. Her mother racial origin is uncertain. Her mother's maiden name (Loew) is not usually used in France. Birthplace and hometown of her mother are unidentified, too. There is not evidence that her mother was the French. In addition, Colbert grew up in the United States. I am reasonably well-informed about Colbert and her era. I did many research on the books and web. But I couldn't find such an evidence. Unless anyone can come up with source, administrator should delete this passage.Ygr1 10:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page ought to be unprotected soon, and then you will be able to edit the article yourself. Until then, it would be inappropriate for an administrator to make the edits you propose. Please be patient; the article will not be protected forever. CMummert · talk 14:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatic actress

{{editprotected}} It is explained in summary of this page that she made a strong impression as a dramatic actress in her early career. However, she appeared many comedies (Young Man of Manhattan, The Big Pond, Grande mare, La, Mysterious Mr. Parkes, The Smiling Lieutenant, The Wiser Sex, Misleading Lady, The Phantom President, Three-Cornered Moon, Four Frightened People) from 1927 to 1934, not only drama. Perhaps it seems that the person who does not know Colbert well edited it. See IMBD. Administrator should delete this opinion.Ygr1 12:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. CMummert · talk 14:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

Above the categories, please change the line

{{DEFAULTSORT|Colbert, Claudette}}

to

{{DEFAULTSORT:Colbert, Claudette}}

(pipe to colon); DEFAULTSORT is not a template, but rather a magic word. —Zachary ^talk 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} done. CMummert · talk 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

A quote regarding why Joseph Manckiewicz wrote a particular part for Colbert, has been removed under the guise of achieving NPOV (that she could play an "elegant drunk"), while another quote, which obviously fits a particular editor's view of Colbert (her "sly wit and sense of style") is retained. How is one POV and not the other? Mankiewicz's "POV" is perfectly acceptable, in fact some kind of professional viewpoint or critique is mandatory for this type of article - there is a huge difference between editorial POV and relating how an influential person perceived and described the subject in the context of her own career. "Guesswork" ???? Mankiewicz wrote the part for Colbert because he saw certain qualities in her that he believed she could bring to the film. He was a professional filmmaker and the last thing he would have ever relied upon was "guesswork". Would he choose an actress who would not be well received by the audience? Would he not choose an actress who would be accepted - he certainly said he chose Colbert for this reason. How is it guesswork? Are there actually any Wikipedia editors in a better position to comment on Mankiewicz's motivation and inspiration, than Mankiewicz himself? This is absurd. Tailoring the comments of a legitimate source so that it only pushes one POV is not acceptable. It's been going on for months with this article and it must stop. Please use this talk page to discuss changes, so that we don't have to continue going over the same thing over and over. All that's been achieved in the past is that certain user ID's have been blocked/banned and the article protected. These recent edits are slowly chipping away with a word here and a paragraph there in removing EXACTLY the same points that were discussed numerous times over the last few months. Please stop. Grammatically correct English is being reworded into grammatically incorrect English. Why? Information has been removed from the lead paragraph on the basis that it is repeated later in the article. Of course it is - the whole idea of the lead paragraph is that it summarizes the article - it's supposed to be repetitive. I disagree with most of the recent edits that have been made, and I also disagree with edit summaries that refer to WP:V and WP:NPOV even where these issues are not relevant to the edits. I'm reverting back to a previous version, although I won't revert back as far as I think it should be reverted. Rossrs 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it one more time. Mankiewicz's "personal feelings", whatever they may be, are relevant to this article and acceptable. Selectively editing them, so that they artificially push one POV is not acceptable. Rossrs 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

She did not play a part of a drunkard. She did not play a part of a prostitute. Have you seen her movie?

Of course I've seen many of Colbert's movies. And I've seen the movie that you are commenting upon. Have you? I've also read extensively of Mankiewicz's contribution to the production of All About Eve. Where did the prostitute reference come from? Did I say she played a drunkard or a prostitute? This is the point - Margot Channing appeared in several key scenes in which she was drinking and as she continued drinking she became more outspoken. If Colbert had been able to play this part, she would have had to play those crucial scenes that were written specifically for her. Margot, as played by Bette Davis, was loud, brash and vulgar. Mankiewicz commented that when he wrote the part for Colbert, he saw Margot as a different character. He said that Colbert would have played her as an "elegant drunk", without the brashness and vulgarity of Davis's characterisation. What is wrong with that? Please sign your comments. Rossrs 14:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the basis of your edits then you need to read WP:NOR, and WP:AGF while you are at it. An editor's nationality has no bearing on editing a subject just because said subject's nationality is different. Our friends across the pond have the novelty of DVD and television technology , allowing them to view movies that Colbert acted in. I hear they have books there too...--Isotope23 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've heard about that! Yes, we're very proud of our books. We've even started putting them in libraries now that we have so many! Rossrs 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Unrelated to the discussion in progress: Mr./Mrs. 218.217.215.14, please sign and date your posts on talk pages. A quick-and-easy way is to type four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. Thanks! You may also want to consider registering an account, which will let you sign with a name, rather than your network address. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Colbert thought the part was suitable for her and she intended playing it. So you know more about Colbert than Mankiewicz, and now you also know more about Colbert than Colbert? I have to wonder where your expertise comes from. Mankiewicz believed she was a good actress and therefore capable of playing an elegant drunk. How about you move past that point because it's not a matter of Mankiewicz's "selfish imagination" but your POV, and there's nothing more that could be said on that subject. True, Colbert made her films in the United States but they were screened throughout the world, including the United Kingdom and Australia, which have English speaking populations. The big stars of Hollywood were also big stars in other territories. Moving forward to the present, I can confirm that in Australia, for example, not only do we speak English as our official language, but we have television, DVD, cinemas and lots of books, all of which I, for example, have ready access to. I also have cable TV which screens, among other movie channels, Turner Classic Movies. Colbert's films are definitely, absolutely, positively televised in Australia on a regular basis. Australia is culturally very similar to the United States, certainly more so than many other countries, especially those where English is not the first language. Whether Colbert is currently well known or not is an irrelevant point - you're attempting to discredit my edits (on the illogical and ill-informed basis that I am Australian) and I am very familiar with Colbert, her life and career. Rossrs 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep this answer short then. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Rossrs 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, thank you for clearing that up. Rossrs 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove comment irrelevant to this article

It supports a comment/viewpoint made/held by Colbert. If the viewpoint is attributed only to Colbert it could serve to make her appear temperamental and money-hungry, which is how this piece of information is often presented elsewhere. If it's supported by other opinions, it suggests Colbert may not have been merely displaying temperament or a desire to inflate her bank balance. But it allows the reader to interpret the information however they choose by just giving them the comments duly attributed. It's relevant. We've discussed this point before. Rossrs 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, are you copying my last comment or are you genuinely interested? Alright, I'll explain. If you read something about a person it's normal to draw a conclusion or make an assumption because that's how we are when we read things. If you read a sentence that says "Colbert refused to play the part and finally accepted it when she was paid more money", somebody reading it might think "Colbert was temperamental and all she was interested in was money". But if the same person reads that 6 other actresses read the script and didn't like it, the person might think "well, the script must have been bad and Colbert was being careful". It completely changes the way the information can be interpreted. A lot of things written about this episode in other places don't really explain what happened and portray Colbert as selfish and money-hungry. This may not be true. I think we can do better than that. If giving just a little more information makes it more accurate, we should do that. Rossrs 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another irrelevant comment needs to be removed

Does anyone understand the relevance or propriety of this line, ending the paragraph on Colbert's last two movies?

WWII ones show only the ‘clean’ American women, the Claudette Colbert types on the homefront.[15]

Which includes the wholly irrelevant footnote to an article which has nothing to do with Colbert. Where is this stuff coming from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.200.72.146 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm (?!?), Well, I'll keep this answer short then. Have you seen her movie? So Proudly We Hail! (1943), Since You Went Away (1944), Three Came Home (1950) etc. = World War 2　Movies. Cover in the Footnotes section - Suki Falconberg, "Veterans’ Day: Flags of Our Raped Mothers", American Chronicle, November 4, 2006 218.217.216.250 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense. It contains no point and is not even a grammatically correct or complete sentence. I've removed it. Rossrs 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting of recent edits

Recently I added two public domain images which were replaced almost immediately. I am going to restore them. Firstly I did not choose them for decoration - I chose them specifically because they illustrated points made in the text. Image:Claudette Colbert in Cleopatra trailer.jpg shows Colbert in an early role when attempts were being made to present her as a siren. She is scantilly dressed which contrasts with the more respectable and sophisticated image she became famous for. It's discussed in the article and this image compliments the text. Image:Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable in It Happened One Night film trailer.jpg is one of the most iconic and imitated scenes in film history. That it exists within the public domain is very fortunate. The scene is also discussed in the article. To replace it with a generic face shot of Colbert is to the detriment of the article - we already know what Colbert looks like. Her face is visible in the other images. I'm just saying this as I feel I can explain the usefulness of these images, so if anyone has better free images that they would like to replace these with, I simply ask that it be discussed here first. That the replacement images on this occasion are copyright violations falsely claiming to be public domain images from the film's trailer is an issue that I am taking up in Commons, where I have tagged them for review and possible deletion. "change screenshots - those images aren't any better" - any better than what? I've now explained why I think they are appropriate, but importantly, they are genuinely free.

I am also replacing a comment about Gable and Colbert working well together. It's very minor, but I object that it was removed with a false and misleading edit summary : "rem. useless sentence, and the text apparently copied directly from film". I added this text to the article months ago - is there a suggestion of plagiarism? True it's not a particularly important piece of information and the article doesn't particularly need it but it does not contain "text apparently copied directly from the film". What does that mean anyhow? I would really appreciate it if editors would use edit summaries to explain truthfully what they are doing. Thanks Rossrs 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

It's not unreasonable of me to ask that this be discussed, but it is unreasonable that you completely ignore this request. User:Thirdship you refer me to WP:TE and WP:OWN and I suggest you spend a few moments reading them yourself. I have reverted the images back because I think the ones I chose are better, clearer and more relevant. I've discussed in the section above why I chose the images that I chose, and you have not had the courtesy to reply but to just revert my edits. If you disagree with my choices, tell me why. Just adding an edit summary that it's "a better one" does not explain why. You've changed the image I chose to three different images of your own choosing. This looks very much like WP:TE because it seems you are happy with any image as long as it's one you've chosen especially in light of your edit summary "a better one created by myself". Will you just keep adding a new one until one of them sticks? The top image here is the best of the three you've added but it is not as clear or as in focus as the original image. It's small and does not really show Colbert clearly. Her face is distorted. If you think your image is a better choice, that's your business. I'm only asking that you be courteous enough to explain why rather than just try to force your edit. Tell me why you think the top image is better and I will listen and discuss it with you. As for WP:TE and WP:OWN - have a look through the edits I've made at WP over the last 3 years. Yes, I'll revert back edits that I think are bad, and I'll happily explain why and if someone changes something I've done and improves it, I'll be the first one to thank them. Weigh that up against your own failure to engage in discussion before you point WP:TE and WP:OWN at me, please. Rossrs 03:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta be joking. Edit summary "a composed image supersedes the obscene, provocative image in the biography article" It's the same image. You uploaded exactly the same image that I uploaded and added it with this nonsensical edit summary. It's the same image! If this is not an example of WP:TE I don't know what is. OK you wanted your name on the image description page as the uploader, obviously. Well, you've got that and you must be so pleased. And not a single word on the talk page. Rossrs 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction : × WP:TE　→　○ WP:NPOV Thirdship 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It would be great if you could actually explain your viewpoint instead of directing me to Wiki pages that I have well and truly read. Rossrs 09:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All About Eve edit

I am restoring "In 1949, Joseph L. Mankiewicz wrote the part of Margo Channing in All About Eve for Colbert, feeling that she best represented the style of older actress he envisioned for the part. He admired her "sly wit and sense of class" and felt that she would play the part as an "elegant drunk", who would easily win the support of the audience."

For a second time. It was reverted with the comment that it was "unexplained". It was explained in my edit summary, and I'll do so now again in more detail than the edit summary allows. Margo Channing is one of the most notable female roles in American cinema. It was written specifically for Colbert for a reason. It is not a trivial detail relating to the script, but a significant detail in how Colbert was perceived as an actress after 20 years in the business, by one of the most influential writers/directors of the time. It's not trivia. It's also not in contravention of WP:ATT. It's a sourced, verified quote. Do you read any of the pages you direct me to? Please explain here why it should not be included rather than in misleading, inaccurate edit summaries. Thanks. Rossrs 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ah, I now see that in one of the numerous edits in which sourced information was removed, the source for this one was deleted. I will replace the source. Rossrs 01:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)