Talk:Randolph Scott

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.
LGBT Portal
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.
Randolph Scott was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 10, 2007


Contents

[edit] Disambiguation

I note this page is linked to the Randolph Scott who died in the 11 September attacks. He is listed here: Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: City of New York

Please add a disambig page. I would do it myself, but am too depressed reading the list of the dead. Paul, in Saudi

[edit] Tech?

About what year did he leave Georgia Tech? It's obviously between 1919 and 1929. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced edit

I have removed the following passage:

It should be noted, however, that Cukor was notorious for his preponderance of unsubstantiated gossip and often sought to besmirch the reputation of men who rebuffed his own overt sexual advances. Cukor is "known to have been a real bitch", a Hollywood columnist once quipped. "If he couldn't have at you, he'd try to ruin your reputation."

It seems to be unsourced. Onefortyone 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

  • Citations that are just footnotes without sources.
  • A trivia section.
  • Quote laundry list.
  • An insufficient lead.

Please improve. Alientraveller 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Granger quote

Concerning his gay relationship with Farley Granger and alluding to the homosexual relationship between Scott and Grant, playwright and screenwriter Arthur Laurents says,

Whatever people might think, they didn't know. Now they would. But didn't some of me want them to know I was living with a movie star? Cary Grant and Randolph Scott famously lived together as bachelors; to prove it, they double-dated. The comparison got a smile out of Marmor but Farley and I did double-date: his beard was Shelley Winters, mine was Anita Ellis or Geraldine Brooks. Shelley pretended she didn't know; Anita and Gerry knew and didn't care.[1]

Thus, most of Scott's so-called romances with women may have been simply fabricated by the studios' publicity departments.

I keep deleting this not because it may not be a true quote, but because it merely repeats the rumor by way of someone else who happened to be in the same business. The quote does not confer authenticity on the rumor, but simply repeats it. No factual data beyond the fact that Granger apparently believes the rumor to be true is in the quote. It therefore cannot and should not be used to prove the rumor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyzpop (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
...Thanks. Forgot. Monkeyzpop 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote is of much importance as it proves that homosexuals at that time double-dated. They didn't 'out' themselves because they didn't want to make their real feelings public, as that would have ruined their careers. Onefortyone 23:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But it does not prove SCOTT AND GRANT double-dated or single-dated or anything, and thus cannot be used encyclopedically to prove the nature of their relationship. Monkeyzpop 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Cary Grant and Randolph Scott famously lived together as bachelors; to prove it, they double-dated." This means that Arthur Laurents knew well that Grant and Scott lived together as a homosexual couple and didn't want to make their feelings public. A person who worked in Hollywood in the movie business for 30 years said, "It's true, everyone knows who's gay and bi. This includes people who have recently come out or have been "outed" and many who never have. One lesbian has gone to incredible lengths to hide her sexuality for years. The public has no idea but anyone in the business knows." You can be sure that screenwriter Arthur Laurents knew what was going on. Onefortyone 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to you that they double dated with women, you frickin pinhead?--Mr Zuckles 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it about "anyone in the business knows" that provides PROOF? "Everyone knows" is not proof, especially when a wide number of people IN HOLLYWOOD state that it was NOT true. How does that jibe with "everyone knows?" Laurents's comment is absolutely valid as to his opinion, but it doesn't prove anything except that a lot of people shared that opinion (it doesn't really PROVE even that). Shared opinion is not evidence, and the topic at hand requires evidence, not opinion. Opinion, by its vary definition, is POV and thus not proper in a Wikipedia article.

To my mind, shared opinion is certainly not POV. Until October 2006, Wikipedia's "Verifiability" page said,
"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. ... The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See [1]
This is what I am doing. Referring to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, shared opinions, and arguments published in independent sources such as published books and articles. As for "anyone in the business knows", this was a quote. There are certainly people who didn't know, and there are still several people who do not want to make the truth public. This is also very interesting. Onefortyone 12:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General editing

I've removed the following statement: "As was the case with many 'relationships' between stars reported in the press and gossip columns, some or all of these romances may have been simply fabricated by the studios' publicity departments." It is almost identical to the following statement which appears a few lines earlier in the same section: "Thus, most of Scott's so-called romances with women may have been simply fabricated by the studios' publicity departments," and of the two locations, the statement fits better in the context of its first rather than second appearance.Monkeyzpop 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph ain't him

The current lead photograph, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Randolph_Scott500.jpg, is apparently not Scott. I've just spent an entire night watching Randolph Scott movies and the man in the photograph is someone else. Granted he's younger than in any film I've yet seen, but the bone structure, even the basic shape, is all wrong. Can anyone confirm? JDG 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

i think it's him. check out http://www.movietreasures.com/SigPix/04/091_scott.jpg. --emerson7 | Talk 15:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely Scott in the photo -- 100% definitely. It's a publicity shot from his early Paramount contract days, when he was doing those Zane Grey stories and Paramount was promoting him as both a cowboy and a light leading man. It's not the image most of us remember Scott for, the hard-bitten guy from the Ranown years, but it's absolutely Randolph Scott. Monkeyzpop 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I give. Thanks for the link emerson7-- that pic is kind of intermediate between the recognizable Scott and the lead pic here & viewing it enabled me to make the connection. I'd bet that old camera had a bit of a lens defect foreshortening the face, but what can you do? JDG 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Family

This (emphasis added):

Scott was born in Orange County, Virginia, the only son of six children born to George Scott, an administrative engineer in a textile firm, and Lucille Crane Scott, a member of a wealthy North Carolina family.

Is incorrect. According to census data for 1900, 1910, and 1920 (and available at Ancestry.com), he had one brother, Joseph, born in 1905, and five sisters: Lucille (b. 1892), Margaret (b. 1895), Katherine (b. 1899), Virginia (b. 1903), and Barbara (b. 1915). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.201.56.133 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)