Talk:Robert Taylor (American actor)

Archives

Hometown memory

Spangler Arlington Brugh (Robert Taylor) graduated from Beatrice Nebraska High School in 1929. I just finished looking over the year book The Homesteader, of which Brugh was on the Homesteader Staff. He also was in the Dramatic Club, Glee Club, National Honor Society, Orchestra, Student Council, and Senior Social Chairman. My mother, who is now deceased, often told me about knowing Brugh in high school. She said all the girls thought he was quite handsome, but did not remember that he had any regular girlfriends. The year book shows his "Handsome profile" on many pages. He was the lead in all the plays given that year. The senior class had little sayings on all the classmates. Brugh's said,"Few things are impossible to diligence and preserverance." I guess that was better than the student who's quote was,"So slick he would slide on sandpaper." or "She often talks without thinking, but never thinks without talking." My mother remembers that Brugh was the pride and joy and only son of his parents and lived in a modest home in the residential section of Beatrice. I recently watched an old movie on TCM made in 1936 which starred Robert Taylor. He looked just as he did in that 1929 year book. --Helen Hohbein-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.67.13 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Helen for sharing this nice reminsence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.200.174 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Date fof birth

The source http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtaylorR.htm set his date of birth on August 4. What's the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No source

"Some say that Taylor outgrew Stanwyck, especially during the six months of filming "A Yank at Oxford", the first MGM film to be filmed on location overseas. Still others say Taylor found Stanwyck too possessive and would succumb to the amorous advances of women eager for an affair with the leading man." I say this stays out until somebody provides references. Clarityfiend 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, here it is: Jane Ellen Wayne (who also wrote books on many other celebrities, including Clark Gable, Lana Turner and Judy Garland) and her book on Robert Taylor. I read it cover to cover, and that is her story of what happened about how Taylor outgrew Stanwyck. Can you put the quote back, please, and next time ask before removing? Thanks! 10:50 pm., 25 September 2006 (LD)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taylor Quo Vadis.jpg

Image:Taylor Quo Vadis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Asset

He had the arches in his eyebrows insured by Lloyd's of London for 5 million dollars.Lestrade 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Pre-McCarthy era controversy section & other article issues

I just removed the Pre-McCarthy era controversy section because it has been left unsourced for quite some time. It was tagged in February '08 (by me), but has been in the article, in at least one form or another, since '05. That's far too long for unsourced and controversial information to be left in any article. I have NO problem with the content, just the fact that it contains a number of unsourced quotes and what appears to be original research. If someone wants to add it back, it needs to be rewritten and fully sourced before it is added back. Additionally, I've noticed there seems to be some POV issues with this page. Phrases like "the creme de la creme of Hollywood" are not encyclopedic and do not belong in the article. If this behavior continues, appropriate action can and will be taken. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned because it is all Taylor is known for today, and destroyed his legacy and reputation forever. (92.9.64.177 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Per WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.

Bearing this policy in mind, if you would like the material to be included, the burden lies with you to source it. It has been in the article since at least 2005 and it has been tagged as unsourced since February '08. If it takes three years and some odd months to dig up sources, the material shouldn't be in the article. Per policy, I've moved the unsourced section to the talk page to give whomever wants to section included yet another opportunity to properly source it before re-adding to the article. As promised, I've asked a third party to step in and comment on this situation and if need be, we can take this to mediation. I've also reverted the last edits to the article because there is no reason to include the POV (and unsourced!) "creme de la creme" wording again and per WP:DATE, we no longer link dates which is why they were unlinked. As I stated before, I have no problem with the content and I am fully aware that Robert Taylor's reputation was destroyed by the scandal and is very much a part of his life and career, but these claims need to be cited to be included. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to return unsourced controversial material which has been removed based on valid rationale that includes violations of Wikipedia policy. If you do not have proper references for this material - specifically the McCarthy era material - then it cannot be returned and such changes will be reverted. Meanwhile, do not return deprecated date linking, there is no valid reasoning for this. Your statement "it is all Taylor is known for today, and destroyed his legacy and reputation forever" is POV and is not valid rationale, verifiable or probably accurate. Please desist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody under the age of fiufty knows of Taylor today other than because he named names. His stardom ended in the early 1950s with the awful "Knights of the Round Table". It's ridiculous if his article doesn't mention in detail the only thing for which he is remembered today. (92.13.24.101 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, your IP seems to be within the range we're warned about in the preceding section, and your attitude and POV seems to fall within the same range. You have blindly reverted the entire section. You haven't discerned what is acceptable and what is not. You've just reverted the whole lot, complete with deprecated date linking, original research templates - the whole shebang. Nobody is going to accept this material just because your edit summary tells people to read such and such a book, a tactic you've unsuccessfully employed elsewhere. It's not sourced, and it's not staying. Rossrs (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Taylor was a Nazi who is only known for the evil he did. I'm glad he died of cancer at only 57.

Pre-McCarthy era controversy

Taylor was among the Hollywood conservatives who took part in the formation of the right-wing Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals in February 1944. In October 1947, Taylor testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Originally considered a "reluctant witness", he wrote a letter to J. Parnell Thomas to tell him he thought the entire event a "circus." He was reclassified as a "friendly witness" and subpoenaed to appear in front of the cameras. He said he appeared in the film Song of Russia against his personal beliefs and desires but at the urging of not only MGM but also the United States government.

When Taylor was asked during the hearings: “Mr. Taylor, these people in the Screen Actors Guild who, in your opinion follow the Communist Party line, are they a disrupting influence within the organization?," he responded that " . . . it always occurs that someone is not quite able to understand what the issue is and the meeting, instead of being over at 10 o’clock or 10:30 when it logically should be over, probably winds up running until 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning on such issues as points of order, and so on.”

The questioning persisted, “Do you recall the names of any of the actors in the guild who participated in such activity?”

Taylor responded, “Well, yes, sir; I can name a few who seem to sort of disrupt things once in awhile. Whether or not they are Communists I don’t know.”

Yet he was under subpoena, and the questions persisted, "Would you name them for the committee please?”

“One chap we have currently, I think, is Mr. Howard Da Silva. He always seems to have something to say at the wrong time. Miss Karen Morley also usually appears at the guild meetings.”

He did go on to say, " “… I must confess that I objected strenuously to doing Song of Russia at the time it was made. I felt that it, to my way of thinking at least, did contain Communist propaganda."