Talk:Katharine Hepburn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
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 on the quality scale. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Deletion campaign by 76.176.167.130
An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's gotten escalating warnings up to final warnings. The next time he does this, he should be reported to WP:AIV. Whomever writes up the report at AIV needs to make sure that they note that this seems to be a static IP address as the editing pattern has remained the same for many days. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tracy's "Roman Catholicism"
I do not deny that Tracy was nominally a Roman Catholic, but if it needs to be mentioned in connection with his adulterous affair with Katharine Hepburn, it should be pointed out that he was not a good one. His Roman Catholicism is not what prevented him from divorcing his wife. Back then, a person needed grounds to obtain a divorce. While Mrs. Tracy certainly had grounds, and could have divorced him if she wished, she did not. Tracy had no grounds upon which to obtain a divorce. Thus to that extent his religious background had no relevance to the question. John Paul Parks (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Ford
It's curious that John Ford's page on Wiki says he had a multi-year affair with her but he is not even mentioned in her entry. Preceding comment added by I.Katie (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV "best film"
I came here to express some misgivings about language in this article stating unsourced opinions as facts, for example that one of Hepburn's "best" performance was in African Queen. I notice that this was addressed in an archived peer review almost 3 years ago, but no corrective work appears to have taken place since then. I come here with neither opinion nor expertise on this topic. If there are multiple noted cinematic experts who can be quoted as saying her performance in this film was one of her best, I think that would be much better. Such research might turn up some dissenting expert opinions as well, which would only add value to the article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
