This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: This tag does not make any definite assertions about Grant's sexuality; however, having reviewed the text, it is of significant enough note that the banner is warranted.
What Consensus are you referring to? Seems that there was support for restoring it.--JOJHutton 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Scott's biographer Robert Nott states that there is no evidence that Grant and Scott were homosexual, and blames rumors on material written about them in other books, which was assumed true by historians.
Which was supported by consensus in the past.
In 1921 Grant moved into the Greenwich Village apartment of Australian Orry George Kelly, later to be known as the Hollywood designer Orry-Kelly: the apartment was also shared with a fellow Australian, Charles 'Spangles' Phelps, a cross-dressing performer. Kelly and Grant lived together for five years, and it has been speculated they were lovers, but Kelly lost respect for Grant: he was particularly incensed by Grant's subsequent avoidance of military duty during World War II, and their friendship ended badly.
Which appears entirely on line with prior edits implying that Grant was gay, lived with gays, and had gay lovers. I suggest this talk page offers sufficient evidence that there is no consensus for this edit.
"Good Articles" should not have such bold edits without full and complete consensus thereon. Collect (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
For once I agree with Collect. The wording was more neutral and better as it was.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is against the proposed inclusion because it is innuendo, speculation, and undue weight. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Personal Section: propose the following be added: "In 1921 Grant moved into the Greenwich Village apartment of Australian Orry George Kelly, later to be known as the Hollywood designer Orry-Kelly: the apartment was also shared with a fellow Australian, Charles 'Spangles' Phelps, a cross-dressing performer. Kelly and Grant lived together for five years, and it has been speculated they were lovers, but Kelly lost respect for Grant: he was particularly incensed by Grant's subsequent avoidance of military duty during World War II, and their friendship ended badly." References are Kelly's own biography, recently discovered and published this year, and these additional sources:
Orry-Kelly Women I've Undressed: The Fabulous Life and Times of a Legendary Hollywood Designer, Allen & Unwin, 2016; ; ; ; Eliot, Mark Cary Grant: A Biography, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2004, pp42-63 Engleham (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Include – An important friendship/possible relationship in Grants life. (Grant was Kelly's pallbearer.) Also provides convenient opportunity to touch on Grant's avoidance of war service, which article hasn't addressed. Supported by reliable sources, and the speculative statements suitably qualified. Engleham (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Noting prior consensus opposing such inclusions in this "good article", and that the editor is edit warring for inclusion of this material. The Sydney Morning Herald book review does not support the claims made. The Australian book review does not support the claim made. The Eliot biography makes a lot of claims, but does not have those claims supported by other sources, and the specific basis for these claims is insufficiently cited. All that is left is the Australian Dictionary of National Biography. The only claim it supports is that for an unspecified period of time, three people shared living quarters, and nothing more. As a result, with none of the linked sources supporting the claims, and the unlinked source being problematic at best, we have to accept that WP:CONSENSUS is required for weakly sourced material, where the reliable sources specifically do not support the claim. Checking the Eliot book: pg 41 says Orry was "unabashedly gay" but that Grant was not. pg 47 asserts that Grant was the "number one gigolo in town." pg 4 says Grant never referred to Orry in any writings at all (the material was provided to Eliot by Orry). In short, alas, the Eliot biography also does not support the titillating claims made in this RfC. Collect (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
"The Sydney Morning Herald book review does not support the claims made." It really helps any argument you wish to make if you don't lie. The SMH says: when Orry first got to New York...he ended up rooming with a young British actor called Archie Leach. They definitely became lovers and were living together for about five years. Then you write: "The Australian book review does not support the claim made." Here's what The Oz says: "Some glittering reputations were protected for half a century by that pillowslip, not least that of Orry-Kelly’s one time lover, a vaudeville performer named Archie Leach, who, in this account, treated him rather shabbily after he became the movie star Cary Grant." I've qualified both speculations, but the point is, Kelly was a significant figure in his life who deserves inclusion for the facts stated. Whether their close friendship was ever sexual or not is, in the end, beside the point. Engleham (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
And note that book reviews do not make statements of fact on their own of that nature. Calling me a "liar", by the way, does not impress me one whit. A quote from Gillian Armstrong is usable at most as an opinion of hers, and is not a claim of fact, nor does the SMH make it a claim of fact. Biographies do better with facts - especially in "good articles." The Australian states that it is quoting a book. If the book is not a reliable source for claims of fact, the "Oz" saying what is in the book does not then make it a statement of fact. Do you recognize "opinions" and "facts" are not the same? And if no sex was involved (and there is no source which makes that as a claim of fact in its own voice, and one lawsuit opposing stating ti as a claim of fat in the past) than Wikipedia does not make it a claim of fact. Clear? And please stop this business about accusing everyone else in this world of being a "liar" - it ill-suits discussions. Collect (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The statement "it has been speculated they were lovers" goes against guidelines about "gossip." And throwing in that one of the other roommates was a "cross-dressing performer" implies innuendo.--Light show (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show Well how would you phrase it? "speculated" states that it is NOT a confirmed fact. What more qualifier do you want? Note that in one of the articles, the woman who found the diaries states it as a certainty, and we're definitely not stating that. Also: Charlie Spangles was exactly what he was: sorry, I can't make him any more butch, and if one objects to the suggestion that two might have been lovers, surely THREE in the apartment is less worrying? Stating his presence, which was a fact, does help the reader make their own assessments.
Oppose It's not so much that I have a problem with very briefly saying it was "claimed in Orry George Kelly's biography that the two had a gay relationship", it's the way it's worded which just looks like tabloid fodder. It's poorly written and just looks amateurish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld Well... how WOULD you reword it better? If you don't reply, then of course I'll have to presume...Engleham (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Presume what? That I'm homophobic too? I'd be very careful with what you say if I was you as you're running to close to being blocked at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld Presume that you can't write it better, of course. Just stating you think it could be written better, isn't helpful to anyone. Time to pick up your quill and show us. Étonnez-moi. Engleham (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
For starters it would be good to know exactly what Kelly wrote about Grant. If it was his own memoir he would surely have claimed to have had an affair with Grant himself, so why the "speculation"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dr.Blofeld He wrote Grant moved in with him and Spangles, and after a time he lost respect for Grant, and mentions two issues as examples: his personal meanness, and his avoidance of military duty - which, given he himself had volunteered for the US Army despite being less fit than Grant, he considered a line crossed. (See supplied sources.) Kelly was circumspect as to the nature of the friendship -- he may not have wished to hurt Grants wives or child, and in any case had cut him out of his life after Grant did the same; the claim that they were lovers and it was a bitter breakup is based on circumstantial evidence. OK, how would you write all that differently from how I have condensed it? Engleham (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If Kelly had said in his biography something like "In 1932, I attended a party in West Hollywood. There I met Cary Grant for the first time. We felt an instant mutual attraction, but he married at the time. Later that year I invited him to dinner, ended up getting drunk and we began a six month affair", then you could say "Kelly claimed in his biography that he had a six month affair with Grant". If he doesn't explicitly even mention that he and Grant had a gay affair, and all this is simply tabloid speculation or different interpretations of the text then it definitely doesn't belong in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dr.Blofeld Now you're contradicting yourself. As you wrote to @Collect (in vain, of course): "I understand your issues with "Grant da gay", but the problem was your approach and thinking there should be no mention whatsoever of the accusations in the article. Because there was a massive amount of coverage that makes it legitimiate to at least report that he was accused. But it does have to be carefully worded and structured" Talk about being damned by one's words. Bless. But of course, that's exactly the correct position, as Wikipedia holds it. A mass of reliable sources noted Kelly's autobiography upon its rediscovery, that fact that they lived together for five years, and the belief that he and Grant were lovers. Our role as editors is simply to note that in a neutral manner, not claim it is correct or incorrect, or 'tabloid' -- a convenient putdown whenever the issue of gay or bisexuality arises. Again: would you care to 'top me' in rewriting my excellent summary to address that? Or is it now, you realise, perfect? Engleham (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
No I'm not contradicting myself. We report what notable biographers have claimed Grant was gay. As far as I can see Kelly never claimed he and Grant had a gay relationship in his memoirs and it's entirely tabloid/newspaper interpretation of the book. If Kelly had claimed to havehad a gay relationship, then it would definitely be worth mentioning. And the ADB doesn't even claim they had a gay relationship, it simply says "res. He also formed a friendship with a young Englishman Archibald Leach, later known as Cary Grant, sharing living quarters with him and another Australian expatriate Charles ('Spangles') Phelps, a former ship's steward." If you can't understand this then you should take some lessons in researching and writing proper articles. Bless you for being so dense on this. Don't even know what WP:BLP is...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment -- I tend to agree with Blofeld's thinking on this, keeping it neutral with at most a brief mention along his first suggestion above, and don't change the rest of what's currently there. I am interested in the bit about "avoiding" war service but if it's brought up it shouldn't be through Kelly's opinion: do Grant's biographers discuss it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ian Rose What's not neutral about the proposal the way it is written? How would you rewrite it? And why is it wrong not to mention Kelly's opinion of Grant's avoidance of war service, given that is one the reasons that broke up the friendship?
In terms of improvement, what part of at most a brief mention along his [Blofeld's] first suggestion above did you not follow? For the rest, a bit of perspective: this is a bio of Grant, not Kelly, and attaching that much weight to the break-up and Kelly's opinion re. the war service seems undue, particularly as it only offers Kelly's side. To illustrate: years ago I read David Niven's entertaining memoir Bring on the Empty Horses; Niven talked a lot about his adventures with Errol Flynn, and then finished off by saying that during World War II, he joined up, and Flynn didn't. Despite ostensibly offering no opinion on Flynn's action, the impression I was left with was that Flynn was either a coward, or greedy to keep his film career going. As I now understand it, Flynn was unfit for service but this was never made public at the time. So there are two sides to every story, and your version gives us only one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
At best you could say something like "In 2016, a documentary film written by Katherine Thompson interpreted Orry-Kelly's long-lost memoir Women I've Undressed to have revealed that Grant and Kelly had had a homosexual relationship, based on circumstantial evidence". But it's still an interpretation, I don't think it's worth mentioning unless Kelly had actually said "Grant and I were lovers".♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Summoned by bot. Because it is only speculation and cannot be confirmed, leave off BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Summoned by bot as well. BLP does not apply here as Grant is neither living, nor recently deceased. However, I tend to agree that this is speculation which is not supported by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources, taken together. As a side note, the editor who proposed this text (and is the only one to endorse it so far) was CBANned from the project last week for disruptive behaviour, some of it in connection with topics similar to this. Under the circumstances, I think this discussion could now be speedy closed under WP:SNOW rationale. Snowlet's rap 05:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Summoned by bot. The text in question is speculative, POV and is generally tabloid garbage unnecessary especially considering the availability of much higher quality material. Coretheapple (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Summoned by a hard-working bot. Neither innuendo and speculation belong in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, exactly per Cullen: Neither innuendo nor speculation belong in Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)