Talk:Greta Garbo

To be added

I've just listened France Inter, in French (2000 ans d'histoire), about Greta Garbo : (please excuse my approximate quotes and English translations)

- The miracle with Garbo was obvious in the lab when developping the film. She was very photogenic....

- According to partners and directors Garbo did "nothing" on the set or was "acting badly". However in the movie you will only see her...

- She went in conflict with directors that asked her to "act more"....

- She didn't appear in a lot of great movies, but whenever she appeared in a movie she was unforgetabble...

I don't know how to incorporate it in the the article. But I think it would useful to insist on her photogeny and her "minimalism"...

Ericd 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Hello, I worked on the Barry Paris biography of Louise Brooks, and I don't recall that Brooks had an affair with Garbo. I also worked on one of the Garbo books and don't recall it either. Brooks was a lot of talk; she wanted people to think she was bi. According to her letters, she tried it once and didn't enjoy it.

As far as Garbo's lovers, the list on her page is not correct - for instance, she only met Marlene Dietrich once and she was never involved with Claudette Colbert. Peter Viertel says that without question, his mother was never sexually involved with Greta Garbo. However, I understand if it has been published that Wikipedia says it can be left in, but whoever wrote that was not reliable, sorry. And the page has omitted her main lover for many years, Cecile Rothschild. Truthfully, Garbo was gay and not bisexual. She was very fond of Gilbert and he had a beautiful house she could live in. I've always doubted the Beaton story, but Mr. Paris seemed to buy it, so who am I to question it. A fascinating woman, a great screen presence.Chandler75 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual, we have the attempt by homosexuals to attribute their immature behavior to a famous person. This is done without proof or factual evidence of any kind.Lestrade (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Georges Schlee

There is no mention of Garbo's lengthy relationship with Georges Schlee. Anyone want to take a crack at this? Patrick925 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will happily take a crack at the George Schlee relationship with Garbo. My source is the book Garbo by Barry Paris, for which he did extensive interviewing and research (I was his assistant) for many years. Schlee was gay, and Garbo relied on him mainly for business dealings. She hated to buy things in her own name or put her name on anything, so Schlee traveled with her and purchased property, etc., and put it in his own name. (Her estate was $38 million.)

However, this all went awry when Schlee died because Garbo's mortal enemy, Schlee's wife, Valentina, who was resentful of the time Schlee spent with Garbo, got everything he had recently purchased for Garbo, because he died before he could transfer it over to her. So Valentina really had the last laugh.Chandler75 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well....Valentina did die before Garbo so perhaps Garbo had the last laugh??

You are assuming that Valentina's property passed to Garbo upon her (V's) death. 66.108.144.49 00:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Garbo is the last person V would have wanted her property to go to.

Indeed, Garbo was still alive to "have the last laugh".... but I doubt she would have taken any pleasure in that. It was not her fault that V became jealous and resentful of George's devotion which I suspect was more protective than physical. There are other examples in Garbo's life, (Stiller, Gilbert, Schlee etc.)I think they made her feel safe and reminded her of her dad. These are the more intense relationships she had.....with men.

Rewrite needed - wording too POV

This reads like a gushing fangirl summary of her life. Could you make the wording more neutral?

Agreed. Take this for example:

[...] "His last appearance with Garbo, in Queen Christina, was not as bad as some critics have suggested: he suffered from the problem all of Garbo's leading men suffered, which was that she was inevitably stronger and more powerful than they were. [...]

[...] Gilbert, John Barrymore, Fredric March, Robert Taylor, and others ended up like feeble drones worshipping before the queen bee. :[...]

Major POV warning! MatteusH 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these lines, but there is still a lot of POV language to be changed throughout the rest of the article. --DearPrudence 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all above, especially regarding the "Life in hollywood" section. 69.234.109.247 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Name?

In the article there is a dispute as to whether her surname is spelled Gustafsson or Gustafson. I found some clarification from this URL: http://www.beepworld.de/members12/garbofan2/garbo_facts.htm

"When Greta signed a standard player’s contract with Svensk Filmindustri on July, 1923, she changed her last name to Gustafson ( one 's' ).This was the more contemporary spelling of her last name. Like her children, Anna Lovisa would follow Greta’s lead and use the new spelling of her last name too."

Can anyone else verify this? La Bicyclette 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further references - music

There is a reference to Greta Garbo in the song "Circus" by Uriah Heep from their album "Sweet Freedom" released in 1973.

" Dressed up, messed up, walking around - thinking that you're Greta Garbos - I'm sorry, my dear but we only sat down and laughed and laughed in sorrows".

The song is a quiet, acoustic less "heavy" song than many of their usual material —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy livitt (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

To include such a trivial mention of the actress's name indicates the low, base level of contemporary popular culture. It also demeans Wikpedia to refer to it in an article. "Dressed up, messed up, walking around - thinking that you're Greta Garbos - I'm sorry, my dear but we only sat down and laughed and laughed in sorrows" has no apparent value whatsoever. It doesn't even rhyme.Lestrade (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.224.245 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The song Right Before Your Eyes by America. "And then just like Greta Garbo. You staring like there's no tomorrow." Rudolph Valentino gets a nod, too. Macshill (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Last straw

Her role in Ninotchka required that she mimic a prolonged scene of forced, extreme laughter. This loud expression of amusement was so opposite to her true character that she decided to retire from the business. She had a serene and dignified beauty which didn't accord with a wide open, laughing mouth. To satisfy her contract, she made one more film and then retired at the pinnacle of a successful career. After so doing, she was able to live the remainder of her life unmolested and not required to feign laughter that was unnatural to her.Lestrade (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine?

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) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible typo?

Her first job is recorded as being a "lather coy". Wikipedia has no other entry for this phrase. In fact, the only use that Google can find is in biographies of Greta Garbo... Should this be used without explanation?

The OED has an entry under 'lather' as follows: "lather-boy, a boy employed in a barber's shop to lather the chins of customers."

How could she be a lather boy? She is female. I know that Hollywood has an unending fascination with gender-switching, but this is ridiculous.Lestrade (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Lesbian Actor? Changing Category

She almost married a man according to the article, and there's no indication that she didn't love him in this article. Thus she should be changed to a Bisexual Actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.22.16 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia defamation. Where is the proof that she was not heterosexual? Any statements by Garbo herself? Any witnesses? No.Lestrade (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Actually, this topic is covered in numerous biographical works and documentaries. It's been pretty well established that she was at least bisexual if not full-fledged lesbian. I have not checked the article for the veracity of its sources, but I believe Barry Paris' biography of her is one. In terms of witnesses, the books pretty much establish yes to that question. 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty well" established. Typical.Lestrade (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Greta's Car

I'm sure I've heard that Greta Garbos Dussenberg wasw at one time the record holder for the highest amount achieved at auction. Is this true and If so could it be incorperated here?(86.31.188.36 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Userbox Greta Garbo

For me, Greta Garbo is... divine.

If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--Tangopaso (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay man"?

The article on Gayelord Hauser makes no mention of his sexuality. Why, then, is there a parenthetical comment to that effect by his name in this article? --192.115.133.116 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but didn't want to take the time to trip through the history and find out when it was inserted to see if it was together with legitimate edits or not.... Thanks! --192.115.133.116 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mimi Pollak?

Can someone explain why she is no longer mentioned? She is clearly a notable lover, probably the most known. 75.72.213.199 (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm not sure why suddenly people are popping in to change images on this page. The photo that has been used as the main image is very very identifiable as Garbo, the quality of the image is quite good and it reflects a view that offers a clear image of her profile, which has been depicted many times in her films. A photo of her posing in a costume shot wearing a coat doesn't offer a readily identifiable view. The File:Greta Garbo 1924 2.jpg, which was put in tonight, is quite blurry and overly soft-focused and simply does not look a lot like the view of Garbo that is more often associated with her. I would suggest that further changes of the main photo be discussed here prior to making any changes and if necessary, then a request for comments can be opened regarding which images best portray a readily identifiable view for the main photo. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead photo

Most of the Garbo photos now available in Wiki Commons are from the mid-20s, prior to her Hollywood makeover. I would suggest using this as the lead photo at the top of the article. It shows Garbo in her most familiar MGM glamour mode, the image most people have of her from her 1930s films. Best wishes - Markhh (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides it being quite dark and of low contrast, there is that streak across the middle of the image. I'm not sure what that is, but it certainly mars the image. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The best and most normal photo of Garbo so far is File:Greta Garbo in Meyers Blitz-Lexikon 1932.jpg but unfortunally too low average quality. Maybe someone have a better copy. Lidingo SWE (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Was Garbo a religious person? If anyone comes across any sources please add to the article along with links

Apex156 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Relationship

Greggers32, please stop reverting this sentence. There is absolutely no problem with the use of the word "relationship" in regard to the friendship or whatever it was between Garbo and de Costa. Besides one small edit to another article in Nicole Richie, every one of your 161 edits to Wikipedia has been to this article, so that makes you a single purpose account, and that you've worked continuously for 15 months to control the content of this article.

Recently, you've made some rather disturbing edit summaries, which encompass bad faith accusations and include some unsupported claims. "that women experimented with their sexuality in America around 1930 and in the decade before, is historical fact, not simply my opinion", " the editor wants to push her biases about Garbo's lesbianism. de Acosta was notoriously unreliable. yet the editor takes her autobiography as factual", "there is no evidence to support the contention that Garbo was at all gay. to assert otherwise is licentious and libellous". Your opinion does not matter, regarding sexual experimentation in 1930, my biases, de Acosta's reliability or what is or isn't libellous or licentious. The only thing that matters here is sourcing to support content. Because you don't consider de Costa reliable doesn't matter. The burden is upon you to provide reliable sourcing to refute other claims and then it can only be presented as alternative information to another author. There is no definitive "truth" about this subject, only authors/biographers/editors opinion and what can be sourced. Regardless, the use of the word "relationship" is absolutely valid is describing the interaction between two people, regardless of its depth or meaning. Relationship does not imply a sexual component and if you'll look it up in any dictionary, you'll find the relevant definition here would be "A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other." That describes a friendship, sexual interactions, business dealings, whatever. Please stop removing the word and trying to remove any reference to questions regarding Garbo's sexuality. That there are questions is indisputable. Scrubbing the article of any mention of that is unacceptable and has its own bias. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not making any claim about the precise nature of the relationship, and "relationship" is a broad term that is used to describe various types of personal interractions. Even "romance" is pretty banal. Not all romantic attachments are sexual. There seems to an attempt to sanitize something that does not require sanitizing and that does indeed carry its own bias. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lovisa=Louisa

I think the article should mention somewhere that Lovisa is Swedish for Louisa. This is why Garbo's name appears in many places using either form. Another fact missing from the article are the circumstances surrounding the change in her name from Gustafsson to Gustafson. I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to find references and make the edits. David spector (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Was Garbo beautiful?

A recent edit removed the claim in alt text that Garbo was "breathtakingly beautiful", using the edit summary "excuse me, but do not change one page to match your change to the WP page - this should be as neutral as possible". The same editor followed up in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images #Garbo descriptions in ALT text, arguing that phrases like "beautiful" are POV and should therefore should not be in alt text, and went further by removing every statement that Garbo was beautiful from WP:ALT.

For other images the point might be valid, but Garbo is an extreme case. By common consensus she was strikingly beautiful, and this beauty was a central reason for her importance.

In the Greta Garbo article, there is real harm in removing the word "beautiful" from the alt text. A sighted reader who begins to read the article sees Garbo's beauty immediately, just by looking at the lead image. A visually impaired reader won't get it, if the alt text doesn't say it. So it's important for the visually impaired reader that the alt text briefly describes just how beautiful she was. Maybe "breathtakingly beautiful" is not the right phrase, but omitting all mention of her beauty goes too far.

In this context, using the term "POV" to describe the word beautiful misunderstands the intent of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is not about omitting all points of view; it is about representing points of view with regard to external consensus. With Garbo, there's no question about this consensus, and there's no POV justification this objection to calling her "beautiful" in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above reply is yet more proof that this pet project is a means for fostering the individual creativity of some editors, and has very little to do with usefulness. If Garbo's "beauty" is really that acknowledged (and it may well be), this should be covered, with quotes, in the article; so the user who is still in doubt about the beauty of a woman that s/he can't see will be able to pick it up in an encyclopedic context, relying on statements that have the advantage of being attributable and explicit subjective opinions. The above interpretation of NPOV is novel, and indications as to why we should avoid that terminology are explicitly stated in the policy, passim (for instance: "A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is", or, mutatis mutandis, "Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not"). Furthermore, wikipedia has a special guideline that focuses on that type of language. The "no question about this consensus" claim is a parochial and sectarian statement, and misses the point entirely. Dahn (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, no, your argument does not support using "breathtakingly beautiful" in a description. There are a large number of women who could arguably be described as breathtakingly beautiful, but that does not support calling them so in an encyclopedia, nor does that explain in any way why, of all images on Wikipedia, the ones on this page should be described in such a way. Garbo is not an extreme case and your arguments here supporting it are, in fact, POV arguments. Breathtaking beauty is in fact point of view. I clearly posted my issues with your edits on the talk page for ALT text and stand behind my issue with your changing the ALT text on this page to correspond with the changes you put on that page as a means of reference and vice versa. That is the place where this needs to be discussed and it was posted there in order to generate discussion regarding this. Your arguments here simply are POV. Is she extraordinarily beautiful? Maybe so, but that depends on the viewer, not claims that we put in image descriptions. The article here says simply that she "was once designated as the most beautiful woman who ever lived by the Guinness Book of World Records." That explains sufficiently that Garbo was regarded as quite beautiful and it is supported by references. Putting extraordinary claims in a description of an image is an extraordinary act and just is not encyclopedic. I can't say it enough - your argument itself is POV and such wording doesn't belong in ALT descriptions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comments do not dispute that Garbo was beautiful, so surely an acceptable compromise would be to omit the word "breathtaking" (which is not mine, by the way) and simply say "beautiful". Eubulides (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

a) You will find the word "beautiful" listed at WP:PEACOCK. b) This is not a question of disputing that she was beautiful, it's a question of this not being within the scope of this project. It's also a question of the term not being useful or rational in any given description. Dahn (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's both useful and rational, and well within the scope of the encyclopedia, to tell visually impaired readers the gist of Garbo's visual appearance. WP:PEACOCK says that the inclusion of words like beautiful in that list "does not mean they should always be avoided, simply that they must be used appropriately". Because there's no dispute that Garbo was beautiful, it's appropriate for alt text to call her beautiful; this is also as per WP:PEACOCK, which says "common sense and good editorial judgment" should apply. Eubulides (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is POV and inappropriate. The article covers the fact that she was regarded as beautiful, and does so in an appropriate manner, and I'll repeat what I said above. The article says that she "was once designated as the most beautiful woman who ever lived by the Guinness Book of World Records." That explains sufficiently and clearly that Garbo was regarded as quite beautiful and it is supported by references. We've told the visually impaired reader that she was regarded as beautiful in a manner supported by policy and guidelines. It's another thing entirely for Wikipedia to call her beautiful as a matter of unsupported description of an image, which is what you are doing. That is inappropriate peacockry and POV and isn't acceptable. Beyond that, there are always going to be people who would dispute a given person's beauty, and for the sake of argument, I could be one, or Dahn could be one. It's hyperbole in the way you're trying to use it an ALT text insertion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The argument that the lead image of Garbo cannot be called "beautiful" because some editor somewhere might object is absurd. By a similar argument, that image's alt text cannot say that the person depicted is a woman, because some editor might argue that it might be a man in drag, or a wax dummy, or entirely fabricated with Photoshop. One can always come up with theoretical objections like this, to any text anywhere in Wikipedia, that would fly in the face of common sense. But that's now how Wikipedia works: we can't write articles for any reader, no matter how bizarre.
• This amazing pickiness about calling an obviously-beautiful woman "beautiful" stands in sharp contrast to an almost complete lack of concern about the rest of the article. The lead image's caption, for example, claims that the image is that of Garbo, but this claim is not supported by a citation. Nor is the claim that the image was made in 1925 supported. Nor is the claim that that the image was made by Arnold Genthe. Nothing in the rest of the infobox is cited, either. How, for example, are we to verify that Garbo was an actress? or her birth and death dates and locations? or her active years? All of these facts are far more challengeable than the fact that she was beautiful (self-evident from the image), and yet they are not sourced. Why is the obvious "beautiful" so objectionable, but these far-from-obvious details are OK?
• As things stand, the visually impaired reader has to wade through about 1500 words before being told that Garbo was beautiful. This is poor organization. Garbo's beauty should be in the lead sentence of the article: it's one of the most, if not the most, notable thing about her. The only reason the article currently gets away with such a bad textual organization is that its lead image compensates: the sighted viewer immediately sees the gorgeous woman and immediately gets that Garbo's beauty was key, even though the text is silent on the subject. However, the visually impaired reader is left in the dark. That is why alt text is needed.
• An alternative fix to the article is to mention Garbo's beauty in the lead sentence or paragraph. This would remove the need to mention "beautiful" in the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Repetition. This should be done anyway, even for sighted readers, as beauty is so key to Garbo.

Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to support your argument here. You make some valid comments about the composition of the article but a lot of your points are not valid. Nobody is going to dispute that the image is of Garbo, or that she was an actress, or that she was female. They are facts. Beauty is a different concept and is based on taste. That the opinion is widely - or even universally - held, does not make it more than an opinion, and to resist the inclusion of opinion in something that should be brief and neutral, is not "amazing pickiness". A lot of actresses were/are noted for their beauty, especially in the Hollywood of days gone by, when so much emphasis was placed on a certain look, image or style. The article should discuss comments about Garbo as a beautiful woman, among other things that she was notable for, and the the lead should accurately summarize the article, including these points. This allows for discussion of her beauty. It's achievable but it doesn't need to be gushing. Vivien Leigh's "beauty" is briefly mentioned in her lead section, and in more detail in the article. Garbo's article needs a lot of work, and although it is acceptable to mention her beauty, even in the lead, simply adding it without balancing the whole article, is not going to help. I strongly feel that you are missing the point of alt text. The intention is not to convey any more than a general impression of what is contained in the image, and for it to work for the broadest number of people, it needs to be descriptive and neutral. The word "beautiful" means a multitude of different things to sighted people - what on earth does it mean to people without sight? How does it relate specifically to Garbo? The word "beautiful" has been used to describe Greta Garbo but it has also been used to describe a vast number of women from Cleopatra to Tyra Banks and even Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. They could not be more different in appearance or style, so the word "beautiful" has very little usefulness in explaining any of their specific appearances. It could be added to hundreds of thousands of images in hundreds of thousands of articles. A beach is beautiful, a sunset, a butterfly, Greta Garbo, a waterfall, a castle ..... it's ridiculous. Describe the images and keep the text specific, simple, neutral and clear for anyone to understand. The article and the alt text for the images are completely different things. Alt text is not intended to take the place of someone's eyes, or to attempt to convey the image through someone else's eyes, and it is not intended to convey an opinion no matter how widely held. The article can discuss it and provide context and attribution. The alt text should be "the face of a serious young woman, with dark wavy hair, gazing to her left" etc. That's all that is needed. Rossrs (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see #First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording below. Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording

• "First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to support your argument here." That's weird. The wording at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images has not been changed to support my argument on this talk page. What gave the mistaken impression otherwise?
• "You make some valid comments about the composition of the article" Thank you. I would rather that this discussion focus on improving the article. It can certainly use improvements.
• "Nobody is going to dispute that the image is of Garbo, or that she was an actress, or that she was female." I don't see why not. The same sort of hypothetical contrarian who would argue that Garbo was not beautiful could also say something like "You call her an actress??? She wasn't an actress. She was just a cut-out figure they put up on the screen." In theory one can always dispute claims, no matter how straightforward and obvious. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not say that one must cite every claim in Wikipedia; that way lies madness. All it says is that material "likely to be challenged" must be cited. It is not likely that the claim "Garbo was beautiful" will be challenged, any more than it is likely that the claim that she was an actress will be challenged.
• "Beauty is a different concept" No, it's not a different concept. "The sky is blue." is an opinion. "Garbo was beautiful" is also an opinion. Both opinions are obvious and common-sense, and neither require sourcing (at least, not when the reader can see an image of a blue sky, or that strikingly beautiful image of Garbo).
• "although it is acceptable to mention her beauty, even in the lead, simply adding it without balancing the whole article, is not going to help." This makes it sound like you'd oppose a simple edit that would add to the lead the claim that Garbo was strikingly and extraordinarily beautiful (properly sourced, of course). Surely that was not your intent.
• "The intention is not to convey any more than a general impression of what is contained in the image, and for it to work for the broadest number of people, it needs to be descriptive and neutral." Yes, absolutely. We completely agree here.
• "The word "beautiful" means a multitude of different things" So does the word "blue". And the word "woman". And the word "hand". All of these words mean quite different things to different people. But that does not mean that alt text cannot use common words in their ordinary meanings.
• "How does it [the word "beautiful"] relate specifically to Garbo?" Because Garbo was beautiful. It's obvious from the image. It's one of the first words that would occur to any sighted reader who sees the image and is trying to describe it to a visually impaired person. There's no good reason to declare a common word, with a generally agreed upon meaning that clearly applies here, off limits.
• "The word "beautiful" has been used to describe Greta Garbo but it has also been used to describe a vast number of women" The same is true of the word "woman"; that does not mean we can't use the word "woman" in the alt text. More generally, there is no requirement that alt text uniquely identify the image. Such a requirement would be impossible for most images.
• "the word "beautiful" has very little usefulness" It's the best word that has been proposed so far to describe the most striking aspect of File:Greta Garbo 1925 by Genthe-retouched.jpg. You are welcome to propose better wording. But let's not omit all discussion of the gist of the image; that does no service to the visually impaired reader.
• "It [the word "beautiful"] could be added to hundreds of thousands of images in hundreds of thousands of articles." I agree that the word "beautiful" shouldn't be overused. But here a central aspect of the image is female beauty, and omitting that from the alt text is a disservice to the visually impaired reader.
• "Alt text is not intended to take the place of someone's eyes, or to attempt to convey the image through someone else's eyes". No, actually, that's a pretty good way to describe alt text. It is an alternative to the image, i.e., an attempt to substitute for the image, for readers who can't see the image. It certainly is an attempt to convey the image to someone who cannot see it, by someone who can see it.
• "it [alt text] is not intended to convey an opinion no matter how widely held." I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is full of opinions. Wikipedia articles are mostly opinions, and its alt text is almost all opinion. But there's nothing wrong with opinion, even uncited opinion, as long as it is not likely to be challenged.
• "The alt text should be 'the face of a serious young woman, with dark wavy hair, gazing to her left' etc." I don't see how this is any better: it is just as vulnerable to an attack by an unreasonably contrarian reader. That proposed alt text contains several opinions: that Garbo is "serious", that she is "young", that her hair is "dark", that it is "wavy", that she is "gazing". All of those claims are just as controversial as the claim that she is "beautiful". (Which is to say, of course, that they're not controversial at all.)
• "Garbo's article needs a lot of work" Agreed. I suggest more focus on that, rather than on this amazingly picky discussion. With the amount of time we have wasted on this we could have produced a pretty good article.

Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're bordering on insulting here

(outdent) You're bordering on insulting here, Eubulides, and your bias for Garbo is showing. The fact that some people may not agree with your particular point of view, as an editor of an encyclopedia, is a fundamental reason for only including verifiable and supportable facts. Your citation examples are all things that are verifiable, your opinion about beauty is not. Regarding the photo itself, the page for the image contains all that is needed to know to support anything about the actual photo. It indicates its source, who took it, when it was taken, the subject. Directly from the US Library of Congress, from where the image comes. Birthdates and places, death dates and places, career statistics, occupation are all verifiable. A reference exists for her birthdate, her films themselves are sources for her career length and work, facts that aren't cited can be cited. Beauty is not a fact, beauty is a construct, both personal and social. It comes back to policy and guidelines, including WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK. Your opinion that the most important fact about Greta Garbo is that she was beautiful has absolutely nothing to do with what made her notable. Her acting career made her notable. I have posted a request for other comments at WT:ACTOR regarding your contention about the ALT text. And while you're online, please read WP:LEAD. Mentioning that Eubulides thinks the most important thing regarding Garbo is her beauty isn't something for the lead sentence. It's not encyclopedic, and all of your hyperbole and outrageous claims about direct facts being more doubtful than an opinion about her beauty have little meaning in the face of verifiability. This is about what is verifiable from a neutral point of view. Your point of view is not neutral, and thus your stress on describing a photo as "breathtakingly beautiful" is not neutral either. There are images of scores of beautiful women, and handsome men, on Wikipedia but aren't described as such in neutral, balanced descriptions of images. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "You're bordering on insulting here, Eubulides," I'm sorry if any insults were conveyed; such was certainly not my intent. If you can specifically identify the words that were insulting I'll happily strike them.
• "your bias for Garbo is showing" I don't detect any signs of bias for Garbo in my comments or in my edits to the article. Rather than make accusations of bias, let's keep the topic focused on the article, shall we?
• "Your citation examples are all things that are verifiable ... facts that aren't cited can be cited" I don't agree that the citations examples are facts; some of them are clearly opinions as well. But in the mean time these facts (or opinions) are not verified, and this obviously runs afoul of a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Why not fix the obvious violations and cite the claims?
• "the page for the image contains all that is needed to know to support anything about the actual photo." I'm not talking about the photo; I'm talking about the text in the photo's caption. It's common practice to cite any claim in a caption that is likely to be challenged, even if there's some other page in Wikipedia that could support the claim. Articles are supposed to be self-contained with respect to citations; they shouldn't rely on citations in some other page.
• "A reference exists for her birthdate" True. Does this mean that it's OK to include a claim in the infobox if there's a reference somewhere else in the article that supports the claim? If so, then why doesn't this principle apply to Garbo's beauty? The article already has a citation supporting the claim that she was extremely beautiful, somewhere else in the text.
• "her films themselves are sources for her career length" No they're not. Without seeing reliable sources, it's quite possible that her career extended longer than her films' publication dates (and that she acted in, say, films that were not released, or on stage, or whatever), or that a later film was released after her acting career was over. Certainly her career length is far more challengeable than her beauty, even if the article listed all her films (which it does not, nor does it claim to).
• "beauty is a construct, both personal and social" So is acting. So is being female. They are all social constructs; but this does not mean that they cannot be mentioned in alt text.
• "your stress on describing a photo as 'breathtakingly beautiful'" To repeat: those weren't my words. I just imported them here from WP:ALT, where they were made by a different editor. I am perfectly willing to rephrase the words. But it seems pretty weeeird to have an article about Garbo that downplays her beauty, which is what we have now.
• "Mentioning that Eubulides thinks the most important thing regarding Garbo is her beauty isn't something for the lead sentence." It's entirely appropriate to advocate changes to the lead in the talk page. It is inappropriate to personalize the discussion. Please try to keep the topic focused on improving the article.

Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently had an image I added to this article - of Greta Garbo's Place in Stockholm, Sweden - removed because there is no mention of any such thing in the article. I had to concede, when I thought about it, that that was indeed an appropriate edit. Eubulides! Some people actually do sincerely think Garbo was ugly. Beautiful really is not an encyclopedic word. You won't find it in any encyclopedia about anyone except referred to as an opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's let the pictures speak for themselves and let each beholder behold whatever he or she can get when beholding them. Your point will thus be made and you can relax about this one. Keep up all that good work you do here! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Some people actually do sincerely think Garbo was ugly." Really? I'm sincerely skeptical. Who thinks the image in question is of an ugly woman?
• "You won't find it in any encyclopedia about anyone except referred to as an opinion." Sure you will. A Britannica entry for Mary Astor calls her "an extraordinarily beautiful and versatile actress", for example. This was with a quick web search; I'm sure we can find more examples. Broadening the search a bit, a Compton's entry for Garbo begins 'Her haunting beauty and need for privacy (“I want to be let alone”) made a legend of the enigmatic Garbo' which is a far better lead sentence than what's in the Greta Garbo article right now. One more: Britannica's main entry for Garbo begins "one of the most glamorous and popular motion-picture stars of the 1920s and ’30s who is best known for her portrayals of strong-willed heroines, most of them as compellingly enigmatic as Garbo herself"; this also is a much better lead than ours. "Glamorous" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "beautiful", as is "allure", "luminous", and other similar phrases in Britannica (none of these are attributed as opinion there).
• "Let's let the pictures speak for themselves" But the whole point of this thread is pictures cannot speak for themselves to a blind person. The alt text is a substitute for the picture that a blind reader can hear (by using a screen reader). If the picture "speaks for itself" to sighted readers, that "speech" needs to be transcribed into alt text for the benefit of visually impaired readers.

Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. Using words like "beautiful" to describe someone in ALT text is point of view and extraneous. I fail to see how it can be common sense since, as SergeWoodzing notes, the concept of beauty varies from one person to another. Personally, I don't find Garbo all that beautiful and I would challenge the idea that no one thinks otherwise. She's pretty enough, but that's true of most actresses. The image in question could also be described as appearing staged for effect, one could describe her neck as exceedingly and oddly long. There is a huge difference between describing someone as a woman, a word that has a specific definition, and describing someone as a beautiful woman, because there is no single definition that is agreed upon on a global basis. This is really one of the most pointless debates I've ever seen - you cannot verify the claim that is being made that no one would dispute Garbo's beauty. You're simply wrong when you say that most aspects about - factual ones like birthplace, death, the number of films she made, etc., - can be disputed. That is precisely what reliable sources are for - to support statements of fact. WP:FILM has said multiple times that the film products are sources themselves, and there are hundreds of sources to support them. I'm mystified that one person finds this debatable, when everyone else agrees. To keep debating this when five or more people have all agreed is completely time wasting for everyone involved. LaVidaLoca (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Eubulides: No one who would ever dare publish that opinion, but several people I know who have watched all her films many many times and may be very jaded - they do not think she was beautiful overall, though many of her photographs undoubtedly would be called nothing else by most everyone - even breathtaking and drop-dead... for sure! One of her close friends, who wrote a book about her and whom I knew, did not think she was particularly beautiful either. The blind seem to have what they need to know about her beauty in the text (or am I wrong?). As far as the word being encyclopedic, I apologize for erring about the existence of such entries, but will not give up my opinion that it is not for any encyclopedia to say who is beautiful or not beautiful. Pictures and sourced opinions must suffice in that regard. And glamorous and beautiful are not synonymous, I think. Glamor is quite often repulsive, beauty is quite often void of glamor. I am starting to hurt for you, because you obviously mean well with all this. Can't you take a break from this now? Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Eubulides, but I have to agree with others here. Describing Garbo as beautiful in the alt text is not in keeping with the spirit of alt and seems to fail several points of the guideline: it is not verifiable by anyone looking only at the image (as beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and yes, I would dare published the opinion that I do not believe she is "breathtakingly beautiful" or even beautiful, mearly pretty), and alt clearly notes "use neutral wording when describing people's appearance." Beautiful, pretty, etc are not neutral words, but words of praise. Following the guidelines of alt, the wording given "Head and shoulders profile of a young woman with a "haunted" expression, one hand raised to just touch the base of her throat" seems like the best choice, and if desired a sourced statement that she is beautiful can be added to the caption of a non-infobox image. But it should not be in any of the alt text. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks all for contributing to the discussion. The consensus is clear here, even if I don't agree with it, so I added advice to WP:ALT to avoid peacock terms such as "beautiful" in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I thought Garbo was interesting, but I never would call her "breathtakingly beautiful." I think all adjectives should be excluded from alt descriptions, because 99.9% of the time adjectives are based on POV. "She is looking to the right" is fine. "She is looking to the right with a demure (or seductive or overjoyed or lusty, etc.) expression" isn't. MovieMadness (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)