Jump to content

Talk:Greta Garbo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No background for decision to stop acting?
Line 173: Line 173:
==''Susan Lenox'' (1931)==
==''Susan Lenox'' (1931)==
A minor edit war seems to be in motion over the date for the image at the top of the article; the year above is the one IMDb, and other sources give for the movie. While I can find several uses of the photograph linking it to the film, I can find none which do not or suggest the correct date might be 1926 which are unconnected with Wikipedia or are probably mirror sites. (Exploring all avenues it seemed the image file title ought to be checked.) Incidentally, the image does not come up on Google under the other name IMDb gives for the film (''The Rise of Helga''), but I will assume this is a fluke. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A minor edit war seems to be in motion over the date for the image at the top of the article; the year above is the one IMDb, and other sources give for the movie. While I can find several uses of the photograph linking it to the film, I can find none which do not or suggest the correct date might be 1926 which are unconnected with Wikipedia or are probably mirror sites. (Exploring all avenues it seemed the image file title ought to be checked.) Incidentally, the image does not come up on Google under the other name IMDb gives for the film (''The Rise of Helga''), but I will assume this is a fluke. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== No background for decision to stop acting? ==
This article is seriously lacking for not addressing reasons why Garbo decided to stop acting. Obviously, there were interview/books from her and her friends which have quotes about this matter. Why none of this is the article? [[Special:Contributions/95.25.222.70|95.25.222.70]] ([[User talk:95.25.222.70|talk]]) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:58, 16 January 2012

Former featured article candidateGreta Garbo is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 22, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted


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) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia or relevant?

This was removed from the article as "trivia" today:

  • In addition to numerous biographies, both popular and scholarly, the life and legend of Greta Garbo has endured through numerous plays, films, musical works and staged performances based on her life. These include:
  • "Chez Garbo: The Musical," a work that featured Brenda Bush as Young Garbo, Greg Purnhagen as Mauritz Stiller and Reet Roos Varnik as the mature Greta Garbo. It was written and directed by Michelangelo Alasa.
  • It premiered in 1998 at the DUO theater in New York.
  • On September 18, 2005, on Garbo's centennial, the musical was re-released under the name "Garbo...returns."
  • "Garbo - the Musical" This original musical was presented for the first time in Stockholm, 2002. with music by Jim Steinman. It played at the Oscarstetern in Stockholm with Gunilla Backman in the role of Garbo. Following Garbo’s life from when she was a young girl, living in poverty after her father's death, to her initial discovery by Stiller and later by Louis B. Mayer and Hollywood. Her relationships with John Gilbert, Mercedes de Acosta and others are part of the narrative.[2]
  • Van Morrison, "Just Like Greta Garbo," (2005), A song on his 2005 album "Magic Time" is titled, "Just Like Greta." It was inspired by Garbo's seclusion. [3]
  • "I Was Greta Garbo: Hanging on a White Line," a one-woman show written and performed by Ottiliana Rolandsson in 2005-2006. A revised and expanded version of this show will be previewed in 2010. This work delves into aspects of both Garbo's life and afterlife as she struggles to reconcile the journey of her soul with her fame, passions and, ultimately, a transcendental awareness that draws her back to the stage for a final performance.[4]

Question: Is all this trivia or is some of it relevant, interesting and useful information that could be added somehow - in some format or article where it would be a good idea to have it? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted by more than one person, this is precisely the sort of content that is defined as trivia. It is a mixed bag of content, some of which is about Garbo, some of which is about a film that only uses her name, some of which is about non-notable shows. The content about a song is sourced to another Wikipedia page, which is never acceptable. WP:TRIV states that content such as this is discouraged. It is never acceptable to start trivia sections where none exist and in fact, one of the goals is to remove trivia sections. That's the issue, and that is how this has been determined to be handled. It doesn't belong on the page for her biography - none of this occurred during her lifetime nor included her participation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing drew my attention to this discussion; I don't believe that his doing so constitutes canvassing, as I don't think he had any reason to believe that I would take one side or another on this. I certainly agree that lists of random facts do not belong in articles, and agree with Wildhartlivie's removal of this material. That said, I think some of that probably could be incorporated into the article in a form other than "list of random facts". That events occurred outside of a subject's lifetime does not make them inherently inappropriate for that subject's biography; if Greta Garbo has become a cultural icon, then a paragraph to that effect (sourced to reliable secondary sources), possibly including some of the information above, seems like a good idea. Steve Smith (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to Spanish Catalan WWII double-agent Joan Pujol Garcia who was given the code name GARBO for his acting skill, creating characters to mislead the Nazis. It happened during her lifetime, and directly indicates the esteem Greta Garbo was held in. K8 fan (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I have added a second reference that specifically refers to Greta Garbo. Hopefully this information can be integrated into the body of the article. Pujol's identity was not revealed until 1985 when he published his autobiography, and not confirmed by MI5 until they de-classified his case file in 1999. So it is doubtful if Ms. Garbo knew of her Nazi-fooling male counterpart. I would hope the star of Mati Hari would have been delighted. K8 fan (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would call that trivial information. It's a nice little tidbit, but doesn't need to be included in an encyclopedic entry. I believe this page has some regular editors: what do you guys think? --Lobo512 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but valid trivia from the era. His MI5 handlers chose Pujol's code name when they started him as a double-agent in 1942, specifically because of his acting skill. He and his handler Tomás Harris created a completely fictitious network of 27 agents and sub-agents, all being paid by the Nazis. One "died" and Pujol managed to convince them to pay a pension to his "widow". The Security Service could have chosen any name, and I believe the fact that they chose "Garbo" speaks directly to her impact at the time, as well as her legacy. K8 fan (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way on this. My first reaction is that both this anecdote and the Falco song are unencyclopedic trivia. And to support inclusion, I'd prefer a better source for the reasoning behind the choice of name than a third-grade children's book. Some secondary source on MI5 that shows they didn't just have a list of Hollywood names to assign – "OK, you're 'Gable'; you're assigned to Morocco, so we'll call you 'Bogie'..." And I think the medals are irrelevant to (Greta) Garbo. But if several others think it's interesting enough to keep – and I can see that it might be – I won't fight too hard for exclusion. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added a new reference from a more serious work on the subject. Pujol was originally assigned the name BOVRIL after the English drink concentrate, but it was changed to GARBO after he was interviewed and his imagination and skill at creating characters became apparent. So yes, his code name was specifically about Greta Garbo. It might be worth noting that Pujol was the subject of the recent documentary Garbo: The Spy, which would seem relevant to the portion of the article about the lasting legacy of the actress. K8 fan (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "tid bits," while interesting (especially the the note about Pujol) are fundamentially trivial in the context of an encyclopedia. This discussion was already held in 2009 in this section. The writer at the top gives a list of similar examples and makes a strong case that they are trivial. I say we nix them. Her legacy should consist of substantive contributions she made to the cinema and to culture. This is a weak section in the page and should be bolstered with weightier material. Which leads me to another trivia-related matter in the legacy section. I finally got rid of the list of cartoons in which she's featured. As I say in the edit box, all the big stars were caricatured in animations in the 30s and 40s and they do not, I think, constitute part of their cinematic legacies (as I define it above). I find no such list in any of the WP pages of top stars of this period. In a way, they degrade the page a little. Your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree Classicfilm buff (hi, I'm a classic film buff too!) Trivial details like cartoons and songs almost end up making her legacy seem less impressive, because you could think "Is that all there is to it?" Someone with a real impact shouldn't need to cover these things. I don't actually know all that much about Garbo, but many actors considered her the greatest screen actress of all time. There must be a lot of substantial stuff out there about her? When I was doing the Kate Hepburn legacy section, I found using obituraries very useful. See if you can find any Garbo ones. Also see if she is included in any "Influential women" books, etc. This is the truly meaty stuff. --Lobo512 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great ideas, fellow classic film buff. Indeed there is a lot of substantial stuff which I've encountered in my readings. I'll try to get to work on your ideas. But time constraints. Any other takers? How about you!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oh gosh no, I already have far too many designs on wikipedia and nowhere near enough time to do them all in! I'm still trying to polish one article, finish writing another, and then have two more in mind that I want to overhaul. Garbo isn't one of my personal favourites so this isn't an article I'm especially interested in working on (it's already in pretty good shape anyway, compared to most classic actor bios). But I'm happy to read over any developments and offer suggestions/opinions. :) --Lobo512 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the portion about Joan Pujol Garcia, the 2011 theatrical release of the film Garbo: The Spy not only firmly established his MI5 handlers naming him after the actress, but included scenes from Greta Garbo's film Mata Hari, as noted in this review of the film. I understand the desire to keep articles to a manageable length, but the link between these two significant figures of the 20th century is clear and noteworthy. That long-time contributors to this article were surprised to learn the connection is fairly plain evidence that it sound be included. K8 fan (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, possibly the fact that long-time contributors to this article – having read and studied biographies and other reliable sources on Greta Garbo – were surprised to learn the connection could be seen as fairly plain evidence that this connection is not widely viewed as relevant to her, her reputation, or her legacy. Saying that he was named after her because of his acting skills bolsters his reputation, not hers. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, his code name "GARBO" was chosen for his acting skill, as the reference provided "after the greatest actor in the world". His existence was not known outside of a few members of the intelligence community until 1985 and not confirmed by the MI5 until 1990. I know that search engine results are not a cite, but a Google search of the word "Garbo" produced Roger Ebert's review of the film Garbo: The Spy in the #8 position. Again, not my article, but given the recent theatrical distribution of that movie, some mention of Ms. Garbo's WWII namesake would not be amiss. K8 fan (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this page is now written by me and I have to say I agree with Fat&Happy's argument. Therefore, I think it should be ommitted. I also think, still, that it's pretty obscure and that most readers will have no idea what's being said. But I don't have really strong feelings about it. So if you want to put it back in, go for it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K8 fan, I'm wondering why is it you're so keen to see this tidbit included on the Garbo page? Is it because you genuinely think it says a lot about Garbo's talents, or because you want to promote this man? I see from your "contribs" history that you've made quite a few edits to his page (the spy's), so I can't help but be a bit suspicious here... --Lobo512 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "suspicious" about it. I have done quite a bit of work on GARBO the spy's page, and I hope to take it to Featured Article status. And the fact that a film called "Garbo: The Spy" has been released to theaters in the US this year is relevant. I have no connection to the film or the filmmakers, and if you look through my history, I think I have made some fairly substiantial contributions to a number of Wikipedia articles, mostly by adding reference material. I have not been re-adding the material, instead I have been making the case for including it. But I see that there is a protective coterie here, and it is not worth my time to have another fight a battle. Feel free to include it or not, but I believe that other people will re-add it in the future as Pujol's contribution becomes better known.K8 fan (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that you have a commercial interest in him, but your comments confirm that you are nevertheless very interested in this guy, and want to see him better known. So it seems quite obvious that that's the reason you want him mentioned on this page. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lobo512 makes an valuable point. It's fundamentally not about Garbo's contributions to culture and the cinema. It's about this one man's personal opinion of her and the use of her name to advance his interests. Note that the other elements in the section speak directly about her contribution to a wider public, and its ongoing fascination with her because of her stature, talents, and magnetism in pictures. So in the end, I think, contrary to what I said earlier, it should be left out. Still the conversation has been interesting as we unpack the criteria for trivia.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate references

  • GarboForever.com
  • Home.hiwaay.net
  • Goldensilents.com
  • filmreference.com

All these are, afaik, personal sites so they need to be removed (according to WP's policy on self-published sources).--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo contest?

It seems like this article is part of a secret photo contest to see how many poor, insignificant, and unattractive photos can be found and added. A simple image search of Google will show hundreds of images, none of which are as bad as the ones in the article, and most of which are probably PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucianism

I have added Garbo to the Rosicrucians category on the basis of the following qoaution;

Garbo sought out mediums, spiritualists and devil worshippers - all to help her understand death... it was at this time she became an initiate of the Christian mystical assosication AMORC, which she retained membership in until her death.

(pp. 36) Gronowicz, Antoni. Garbo. 1990. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd

Please offer contrary information before removing her from this category in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.186 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that she self-identified as a Rosicrucian. You need to add that fact to the article along with a citation to that effect. You cannot just add a category without supporting text and reference in the article. I will continue to remove the category until you provide a reference to her self-identification as a Rosicrucian. Yworo (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual policy on this can be found here: "Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic. The requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories are strictly enforced. For a dead person, there must be a verified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."
Yworo (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gronowicz has been completely discredited by every Garbo biographer. In his biography, 1994, Barry Paris devotes an entire appendix to listing his false assertions and analyses. So, do NOT use this fraud as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 22:44, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Swedish acrtess in Hollywood's golden age

I edited this sentence

in the lede of the article, with the edit summary comment

  • sentence no longer made sense after all the edits lately.

My new version was:

This was reversed with another editor's edit summary comment:

  • it made perfect sense.

We do not agree about the use of the adjective perfect in this case, not even about the use of the noun sense. Why should the article begin wiith a confusing statement that makes it look like this woman could have been active only in Sweden during Hollywood's silent film period and part of its Golden Age? Not everyone knows her story. Since the fact that she was a Swedish-American (a U.S. citizen since 1950, when she had to give up her Swedish citizenship as per Swedish law) keeps getting removed, I maintain that the sentence as it reads now makes no sense as an introduction to her life story. The fact that she originally was Swedish and did a small bit of work in Sweden is of minor importance and interest in comparison to her work in America, which is her major claim to fame and should be clear from the outset in this article. I am reversing this and ask cordially for a bit more care here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what part of it don't you understand? She was a Swedish actress, which contrary to your assertion, was quite a notable thing in regards to Garbo, she worked during Hollywood's Silent and Golden era. The rest of the article goes on to clarify where she worked and in what. "Who gained fame" is a peacock term that does not clarify anything and only serves to puff her up without any elaboration whatsoever. The lead itself is inadequate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why be so condescending in your reply? I found the sentence unclear. Have now done my best to clarify it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious vandalism

Someone from an IP put a lot of time and effort and work into vandalizing this article extensively yesterday. I made the mistake of reading through it all when it was reveresed here and almost died laughing. At least the vandal in question, though he/she should not be encouraged, had a great sense of humor this time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the same vanadalism has continued, now through a registered user. Sincerely hope what I wrote here did not inspire that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmmm...I like the reference to "the prestigious Royal Dramatic Community College in Stockton." 69.198.205.2 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burial details

The paragraph about her burial was edited this way today:

She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were finally interred on June 16, 1999, at the Skogskyrkogården Cemetery in her native Stockholm. On that summer day in 1999, Bishop Caroline Krook presided over the services, along with Gray Reisfield, niece and sole heir of Greta Garbo, follow bagpipe players in kilts to the grave of Greta Garbo. Gray's son Derek Reisfield (Garbo great-nephew) was chosen to lower the urn containing the ashes of Greta Garbo, into the open grave during her ceremony. She left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece, Gray Reisfield of New Jersey.

I went to revise it, (removing fluff, fixing Swenglish etc.) to this:

She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were interred on June 16, 1999, at Skogskyrkogården Cemetery just south of her native Stockholm. Bishop Caroline Krook presided along with Gray Reisfield of New Jersey, Garbo's niece and only heir. They followed bagpipers in kilts to the grave into which Reisfeld's son Derek Reisfield had been chosen to lower the urn with her ashes. Garbo left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece.

The additional info is unsourced here however (though known to me as fact) and needs a ref. I have none today. If one is found, I suggest my wording is used. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy editor's comments

To whomever reverted the text to the original on August 4 I must say I'm shocked. I spent hours revising and updating it, making corrections, and adding information I think is relevant. I kept much, if not most, of what you wrote. But I also reorganize sections for coherence, and improved prose. I removed few sources and every significant edit I made cited, contrary to what you said. I am a PhD and this has been a significant research project. It is extraordinary that you would delete the [entire page I edited with out any recognition of my achievements in any section whatsoever. I will copy my version back on the site. Please re-read it and edit only what you think will truly improve the entry. Thank you, classicfilmbuff


his article came up in the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog, so I've gone through and fixed English, grammar, punctuation, and some organizational problems. I've also expanded the lead to reflect the content of the article. I've removed some irrelevant content (i.e., the niece's name--the niece is also entitled to some privacy). I have left the chart alone.

I suggest for further work: this article needs many many more citations, and better referencing, especially relating to the questions about her love-life and her various psychological issues. If the article refers to the major depressive diagnosis, but there is no actual diagnosis, then that whole sentence should probably be removed--it's speculative. I've left it in there for now, because I can see there is some active work here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great work you have done on this article! Only on one point do I disagree with you. This should not have been removed:
  • She left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece, Gray Reisfield of New Jersey.
The identity of Garbo's niece has been so well publicized that it would seem ridiculous for WP only to censure her name. I could agree that of New Jersey is unnecessary. Would you please put the niece's name back in so that WP will not be unique in missing it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back, but I still don't think it's necessary, and considering how much else this article needs..... When someone begins working on the sources, don't forget to add the city of a newspaper's publication (for example, Post Gazette should have (Pittsburgh, PA) after it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Early life */ - mother

The sentence "She stated in the book Garbo On Garbo (p. 33) that her relationship with her mother was not strained" (citing a book not mentioned in the Bibliography), in the short section Early Life, appears to me to be standing quite alone and out of context, as nothing else about Garbo's mother is mentioned in the article (although they both look happy on a photo further down in the article). Is it a denial of an alleged strained relationship? Is it reasonable to ask for either more information on the subject or to delete the sentence as less than relevant for the article? MarB4 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT stuff

Is there any particular reason why the article expounds at some lengths about her lesbian affairs but she is included in none of the LGBT categories (Category:Bisexual actors or Category:LGBT people from Sweden, for instance)? I would have just added them myself but I suspect there I might be something else behind this and so thought I had better bring it here for discussion first. Keresaspa (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts seem to be only "so-and-so claims this and so-and-so claims that" - which the article should make clear, nothing else; plus the problems that (1) no one reliable was present when any of the alleged sexual acts or lesbian behavior took place and (2) Garbo herself never acknowledged any such thing. Many people, of course, think it would be nice to be able to categorize her and hundreds of other celebs, but maybe we should only do so with the ones who "come out" themselves or at least have been photographed "doing it"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't it kind of revealing that she often referred to herself as "he" or "the old gentleman" (or whatever that phrase was she used)? Plus the fact that she basically dressed in male drag in her personal life? I mean, what would we think of a bachelor star in dresses who constantly referred to himself as "she" and "the little miss"? Seriously. Codenamemary (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has a reliable/y published source that gives us first hand facts about any lesbian sexual activity or interest of hers, or of Garbo herself having admittied to any such, then that could be included in the article with that source. Speculation and what's "kind of revealing" in the opinion of outsiders should not be included. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It was just an observation. I was more implying that the ground is certainly fertile for searching out quotes in that area. I don't think I've ever read modern sources that don't comment on this aspect of her life. Codenamemary (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned at the bias in this article. The section dealing with her relationships as men takes it all as established fact. But the section dealing with women is peppered with "allegedly", "speculated" etc. This seems to be double standard. Either have all her relationships as speculation or take away the language around women that suggests it's all a nasty rumour. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you there's no bias in this section, which I wrote. The reason I state her relationships with men "as fact" (whereas with women I say "speculate" and "allege," etc.,) is because they were well-documented during her life and after. The one person of either sex who actually said he had a sexual relationship with her of any duration was a man--Cecil Beaton, who wrote about their affair in his memoirs. This is why I have to describe her relationships with men "friendships or romances." Although her relationship with Mercedes de Acosta is assumed by her recent biographers there is no definitive proof of it. This aspect of her life is complex and has been very difficult for her biographers to document. I just don't think it's appropriate write about all the vagaries of her romantic relationships in more than I have. If you're interested in this, you can read her recent biographies by Barry Paris (1994), Karen Swensen (1997), and Mark Vieira (2005) (Also Hugo Vickers) and if you can think of a better way to characterize her sexuality, go for it! I think the "bias" and "objectivity" ratings will go back and forth between 3.0 and 5.0 because of this one damn paragraph! Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Facts that can be reliably sourced and notable speculation (of general interest to readers) that can be reliably sourced = WP material. Nothing else, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After mulling this over, I think I can be more specific about the 4 men in her life whom I mention. The trick is to be short and concise. This thing cannot be any longer than it is because in the end, her sexuality is not important--its her extraordinary cultural and cinematic impact in the 1930s and on. Anon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lenox (1931)

A minor edit war seems to be in motion over the date for the image at the top of the article; the year above is the one IMDb, and other sources give for the movie. While I can find several uses of the photograph linking it to the film, I can find none which do not or suggest the correct date might be 1926 which are unconnected with Wikipedia or are probably mirror sites. (Exploring all avenues it seemed the image file title ought to be checked.) Incidentally, the image does not come up on Google under the other name IMDb gives for the film (The Rise of Helga), but I will assume this is a fluke. Philip Cross (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No background for decision to stop acting?

This article is seriously lacking for not addressing reasons why Garbo decided to stop acting. Obviously, there were interview/books from her and her friends which have quotes about this matter. Why none of this is the article? 95.25.222.70 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]