Talk:Elizabeth Taylor

Template:Findnotice

"violet" eyes

this article still needs to be in line with POV and there in no such eye colour as violet but a nicer sounding colour for blue eyes that have a nice deep tone no one has ever seen violet eyes on anyone else but no unphotoshop pictures of elizabeth either her diamond colletion and husbands was as famous her eyes

American

Elizabeth Taylor was actually an American actress who was born in London. Since both her parents were American it is wrong to describe her as British or English. I remember this was controversial when she received a DBE. (HantersSpade (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

She still had a British passport as she had never given up her British citizenship, she said so herself in an interview given after the DBE. Dollvalley (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Under "Nationality" Taylor is described as "English-American." What is this? English is not a nationality. This should be "British-American." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.185.117.39 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

She was an American who just happened to be born in Britain. Many people felt she should not have received a Damehood since he wasn't really British at all. (HantersSpade (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

I read she was born in Tehran, Iran.70.176.118.196 (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're all wrong except for Dollvalley. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

mostly amercian but she would have been give a dame title other wise maybe she kept her title for that reason just cause she was born here doesn't make her "ours" though audery hepburn was more british than she was but wasn't born here so some how does count — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of images

Dos mine eyes deceive me, or are there a tad few too many images in this article? Many of which are screen shots from her movies. I know that she was quite stunning to look at, but really. I mean really?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft for expanded lead

With a large biography as this is, it's probably difficult for many readers to get the gist of her career. The lead seems too short, IMO, and I assume that most visitors won't take the time to read the detailed body sections. So I took a few minutes to expand the lead and post it here for thoughts and edits. If there is an eventual consensus, we can post it. So feel free to comment and edit for clarity. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Dame Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, DBE (February 27, 1932– March 23, 2011), often referred to as Liz Taylor, was an English-born American actress. She gained early fame as a child star when she was 10, becoming an integral part of MGM's stable of young stars, along with Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland and Margaret O'Brien. When she was 12, she won the hearts of film audiences worldwide in National Velvet (1944), alongside Rooney. By the time she was 30, she had become a movie icon, recognized not only as a talented and award-winning film star, but also for having a glamorous lifestyle and extraordinary beauty, exemplified in part by her stunning violet eyes.

Among her more than 50 films, were other classics such as the family comedy Father of the Bride, (1950) with Spencer Tracy, A Place in the Sun (1951) with Montgomery Clift, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), opposite Paul Newman, Oscar-winning BUtterfield 8 (1960), with Laurence Harvey, and her 2nd Oscar winning film Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), co-starring husband Richard Burton. In 1963 she starred in Cleopatra, also with Richard Burton, which is considered the most expensive movie ever made (after inflation.) She did more of her finest work with other leading actors, including James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Rock Hudson.

Her much publicized private life included eight marriages, several life-threatening illnesses, and decades spent as a social activist championing the cause of AIDS research, for which she received numerous international awards, including recognition from Queen Elizabeth II who made her a Dame, the female equivalent of a knight. She also engaged in many other philanthropic activities. After she died of congestive heart failure on March 23, 2011, at the age of 79, singer and close friend Elton John said, "We have just lost a Hollywood giant. More importantly, we have lost an incredible human being."

A two-time winner of the Academy Award for Best Actress, Taylor is considered one of the great screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age. The American Film Institute named her seventh on its Female Legends list, and in 1993 awarded her an AFI Life Achievement Award --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Elton John and the quote from him shouldn't be in the lead. If any quotes should be in the lead (and I don't think they should), then they should be from her children or her co-stars. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be expanded - for GA/FA we try for 3-4 paragraphs that summarize the article, and I think this piece could be considered for GA soon. I'll take a closer look at it, but wanted to jump in to say although I want to consider whether we should include quotes in the lead, if we do include a quote, it seems arbitrary for someone to dictate from whom. If her children or co-stars have "better" quotes, then we'd use them - if her close friend Elton John's is most evocative, we'd use that one. Why say upfront from whom they "should" be? Tvoz/talk 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not dictating; I have no more say than any other editor. I am giving my opinion on the lead, as opinions on it were asked for. Quotes are not usually in the lead of Wikipedia biographies. I don't think the quote from John should be in the lead, as it is not neutral, it is merely praise and doesn't add anything useful. When a famous person dies, many people give standard tributes, of which this is merely one; why have his quote there? It doesn't say anything that hundreds of others haven't said about her. For someone whose primary notability is acting, it would make more sense to me for a quote to be from a co-star, though I don't see why a quote should be in the lead at all. The article makes it clear that she was very popular, famous, successful etc. That can be done in a neutral way, without a stock quote from someone she never acted with. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry Paul, "dictate" was an unfortunate choice of word on my part. As I said, I had not yet taken a close look, and now I have, and I do agree that the quote is out of place in the lead, based on our usual (but not across the board) practice. As to whether Elton John's comment is standard or stock, however, I disagree - they reportedly had a close relationship derived from the same humanitarian work that Bill Clinton extols in our article, but admittedly as Ross points out John's comment was speaking more to the emotion of her death which shouldn't be our emphasis. Tvoz/talk 21:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just tightened the summary after Wikiwatcher put it into the article. My explanations for the changes follow.

• "often referred to as" is one of the ways pen names or stage names are handled. "Liz" is an accepted short version of "Elizabeth", so can be inserted with quotes into the full name.
• Avoid metaphors! "stable", "won the hearts", and "championing" are examples of this. For that matter...
• Why mention Margaret O'Brien or Judy Garland at all? A summary is not supposed to contain anything isn't in the body. O'Brien doesn't appear in the rest of the article, and Garland is only mentioned once as a fellow child actor, not as a fellow MGM actor.
• "more of her finest work" is just an excuse to mention other actors Taylor worked with. Either mention their films with Taylor as others are listed, or don't mention them at all.
• No need to explain what a Dame is equivalent to.
• The Elton John quote is, as Paul Smith said, absolutey meaningless; clear WP:PEACOCK. For that matter, John isn't mentioned in the article either. Ylee (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ylee's comments above. The lead must comply with WP:LEAD and it must be a summary of the article - everything in the lead must be drawn from the article. We don't need an evocative quote lamenting her death. Elton John's comments resonate now but it seems to me that it's focussing on the emotion of her death because it's recent. I don't think it's the job of an encyclopedia to try to convey a sense of loss in recording the death of a notable person. We need to be more dispassionate. The lead should focus very strongly on Taylor, and if someone has a major connection to her, and is discussed in the article, they could be included. Garland, O'Brien, even Rooney don't require a mention. I think there's a fine line between describing her and exalting her, and I think some of the words chosen result more in the latter. I think we should adopt more of a "matter of fact" tone. Should we say "extraordinary beauty" when "beauty" alone is sufficient? Or "stunning violet eyes" rather than "violet eyes"? "Finest work" is an opinion, but not one that's universally held among critics. Not all agree that acting ability was her greatest attribute, so we need to be careful in our own description of her abilities. I don't think it's necessary to mention Queen Elizabeth - this looks like name-dropping. It's enough to say Taylor was made a Dame. What that actually means, and how it is bestowed is superfluous here. I don't mean to be as critical of the suggested lead, as I probably seem to be. I think the structure and the basic information are good. I wonder if it would help to go through the lead sections of some other media related biographical featured articles's and see how it compares. Rossrs (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also - "By the age of 30 she had become a movie icon". I think "icon" is an over-used word, but probably more applicable to Taylor than to most people who are given a similar tag. The problem with this phrase in the lead, is that the same is not reflected in the article. Reading through the article it's clear that she was successful, highly regarded, highly paid etc, but "icon" conveys a stronger meaning than the article text does. Rossrs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm OK with "icon"; I think the article supports that. Admittedly that's a subjective view, but then so is trying to decide whether someone deserves the title or not.

I'm also OK with "stunning"—the article has a cite for that very adjective—but agree that "extraordinary" is unneeded. I also agree removing Rooney; I only kept it when editing to be consistent with the way other films are discussed, but on second thought, why mention other actors at all? The one exception is Burton, who was 1) her husband for the longest time and 2) her most frequent costar. I'll make these changes.

Mentioning the Queen is indeed namedropping, which is why I removed it. And why should a British honor be highlighted more than an American or a French one for an American actress? Ylee (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edited again as per above. I changed "movie icon" to "perhaps most famous film star in the world" as that's based on the article; removed "extraordinary"; and removed her costars' names except Burton. Ylee (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks much better, and it's certainly worth the effort to get it right. I'm still not sure about "stunning". I couldn't find a direct quote in the article. Were you referring to: "Even her beautiful eyes—they were a deep blue that appeared violet and stunned those who met her in person"? If so, our article is taking liberties with the source material, which doesn't say "stunning", although the opinion expressed is rhapsodic. It would have been simpler if he called her a goddess and been done with it. ("what should abruptly stop me in my tracks but a pair of eyes unlike any I've ever beheld, before or since; deep violet eyes of a sort withheld from ordinary mortals that were suddenly looking up at mine from mere inches away" - by the way, this sounds great in my head if I imagine Richard Burton speaking these words, but it wasn't him of course.) This also highlights a discrepancy - we can't really say her eyes were violet in one part of the article, and in another say they were blue, although that's easily fixed. Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote, yes. While I'm not wedded to "stunning", and agree that WP:PEACOCK words are to be avoided, I think "stunning" is an appropriate way to describe the writer's reaction to Taylor's eyes; by all accounts he wasn't the only person to react that way. The summary isn't the place to discuss the details of Taylor's eye color; calling them "violet" there and explaining how they were really dark blue in the body is not inaccurate, given that they were universally seen as violet. Ylee (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ylee on 2 counts: "Stunning" is used appropriately for her eyes simply because the term was widely if not universally used to describe them. While "violet" is sufficient for the summary, leaving the details for the body of the article. If you would like the two terms attributed, I'm sure that can be easily accommodated. I did a quick Google search of "Elizabeth Taylor" & "Stunning eyes" and got over 2000 hits. Likewise I Googled "Elizabeth Taylor" & "violet eyes" and got 471,000 hits! Sufficient to provide attribution and avoid WP:PEA? I believe so. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes I agree. That's basically my feeling - "violet is sufficient for the summary, leaving the details for the body of the article". In the body of the article, we can provide context, we can attribute and we can support it with a quote or quotes if we choose. In the body, we can do more in discussing her eyes. We are more limited in the lead. If we carry the word "stunning" -or any adjective - into the summary, it becomes our word and our assessment, given without context or attribution. We should avoid that in the lead, because the lead should be written in such a way that it can stand alone. In the body, I think it could be expanded somewhat, given that her eyes were considered unique. Rossrs (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, both terms: "violet" and "stunning" are attributable. So neither needs to become "our" word. If you feel strongly that either or both needs to be attributed, I'm sure we can easily accommodate that as a fair resolution. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems that despite what appears to be consensus, "stunning" was removed. Rather than reverting, I simply inserted the word "unusual" - which is neither an opinion or a peacock word - but simply a non-editorializing statement of fact. Comments? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word to preempt this debate, but will restore it; my earlier comments on its worthiness stand. Ylee (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is not about attribution alone. Attribution is quite an easy thing to achieve. I'm not questioning that the word "stunning" has been used to describe her eye colour. Of course it has. We could choose any of various words that have been used in the media, by biographers, journalists or commentators, and attribute our chosen word accordingly. We could easily attribute "mesmerising" or "entrancing" or "bewitching" if we wished to. That wouldn't make it right though. I thought, when you said "violet is sufficient for the summary", we were in agreement on that point. The consensus you refer to below, I also thought existed, but after saying that, you disagreed with Ylee's removal of the word. I'm confused now. Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems that despite what appears to be consensus, "stunning" was removed. Rather than reverting, I simply inserted the word "unusual" - which is neither an opinion or a peacock word - but simply a non-editorializing statement of fact. Comments? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word to preempt this debate, but will restore it; my earlier comments on its worthiness stand. Ylee (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead does not need an adjective to describe Taylor's eyes, other than to state their colour. The colour in itself is unusual, and as much a part of her look as the blue eyes of either Paul Newman or Frank Sinatra were a part of theirs. It's notable enough to mention, but to use the word "stunning" is to synthesise and cherry-pick from a possible selection of quotes. Of all the possible adjectives, you the editor, are choosing one, to elaborate on the fact of her eye colour, and it doesn't really add anything significant, because the primary point is that her eyes were "violet" not that her eyes were "stunning". This isn't appropriate in the lead because there is no context and no attribution. It's the sort of language that news/entertainment media, biographers etc might use, but their purpose is different to ours, and I think we should be aiming a little higher than them in terms of neutrality and accuracy. I think you've done a great job in improving the article overall, so I'm not going to keep on about one word, although one word can be important and worth discussion. I too will let my comments stand, but on what I consider to the word's unworthiness, and see if other editors choose to comment. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AIDS work

X4n6 and I are having a minor dispute over how to describe Taylor's work for AIDS-related causes in the summary. I prefer "AIDS advocate"; he prefers "AIDS awareness, research and cure", and claims that my wording implies that she was an "advocate for AIDS". That's ridiculous; is a doctor who is a "cancer specialist" someone who is an expert in causing cancer in people's bodies? How many AIDS advocates only support AIDS awareness and not research, or vice versa? (And how does one research AIDS without seeking a cure for it?) Bottom line: X4n6's wording is redundant and, in any case, too long for the summary when the perfectly serviceable and accurate "AIDS advocate" is available. Ylee (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post says "Elizabeth Taylor was as well known for her AIDS advocacy as she was for her acting." I agree with you. They're not saying she advocated AIDS. I read an extract from an interview recently in which Taylor said she'd had two careers. One was acting, but the other was her work with HIV/AIDS causes. Given her profile in that area, would it be possible to split that sentence, and have one sentence to address her work in that sphere, that you both could agree on? Something like "Taylor's much publicized personal life included eight marriages and several life-threatening illnesses. From the mid-1980s she .....HIV/AIDS etc etc " I think X4n6's edit made the sentence look long and wordy, but I think that was partly because the sentence was trying to address too many points. In two sentences I think it would give her work with HIV/AIDS more weight and more legitimacy. Joined into one sentence it reads like part of the "drama" that surrounded her, especially when preceded by "much publicized" - her marriages, her illnesses and her AIDS advocacy. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that "advocate for AIDS research" implies everything else, and is good enough in a summary.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ylee, I not only disagree with your edit, but I disagree with your mischaracterization of my objection. I invited you to define "AIDS advocate", which is something you have still failed to do. Bottomline: The phrase is vague. Plain and simple. Let's use your own example: Perhaps you can offer a definition for a "cancer advocate"? With specificity, exactly what does that say? Very little if anything at all. Are you a researcher? Fundraiser? Hospice worker? Grant writer? Speech maker? Are we told by that phrase if you are any or something else entirely? No. We are really told nothing more than a vague platitude. By contrast, the Taylor-cofounded AmfaR's website describes their mission thusly:

"amfAR is one of the world's leading nonprofit organizations dedicated to the support of AIDS research, HIV prevention, treatment education, and the advocacy of evidence-based HIV/AIDS public policies."

http://amfar.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=advocate

But Ylee would truncate that to "AIDS advocacy", then argue it essentially says the same thing. I couldn't disagree more.

Taylor's own Foundation explains their mission statement as follows:

"The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation (ETAF) was established by Elizabeth Taylor in 1991 to raise funds and awareness to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to provide assistance for those living with the virus. With its focus on direct care and prevention education, ETAF provides funding to AIDS organizations throughout the world, providing support services to populations in need.

Through Miss Taylor’s fundraising activities, specially-hosted events and public appearances, ETAF receives contributions which are disbursed to service organizations and entities involved in the fight against AIDS. Each recipient foundation is researched by ETAF and personally reviewed by Miss Taylor.

Through The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, Miss Taylor (1) supports organizations delivering direct care and services to people living with HIV/AIDS, and (2) supports organizations that provide education to the public regarding the AIDS virus and the prevention of AIDS. ETAF provides financial support for organizations and entities both within the United States and internationally.

ETAF supports existing organizations and entities that have exhibited integrity in managing their operations along with the knowledge and ability to expediently provide services or achieve other designated goals.

Miss Taylor’s AIDS fundraising and advocacy efforts have served to raise much-needed funds and awareness of the pandemic. It is her deepest wish to eradicate AIDS and to this end, the Foundation operates at zero overhead cost. Miss Taylor personally underwrites all costs for raising and administering the Foundation’s funds, allowing 100% of all donations received to be put to work serving people with HIV/AIDS."

http://www.elizabethtayloraidsfoundation.org/our-mission

But again, Ylee reduces that to "AIDS advocacy" and argues that it's essentially the same thing? Again, I couldn't disagree more. And in the end, what are we debating? Three words? "advocate for AIDS awareness, research and cure" vs. "AIDS advocate". Because those three words are, to quote Ylee: "two long for the summary". Hardly. As I said when I restored the offending description, surely we can agree despite our zeal for word economy, not to sacrifice meaning at the altar of brevity. It's just three words. The Earth will not topple from it's axis and the article will not be rendered unreadable. To the contrary, clarity will be given - in the summary - to an extremely significant, undeniable component of Taylor's later life. She herself called it her life's work. So to whittle something that important down to two words for no apparent reason beyond caprice, diminishes it, and in my view, diminishes the summary itself. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rossrs, I liked your suggestion. If we could agree that two sentences addresses everyone's concerns rather than trying to squeeze everything into one sentence - esp. given Wikiwatcher's offering that we expand the summary, not shrink it, I think that would solve the problem. Good idea! Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks X4n6. I've been working on a suggested lead, after considering Wikiwatcher's comments below. I'll add that, as well as my thought processes there. I'm almost done. Give me a few more minutes...... Rossrs (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Another possible source

Tvoz - I offer this obituary by art critic David Walsh for your consideration:

Elizabeth Taylor and the melodrama of American life in the 1950s and 1960s

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/tayl-m31.shtml 36hourblock (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting piece - thanks. Maybe someone will find something here to use. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead suggestions

The 3 paragraphs in the current lead seem a bit too random in the subjects discussed, now that it's been trimmed. I'd reverse the positions of the National Velvet sentence in paragraph 1 with the "Taylor is considered. . ." sentence. I'd keep paragraph 3 consistent by including her personal life and awards together there.

However, in general for someone like Taylor, 4 paragraphs might be helpful, for instance: para 1: general life/career phrasing; para 2: films, with some mention of her acting skills & style; para 3 would focus on her personal life; para 4 summarize awards & date of death.

On a petty subject, since it's become a focal point in the 1st paragraph, I personally don't like the word "including," and hope we can find a more pleasing term when referring to her eyes. The word I included before seemed ok, but so did including some co-stars, etc. , which don't really need to be included. But if we do include the word "stunning," then including another word might be a better conclusion. But I'm only including my own opinions here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's important that the lead cover important points with appropriate emphasis and balance, and considering Taylor's impact and degree of notability, I agree that 4 paragraphs would be acceptable. I think the structure you suggest would work too, but I would tweak it a bit as follows. 1. General summary and identification. 2. Career/films. 3. Personal life and non-acting work. 4. Awards, death, career legacy. That could work, I think. Looking at some featured articles Anna May Wong has 6 paragraphs, which I think is about 2 too many, but the structure is great. Judy Garland 5, but could be 4. Bette Davis, only 3 - another one to go through her career would be good. Vivien Leigh, 3 and too brief. Angelina Jolie, Kirsten Dunst, Reese Witherspoon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Brad Pitt have 3 each, which seems ok as they're still living, and still working. Jake Gyllenhaal, Eric Bana only 2 paragraphs each, and too brief. I guess the thing is that there is no actual right or wrong number of paragraphs, within reason, but the lead sections of these articles all follow a similar pattern/structure. Rossrs (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All good points. The fact that you mentioned "legacy" is interesting, since we could consider creating a "legacy" section.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for the lead. I will also give my reasons for the various changes I suggest, at the end.

Dame Elizabeth Rosemond "Liz" Taylor, DBE (February 27, 1932– March 23, 2011) was an English-born American actress. Beginning her career as a child star with MGM, she became one of the most notable screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age, appearing in more than 50 films. During the 1960s she was possibly the most famous film star in the world, recognized for her successful acting career and for her glamorous lifestyle, beauty, and violet eyes.

After playing a few minor roles, Taylor achieved her first significant success at the age of 12, in National Velvet (1944). For the remainder of the decade she played adolescent roles, and during the 1950s was the leading lady in such films as Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1986), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her work in BUtterfield 8 (1960), and ended her association with MGM. She played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and later married her co-star Richard Burton. Taylor and Burton appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award. Taylor continued to play leading roles in films into the 1970s, but as her box-office drawing power diminished, she began to appear more frequently in television, and played her first Broadway and West End roles in The Little Foxes (1982) and Private Lives (1983). Her final performance was in the TV movie, These Old Broads (2001)

Taylor's much publicized personal life included eight marriages and several life-threatening illnesses. From the mid 1980s she was an advocate for HIV and AIDS awareness, research and cure and supported related projects and charities. She co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation in 1993.

Taylor was named a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. She received the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Legion of Honour and the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. The American Film Institute named Taylor seventh on its Female Legends list, and awarded her an AFI Life Achievement Award. After several years of declining health, Taylor died of congestive heart failure at the age of 79.

Para 1 : General summary. I think this is right place to say she was in 50 films. I've removed "award winning". I don't think she was especially recognised for her awards, rather the awards were a form of recognition. I've removed "stunning" and I've stated my reasons elsewhere. I fully expect disagreement on that point, and that's fine. I understand that Wikipedia will not implode if it uses a word I disagree with.

Para 2: Previously we discussed her career in detail up to the end of the 1950s, and then vaguely to the end of the 1960s, and then not at all. It's important as part of a summary to address her entire career, with appropriate emphasis. During the 1950s and 1960s she was a major actress in cinema, but her career continued beyond that. TV and theatre deserve a brief mention to round it out and make it complete. Her extensive work with Burton is also noteworthy.

Para 3: Hollywood is full of people who call themselves advocates for AIDS awareness - now, but before Taylor there was nobody. Taylor was the first to really put herself out there and unlike some others, she remained fully committed and had more of an impact than anyone else I can think of. I think it's right to split it into its own sentence, but that sentence must have more depth than it was previously given, especially considering that the awards she received later in life were as much for her humanitarian work as for her acting work. I can appreciate X4n6's viewpoint on this subject.

Para 4: I've grouped the major awards into one sentence, but have not dated them. I don't know that it's necessary to use dates here. Each form of recognition is for something larger than one film, so .... I think dating the films in paragraph 2 is right, in order to place them into her timeline. It's enough to know that these awards all represent her life's work, therefore the date each was awarded isn't vital for the lead. Her death looks tacked on to the end. I've tried to mitigate that by saying she had years of ill health, so it doesn't appear like a bolt out of the blue, but it's still somewhat awkward. Perhaps at some point, paragraphs 3 and 4 could be merged, and a new para 4 could discuss her death and legacy. Maybe or maybe not. In any case, it doesn't have to occur now. Anyway, please comment. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with the slightly expanded discussion of her AIDS-related work. The second paragraph is still too long. A summmary for an actor should highlight the most important works, not cover one's entire body of work. In this case, it should not mention her pre-Velvet roles (they're minor for a reason), how long she played teenage roles (a child star who transitions into adulthood starts playing adults at some point; that's common sense), when Taylor left MGM (it was important to her, but not to others), or her lesser, post-1970 films and plays (it is understood that all actors, even the greatest, have periods of time when they do vehicles that are less important than their primary body of work; both Fred Astaire and Jimmy Stewart did TV movies in the 1970s and, no, neither article's summary mentions them). "Drawing power" is an undesirable metaphor. I like mentioning Cleopatra in the context of her marrying Burton (as opposed to the previous vein of it being the most expensive film in history) and that they did 11 films together. So, something like this:

Taylor became a star at the age of 12, in National Velvet (1944), and starred in Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for BUtterfield 8 (1960), played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and married her co-star Richard Burton. They appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award.

There's also no need to mention "declining health"; most people who die at 79 are in decline before their deaths, no matter what the immediate cause. Ylee (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That does look better. I agree with you about the early minor roles, the adolescent roles, and her leaving MGM. We don't need them. I half agree with you about her later roles. I think to summarise the article effectively there should be some mention that she didn't just stop in 1966, but it does not need to be covered in the detail that I gave it. It's important to record that she had a long career, but you rightly point out that it's too much detail, so that part of her career can be referred to without the specifics. Jimmy Stewart's lead is fairly comprehensive, but it discusses his overall impact rather than specifics of his career. It's a fair lead, but it's approaching from a different angle. Fred Astaire's lead is quite poor. It does not comply with WP:LEAD as it does not offer a summary of the article. The first paragraph is a good introduction, but the second is about his influence, and is more of a list of names. What's missing is a middle paragraph that summarises his career, which is what the bulk of his article discusses. "Box office drawing power" comes directly from the article. True, it's not essential in the lead, again it can be assumed that even the most popular of stars will eventually fade in popularity, but if it's an undesirable term in the lead, it's also undesirable in the article body. Maybe that can be reworded there some time. Using "star" and "starred" in the same sentence is a little awkward. I mentioned her declining health because it was widely reported. From the time of her brain tumour until her death, all media reports seemed to mention her physical state, but it's not essential. This is what I would suggest :

Taylor achieved success at the age of 12, in National Velvet (1944), and starred in Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for BUtterfield 8 (1960), played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and married her co-star Richard Burton. They appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award. From the mid 1970s, she appeared less frequently in film, and made occasional appearances in television and theatre. Rossrs (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rossr's reference to Taylor being "the first to really put herself out there" is important and worth adding to the AIDS mention in the lead. But think the Dame mention is too long. In paragraph 1, use of the word "possibly" is not good form. I would simply rephrase to a safe zone, "one of the world's most famous film stars." Even if some writer said she was the most famous, it would still become easily debatable. Rethinking the "eyes" debate, I'd personally leave mention of them off the lead. Coming after accentuating her "glamorous lifestyle and beauty," it isn't necessary there. In any case, it contradicts the photo, and the later fact that they only "appeared" violet, but were actually blue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially with your comment about "possibly". "One of the world's most famous film stars" is generic enough, and it's unlikely to be disputed. To leave mention of the eyes out of the lead, would work for me too. I don't think the Dame sentence is too long, but how would you condense it? If it is condensed, I guess it could be included in the next sentence with her other honours, but how would you word it?Rossrs (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Then say "unusual eyes" - there's barely an article written about her before and after her death that doesn't mention her eyes, and we talk about them in several different places in the article, making it amply appropriate for the lead. I think "unusual" is well-supported by "mutation" as well as the color, and is perhaps less of a value judgment than "stunning". But I do think the eyes should be mentioned in the lead. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with anything that did not include a value judgement, including omission, but if it's considered necessary to mention her eyes, I think "violet eyes" is the most we should say. Several editors want the eyes to be mentioned, but there's not yet agreement on how to mention them. I've read through a number of obituaries since reading your comment. All mention her "violet eyes" at some point. None of them have said more than that they were violet, and I hope we can show similar restraint. It's no different to the media's description of her "beauty". For example, one obituary talks about her "incandescent beauty". We stay neutral by just saying "beauty", and that's widely accepted and a pretty safe word. We'd be getting into POV territory if we included "incandescent" just because it's attributable. We can do the same with the eyes by leaving it at "violet eyes". Not necessary to use "stunning", "unusual" or any other adjectives. Rossrs (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I lean to something simpler like "She was named a Dame by Queen Elizabeth II and received . . . " Trimming a bit more, describing her as an "advocate for AIDS awareness and research," is enough, since "outspoken" and "cure" are implied. But I think that if her "violet eyes" are mentioned, then an adjective is important. Otherwise I'd assume that many readers will wonder why that was stated, since "violet eyes" alone may not imply anything. In the alternative, maybe a separate sentence about the elements of her glamor and beauty, describing the notability of her eyes, jewelry, and fashion, for instance, for the final sentence of para. 1. That way the eyes are placed in context and help explain "beauty." There should be enough adjectives in the article to incorporate in a summary.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the Queen is still namedropping; why should she be mentioned and not President Bush? The right answer is "neither", because neither one should be mentioned. It's not important. The current summary correctly and matter-of-factly lists her title in the same sentence, and in the same way, as her American and French awards. Ylee (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true. We need not/should not mention the Queen. We could say "She was named a Dame and was awarded..... etc". Or, we could assume that because "Dame" is mentioned in the opening sentence, it does not require further mention. Wikiwatcher, I didn't use the word "outspoken" in my suggestion, but how about "From the mid 1980s she supported HIV and AIDS programs; she co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation in 1993." I think this is trimming it right to the bone. I don't think it should be trimmed any further, but referring to the AMfAR article will give the reader further information about what the Foundation does. It may also be relevant to mention that she left a large part of her fortune to AIDS programs, if that proves to be true. I've seen it reported, but it's probably too soon to be sure. Again, "violet eyes" does not need a descriptor. Violet eyes are in themselves unusual. As I said to Tvoz, I've gone through numerous obituaries and none use a descriptor and they read just fine. The only word I can think of that is somewhat neutral is "distinctive" and I think it would be acceptable. It underlines their uniqueness without attempting to describe them, so that may work. I think it would be good to extend the first paragraph to include fashion, and jewellery - maybe her perfume. They're notable, and as long as it's kept brief, I think it appropriate. I think we're making good progress. Rossrs (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the above options are fine, since I think all the phrases work. In wording her AIDS contribution, I'm taking into account that unlike some of the other issues we're discussing, the AIDS topic has its own section in the TOC, and its heading follows the lead. So an extended list of AIDS-related work isn't that necessary. Just looking at the TOC, in fact, shows that we could pull a key sentence or two from each section and consolidate them into the lead's paragraphs, and create a fuller summary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "distinctive violet eyes"? Tvoz/talk 04:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you consider an "extended list of AIDS-related work"? I think it's important we name the foundations she cofounded and founded. After all, we name the awards she won mainly as a result of her work for those foundations. Going through the TOC might help, but then do we want to mention Michael Jackson for example? I don't think it would be necessary. Rossrs (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Better than nothing, although "stunning" is the term cited in the body. But the phrase "her glamorous lifestyle, beauty, and stunning violet eyes" should be changed since it implies a quality separate from "beauty." "With" seems better, IMO. In general, I don't see any problem with adding a few more well-chosen adjectives, cited from the body, to help readability. The lead is already loaded with adjectives, ie. just from para 1: "great," "Golden," "most famous," "talented," "award-winning," glamorous," and "stunning." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the adjectives you highlight are a bit flowery, but I've reworded or removed the most biased of them in my suggested draft. We should be using fewer of these words, rather than using their presence to support the use of even more. "Stunning" is a very specific word, and it's not used in the article. The article says her eyes "stunned those who met her in person", and unless her eyes had the rare ability to render all immobile, it's not an accurate statement, and not one we should be using. It looks like it came straight out of a fan magazine. We are presenting it as a statement, not as a quote, which would be far more appropriate, and thereby making it our phrase. Neither "stunning" nor "stunned" appear in the article that is used to cite this phrase- here. The wording in our article is someone's attempt at paraphrasing this drivel - "a pair of eyes unlike any I've ever beheld, before or since; deep violet eyes of a sort withheld from ordinary mortals". If "distinctive violet eyes" is "better than nothing", can we call that a compromise on this single point? Rossrs (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK then! (a quote from Raising Arizona) Not to seem greedy, but could we say she had one "distinctive violet eye, and another that was stunning?" Just a thought. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a mutation. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The cite's language somewhat flowery, but that's the point. McCarthy is not a gushing fan or an Us Weekly writer; he is an experienced journalist (there was a bit of controversy last year when Variety, where he'd worked as its chief film critic, laid him off) who, covering Hollywood for 30 years, has met in person a large portion of the world's most beautiful women. He's saying in the article that even he "abruptly" stopped, and his breath was "literally" taken away, when he saw Taylor's violet eyes. "Stunned" is an appropriate way to summarize that sort of reaction. Regarding Michael Jackson: He shouldn't have a separate section at all, and I intend to take it out; the only possible way to continue to justify mentioning him (other than via the context of her marriage to Fortensky at Neverland Ranch, which is already in the article) would be as part of a "Friends" section, and that's one step from WP:TRIVIA. Ylee (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, what if we took McCarthy's article and quoted from it, rather than paraphrased. We could choose the most appropriate piece of text and quote it. What if we also found a secondary quotation that said something similar. In the article, it's discussed in the childhood section and it doesn't belong there. It belongs later. Then, what if we said in the lead section something along the lines of "journalists often wrote of Taylor's beauty, enhanced by distinctive violet eyes" or even "stunning violet eyes". If we can word it so that it's directly attributed, I don't think we have a problem, and exactly how we do it, I'm not sure. I don't think Michael should be removed, he should be merged. Her friendships with people like Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, Roddy McDowell, James Dean.... are all part of the "celebrity" part of her story. Maybe it's a subtheme, that Jackson would fit into. Normally I would agree that it's trivia, but Taylor's reputation for trying to rescue lost puppies, that are kind of fragile or broken (which fits Jackson and Clift to a tee), is part of the public perception of her. It can be done, it just needs to be done carefully. Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead suggestions - part 2

Taking into account the comments made above, I think this represents some of the comments that have been made. If not, I apologise. I'm just trying to bring it into one place to make it easier to read. I've also tweaked it a little because I just noticed each of the four paragraphs started with the word "Taylor" and in doing so, I've removed her "age of 12". If she was born in 1932, and her film was in 1944, her age is easy to calculate. Also changed the AFI link to read per the title of the list on the AFI homepage, namely "Greatest American Screen Legends".

Dame Elizabeth Rosemond "Liz" Taylor, DBE (February 27, 1932– March 23, 2011) was an English-born American actress. Beginning her career as a child star with MGM, she became one of the most notable screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age, appearing in more than 50 films. During the 1960s she was one of the world's most famous film stars, recognized for her successful acting career and for her glamorous lifestyle, beauty, and ... violet eyes.

National Velvet (1944) was Taylor's first success, and she starred in Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for BUtterfield 8 (1960), played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and married her co-star Richard Burton. They appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award. From the mid 1970s, she appeared less frequently in film, and made occasional appearances in television and theatre.

Her much publicized personal life included eight marriages and several life-threatening illnesses. From the mid 1980s, Taylor supported HIV and AIDS programs; she co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation in 1993. She received the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Legion of Honour, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and a Life Achievement Award from the American Film Institute, who named her seventh on their list of the "Greatest American Screen Legends". Taylor died of congestive heart failure at the age of 79.

Wikiwatcher: you also suggest inclusion of jewelry and fashion in the first paragraph, so please incorporate that into this draft so we can see how it reads. I'm not sure how you wish to word it. Rossrs (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good on first read. BTW, Barry Monush's Screen World Presents the Encyclopedia of Hollywood Film Actors, p. 720, says "she had stunning violet eyes and raven-black hair." So it looks like they were both stunning after all and the compromise description isn't necessary! I came across another book that described Oxford scholar Neville Coghill meeting her, and he was "rendered momentarily speechless." Signing off for a while, but will think about jewelry, etc. later. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does read pretty well. The only changes I'd make are 1) combine the last two paragraphs and 2) don't bother at all with trying to say that one eye looked different from the other; that's just silly. I see no reason to explicitly discuss media coverage; "one of the most famous" is sufficient. Ylee (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll join paragraphs 3 and 4 above to see what it looks like. However we describe her eyes, we'll have to describe them as a pair, as Wikiwatcher has retired before I asked which eye was stunning and which was merely distinctive. Precise wording to be determined. On a more serious note, the article is still being developed and depending on future edits to the article, the lead will need to be revisited, and perhaps revised. I think the article and the lead are both at "good" but could be "great". Rossrs (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also - the AFI Award is more important than her position on their list, so have swapped/reworded. Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Including details about her jewelry and fashion was originally suggested to describe her recognized "beauty," which included her "violet eyes." It seems like that isn't needed at this point. We could satisfy everyone by simply describing them as "distinctively stunning violet eyes." It might eventually be used by speech therapists along with "The rain in Spain . . ." and "Peter Piper . . . " training. I digress. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a separate 3rd paragraph, focusing on some notable aspects of her acting roles and styles, would be useful.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought your comments about fashion and jewellery were also in relation to the TOC headers, but that's fine. I've removed my silliness from the above draft. Leaving the word blank, but my first choice would be "distinctive". I would agree with "stunning" if it was supported by something more solid in the article, as I previously suggested. If you can put forward some points for your suggested 3rd paragraph, we can see how that looks. Looking through the article, I'm not sure what we could use as a starting point for that. One possibility is that we look at creating a "legacy" section, and use that as a basis. I've done a couple of "legacy" sections before. Bette Davis#Comments and criticism and Claudette Colbert#Contemporary reception. A career summary may be a way of including more general comments about how her career was viewed, and that may help to put her overall impact into perspective. I don't know. Rossrs (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the Career impact section that Wikiwatcher added, although I like your "Legacy" name better. Such sections are bait for OR commentary—something Wiki has carefully avoided, mind you—so it'll need careful watching, though. Ylee (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it reads OK. I started out compiling a "legacy" section, but discovered that with her career and personal life, it was too large a subject. The "career impact" was a step down to more manageable topic. The additions were more a snippet of some notable aspects, a concern being to keep the section size similar to the others.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great. Well done :-) Rossrs (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I took "with husband Richard Burton" out after the mentioned AA win for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, first because the wording was unclear but mostly because it kind of comes out of nowhere. Another way to say it might be, ".....and again for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, in which she appeared with her frequent costar, husband Richard Burton." But I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all in the lede, in relation to that Oscar win. Codenamemary (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

The comma separates Woolf from BUtterfield 8, so there shouldn't be confusion on whether Burton appeared in both films. We've come to general agreement here that Burton deserves mention in the summary, given that 1) the summary mentions her many marriages and 2) Burton was both her longest-married husband and most frequent costar; it'd be like not mentioning Ginger Rogers in the summary for Fred Astaire. That said, it's likely that the next iteration of the summary will mention Burton in a more elegant way. Ylee (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Burton must be mentioned, not only as a husband, but as a frequent co-star. They appeared in 11 films together as a romantic couple and aside from Fred and Ginger, and William Powell and Myrna Loy, I can't think of another pairing that was so prolific or so successful. Unless I'm reading this all wrong, there seems to be general acceptance of paragraph 2 and 3 as per the comments above, and it's paragraph 1 that is still to be determined. I'll update those two paragraphs, and obviously they will remain subject to further changes as editors see fit. Rossrs (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the way it was phrased was that by saying she won that award for WAOVW "with Richard Burton", is that it could be interpreted as if he won an Oscar for that film, too. The phrasing was ambiguous. Codenamemary (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Smoking

According to a new biography, Taylor stopped smoking after a severe bout of pneumonia in 1990. (92.7.26.72 (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

If this information is from a verifiable and reliable source, please provide the reference so the information can be added to the article. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned on page 350 of J. Randy Taraborrelli's "Elizabeth: A Biography of Elizabeth Taylor". Her last husband's refusal to stop smoking Marlboro Reds around her was a major factor in their marriage breakdown. (92.7.26.72 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Images marked for deletion

Notice that nine relevant images are marked for deletion. The rationale is that they do not "significantly increases reader understanding." If anyone wishes to comment you can do so here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Encouraging people to voice their concerns if they agree with you violates Wikipedia:Canvassing. Please be neutral in future comments such as this. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I actually question the need for 16 separate iamges in an article that only carried 3-4 before she died. Best to trim this way down.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Life With Father is in the public domain. Liz was only 14 when she appeared, and it's in color. Lionel (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Principles of Love Elizabeth Taylor

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Only love I have made was with those men whom I was a wife, according to the Italian newspaper La Voce del Popolo from Rijeka, Croatia, adding that Elizabeth Taylor asked: how many woman can say the same? Liz has beeen married eight times, twice to Richard Burton.78.2.104.133 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They were never purple

http://www.viddler.com/explore/stalepie/videos/4/

I looked at lots of photos. You can too. It's called the Internet. What you do is you type in a person's name into Bing or Google. And to make it even easier you select the "images" option when doing this. Then you have lots of photos of the person in question, who is famous, and for 50 years now people have been incessantly lying that she has or had purple or violet eyes. She never did. She never will. I don't care if you write that in your first paragraph of your stupid entry, which is no longer allowed to be edited. It just isn't true. It doesn't matter how the light hit it or not. It doesn't matter necessarily how they were photographed, since there are hundreds of photos of her to look at and she never has purple eyes (except perhaps on the cover of that one issue of BAZAAR).

Matthew Dickinson 99.104.188.76 (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean I do care that you write that in your entry -- that's why I write this. But then again you deleted my Glenn Stafford entry, my Tokuhiko Uwabo entry and other things. So why should I care? I hate this website. In fact I think the whole goddamn Internet is a waste of time, and anyone who uses it is probably stupid.

Matthew Dickinson 99.104.188.76 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)