Talk:Lizabeth Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation for 'Burke's Law' appearance[edit]

The episode of "Burke's Law" featuring Lizabeth Scott was "Who Killed Cable Roberts," which originally aired October 4, 1963. She played Roberts' second wife, Mona. (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Mary Matzo[edit]

The literature on Lizabeth Scott's ancestry is contradictory. The parents are various described as coming from Czechoslovakia or Slovakia, and that the parents are Rusin. But in a video interview, Scott stated she was Russian. Did she mean Rusin? I'm leaving the information on Mary intact, though it may be dubious. Mary's ancestral town of Ungvar or Uzhhorod was part of the Austria-Hungary Empire till 1919, when it became part of Czechoslovakia. Scott was born in 1922, so did Mary come to the US just after 1919? Or was Mary born in the US in the first place? Jamesena (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The area is historically distinguished as Carpathian Ruthenia. It was part of Austria-Hungary, which would also be accurate, but only in the way calling a Bavarian German, or a Welshman British would be accurate. Between WWI and WWII it was part of Czechoslovakia. It declared its independence, and was then occupied (the next day!) by Nazi-allied Hungary. Plenty of Rusyns call themselves Russian as a matter of convenience, especially to people who will never have heard of Ruthenia, as the words both originate from the Rus'. We can trust Magocsi as a very reliable source on her Rusyn nationality. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What you say makes complete sense, though no other writer has figured it out (including me). Thanks.Jamesena (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it helps that I am Ruthene, have a huge crush on Ms. Matzo, and that my grandparents, who called themselves Rusnaks, and who came over to the US before WWI, studied what they called po-Moskowski (Moscow Russian) in grade school, while speaking what they called po-naszomu ("our way") at home. Thanks for the thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"On the train to Boston"[edit]

"On the train to Boston" is a turn of phrase, not a literal fact. If it is the source's verbiage it needs to be reported as a quote (i.e., simply be put in quote marks), per WP:ATTRIBUTE. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's actually Scott's words. I'll include the entire quote.Jamesena (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Scott "Ukrainian?[edit]

Austria Hungary in 1911

This question relates back to the first issue about Mary Matzo's ancestral town. Scott is under the category of "American people of Ukrainian descent" as Uzhhorod is in the Ukraine now. Wouldn't Rusyn be closer? I'm sure Medeis knows the answer.Jamesena (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to Rusyn.Jamesena (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Ruthenian speakers are often able to understand Slovak, Ukranian, an even Russian and Polish. But these are separate languages. Using Polish orthography to make comparison easier, "rain" in Rusyn is dycz, deszcz in Polish, and doszcz in Ukraine, while dažd in Slovak and dožd in Russian.
Czechoslovakia and its four provinces before WWII
Ukraine at the time Scott's ancestors came to the US was a province of Russia and too far to the east to be shown on the Austro-Hungarian map. Western Galicia, shown in light green, included Uzhorod, and even the city of Lviv. After WWI, Poland was given Lviv, and Czechoslovakia was created, with Carpathian Ruthenia being part of neither Slovakia nor the future Ukraine.
After WWII, a greater Ukraine was set up by the Soviets as an integral part of the USSR. Carpathia and the Polish city of Lviv were annexed to the Ukraine. For political reasons, Ruthenes "became" Slovaks, Ukraines or Poles, and underwent forced resettlement and reeducation in the three national languages to the loss of their own and their own culture. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you so much, Medeis! The history of the Rusyns is a fascinating one. The maps are a great help. If you or anyone could find out Mary Matzo's maiden Ruthenian name, that would be a great help. (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how to get Mary Matzo's maiden name other than marriage records or the like, which I am not good at researching. I will ask at the Humanities reference desk. But there are several interesting books on Rusyns by Paul R. Magocsi, and I recommend looking him up at Amazon, and asking for his books through interlibrary loan at your local library. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll follow up on your suggestions. Thanks.Jamesena (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a question at the Humanities Help Desk. I only wish I knew where she lived--one can always simply ask. My boyfriend had several hours of conversation with Patricia Neal, who showed him the ring Gary Cooper gave her, which she wore on a necklace until her death. There are so many things that are lost when people pass away. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have looked into this further. The name Matzo is very rare. The only records I have found for it giving a birth place in Europe were in "Yugoslavia" dated when that country had not yet been founded, and was still part of Austria-Hungary, as well as in Estonia when it was still part of the Russian empire. Rusyns have always straddled the Austro-Hungarian/Russian border. The census listing says Austria, but this obviously indicates, again, Austria-Hungary, given the birthdate for John of 1897, before the Treaty of Versailles. I think we should simplify the text to match Paul Robert Magocsi, a highly respected historian of the area, and say her parents emigrated from the region of Carpathian Ruthenia in Austria-Hungary from near the city of Uzhhorod, which now lies in western Ukraine. The Hal Wallis statements of Italian and Slovak should be mentioned only in the footnote. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can find nothing on Mary Matzo except the alleged Slovak ancestry that Bernard Dick gathered from his Scott interview. Claiming Rusyn ancestry for Mary might be considered original research on our part. She probably is, but we need some referable source. I'll try to contact Professor Bernard Dick and ask and hope he answers.Jamesena (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Magocsi calls her "the daughter of Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants" (plural) in Our people: Carpatho-Rusyns and their descendants in North America, p. 81, Paul R. Magocsi Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Jul 30, 2005. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I saw it on Google Books. "from Subcarpathian Rus." But no further details, then he moves to her movie career. I still wonder why Dick gave different nationalities to the parents, though. There's a video interview on YouTube in which she says she's Russian, but she probably means Rusyn.Jamesena (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll put back the Rusyn ancestry to Mary, using Magosci as the reference.Jamesena (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Googling around, I found that the Italian Matzola is not uncommon. Maybe John Matzo shortened his original name.Jamesena (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source saying she's the child of Ruthenian immigrants: American immigrant cultures: builders of a nation, p. 147

David Levinson, Melvin Ember Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1997.

I don't think we should cloud the issue in the body of the article. We've got two scholarly sources on ethnicity calling her the child of Carpatho-Rusyns. We've got web sources saying the father was from Uzhhorod or a village 1.3kn from Uzhhorod. We can simply say in the text that "Scott was of Rusyn descent, her parents having emigrated from the then Austro-Hungarian region of Carpathian Ruthenia from near the city of Uzhhorod in what is now Western Ukraine." In the footnote we can say that "Given the fluidity of the region's history and people's unfamiliarity with the Rusyn nationality, there is some confusion in the sources, with producer Hal Wallis in his biography describing her mother and father as Slovak and Italian, and Scott herself calling herself Russian in a TV interview." μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Slovakian and Italian references presumedly came from Scott herself, who was interviewed by Bernard Dick, a heavily credentialed professor like Magocsi. Levinson and Ember may have just copied from Magocsi. We must note that the Magocsi, Dick and Levinson-Ember statements have no supporting external references (footnotes). All three are "bald" assertions. "Appeal to authority" won't help us here, since disagreements among academics is common. We should keep looking till we find something more substantial. But I'll add Austria-Hungary to the parents' Austrian claim.Jamesena (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

An article in this publication (page 6) says that Scott's "parents … came to America from Carpatho-Ukraine (the eastern tip of former Czechoslovakia which was recently officially made part of Soviet Ukraine)" and gives their street address in Scranton. The John and Mary Matzo shown at that address in the 1930 census are both listed as being born in Bohemia and their native language as Slovak. A 1942 draft registration card for a John Matzo at that same address gives his birthplace as Czechoslovakia (census and draft card via, don't know how to link to individual records there).--Cam (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cam! I downloaded the Weekly you mentioned. I'll check out the site. One thing to keep in mind is that the census taker may have been approximating their entries based on their own geographical knowledge. The same for government bureaucrats. Of course John and Mary could have been a mixture of different groups to begin with. But if their native language is Slovak, then it could simplify the description. Thanks.Jamesena (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate the possibilities of Lizabeth Scott's ancestry known thus far: Italian, Austrian, Bohemian, Slovak, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian and Rusyn. Jamesena (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Medeis's latest edit seemed reasonable to me. It seems odd to relegate any indication that Scott is even of Eastern European origin to the footnotes. --Cam (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Medeis is saying a tenured professor of film history, Bernard Dick, who interviewed Scott, is "confused" on Scott's family origins. Apparently, Scott told him about the Italian and Slovak ancestry. She's also said she's Russian in a video interview. Professor Magocsi says both parents are Rusyn. No one is saying Scott isn't at least partially Eastern European, but what group or groups? When there is disagreement with the academics, we can only report the disagreement, hence the footnotes. So we'll have to keep looking till we find something definite.Jamesena (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Magocsi is a tenured professor of History, not a biographer of Hal Wallis. Given there is controversy, it is appropriate he is named WP:ATTRIBUTE and his article linked to {{WP:RS]] in the text. Every source says that Rusyns are confused for Ukrainians, Slovaks, Russians, Austrians, etc.; not the other way around. I have provided another source (this time a published book) mentioning the same confusion. The explanation that other sources--and none of them are actual reference works--say Scott is other things is covered perfectly in the footnotes, especially since none of these non-reference works agree with each other. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, this is an article about Lizabeth Scott, not about Rusyn history, which would be perfectly appropriate if we had positive proof that the Matzos are Rusyn. Just because A is confused with B, C and D does not automatically mean everyone in B, C and D are a member of A. The new edits adds no new information on the Matzo family directly. The only academic who has written anything approaching a true biography on Scott is Bernard Dick, which itself is a chapter within a biography of Hal Walli. Dick is probably the most important source of material for this article, though I tried to use other sources as well. Dick is of Eastern European-American descent himself and is from Scranton—apparently he and his family knew the Matzo family back in the day. Yes, Dick wrote "bald" assertions about John and Mary Matzo's background, just like Professor Magocsi has written one. As to the bald assertions of the quote sources, I agreed they are all "bald," but are cited to note the disagreement. I'm reverting your edits. Please wait till we find something more definite.Jamesena (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A note about Professors David Levinson and Melvin Ember's statement about Scott's ancestry in American immigrant cultures: builders of a nation. Their statement on p. 147 is a brief and bald assertion (two leaders of the Worldwide Church of God in Pasadena and Sandra Dee share the same sentence as Scott) and contains much less information than Professor Magocsi's. Levinson and Ember may have just copied from Magocsi's text.Jamesena (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is the second time you have removed a reference that has contradicted what you wish to say in the article. That's highly inappropriate. The cultural anthropolgy work you deleted is actually a reference work. Dick's biography is a popular biography of Hal Wallis, not a biography of Scott, and not a reference work. Nor does it go into any length over, or explanation of Scott's nationality. Neither is any of the other three sources a reference work. So we have two reference works, Magocsi and Levinson & Ember agreeing, and four popular works all disagreeing with each other. Magocsi cannot be given as an example of a disagreeing work, and the others cannot be referred to as references.
And not only this, you remove a third source explaining why there is so much confusion over Rusyn nationality! That borders on vandalism, and certainly POV edit warring. At this point you have myself and User:Cam agreeing that the scholarly opinion should be given and the disagreement explained in the footnotes. I'll remind you of WP:Ownership. You are not entitled to remove references, and revert edits saying in your edit summary that the matter is settled. I will be happy to quote Magocsi, Levinson and Ember, and to contrast that with Dick in the text, and mention the confusion in other sources. I will not put up with removal of sources or their misrepresentation. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither Scott nor her parents have ever claimed Rusyn ancestry. They always claim other nationalities. You cannot ignore this, despite what Magocsi's claim. The reference you say that explains the confusion over Rusyn ancestry has no bearing on proving the Matzos' background. And how do you know Levinson & Ember did original research? I never said the matter is settle, that's why everything was put in footnotes. Also you mixed up the chronology of the Scott's early life. I'm reverting the edits. After that, I'm seeking a ban on you if you vandalize this article with your political spam.Jamesena (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently going through the site. A Giovanni Matzo, an Italian national, age 33, arrived in Philadelphia on Nov 22, 1884. There's an Italian Matzo family in Pennsylvania. Also the US Congressional Record in 1951 states that Lizabeth Scott is Slovakian and her father is a coal miner.Jamesena (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, according to, Pennsylvanian Matzos from Italy are as numerous as those from Czechoslovakia and Austria. Also from Poland and Hungary. The Matzo names may not be all etymologically related.Jamesena (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through the and found nothing new on Scott's parents. A lot of Italian Matzos, though. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, however, says that Scott is Slovakian.Jamesena (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Scott declared herself Russian on the Carole Langer video interview, we must take her seriously. In the Burt Prelutsky interview, she mentions Doctor Zhivago (1965) as the film that means the most to her emotionally. Since she identifies with the Russian people very strongly, we must honor how Lizabeth Scott defines herself. "Russian-American" is the most appropriate choice.Jamesena (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Supposedly Pennock is Mary Matzo's maiden name (at least that's what Scott wrote to the Pennsylvania Division of the American Association of University Women back in 1983). Pennock is of course Cornish and very common in Pennsylvania, as the original Pennock, Christopher Pennock, an officer in Cromwell's army, came to Pennsylvania in 1685. He and his wife were Quakers, though Pennocks can be of any religion nowadays. The assumption everyone was making was that Scott's family were of Eastern European descent. That may not be the case at all. Mary's ancestry was given as English in one newspaper article—perhaps someone was confusing the Celtic Cornish with the Anglo-Saxon, though the Brythonic Cornish are definitely considered British but not English. John Matzo's origins are yet to be determined. The question of Mary is also still yet to be decided on as too many claims about her ancestry have been made. Jamesena (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Following the link a recent editor made——the 1930 US census gives an estimated birthdate for Mary Matzo as 1901, instead of 1899 as the Social Security Index gives. A search for "Mary Pennock" on the same FamilySearch site retrieved a "Mary R. Pennock," whose birthdate is also estimated as 1901. This Mary Pennock was born in Monroe, New York, to William and Catherine Pennock. Catherine was born in Ireland in 1874 and immigrated to the US in 1900. Back in the day, American often confused Ireland, Scotland and Wales with England. If Mary R. is really Lizabeth Scott's mother, then Catherine could be the origin of the belief that Scott is of English heritage. Jamesena (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In reviewing the interview of Scott by Howard C. Heyn (January 2, 1949), "Lush, Sultry and Single," St. Petersburg Times, p. 4, Heyn indicated that the interviewee avoided the subject of her family's background, which may explain the obscureness of the subject. The 1940 US Census lists Catherine Pennock's birthplace as Northern Ireland. While at least one member of one family surnamed Pennock claims to be related to Scott, I haven't yet found any definite proof of the ethnic origins of either John or Mary. Also, Pennock is widely used by ethnicities other than Cornish. It's a common Irish and British name and used by American families originating from the European mainland—including from Eastern Europe—as well. There's at least one Russian-American family that uses it and possibly others. Jamesena (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The consensus is that she'sRusyn, certainly not Russian. Thefact that she mentions her "Russian blood" in an inteview doies not contradict the country of arival of her parents or Magocis's statements. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Voice[edit]

Of all of 1940s actresses, who is "The Voice" in "She's a Threat, to the Body, the Voice and the Look"? Sometime Lauren Bacall is named that, bit it's usually the "The Look." Jamesena (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Still looking into the question. The nearest I can come up with is Marlene Dietrich, known for her distinctive voice. But apparently she was never called that in her day, only in recent years due to a book on Dietrich. The Life magazine quote was in 1945, so it should be an actress born just before or a little after 1922, the birth year of Scott. "The Look" for Bacall was coined by Billy Wilder.Jamesena (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article that needs some pruning[edit]

I'm quite impressed by the amount of information in this article. However, it could use a bit of pruning to make it a great article. Example: Except for Ms. Scott's parents I think adding the birth and death years of other people is absolutely unnecessary. The filmography should list only the character names that Ms. Scott played and not her leading men. The footnotes needed to be redone as well. Some are not citations at all but simply bits of trivia (i.e. 193. The first color film noir was Leave Her to Heaven (1945).) Plus I would not use writers such as Marc Elliot and Boze Hadleigh as sources of information. Jimknut (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I named Leave Her to Heaven as the first as I named Scott's Desert Fury as the second (someone will surely ask someday "Second to what?"), but I'll add a textbook cite. I agree that Boze Hadleigh is unreliable, but the cite I used only repeated common Broadway gossip of the day about the feud between Tallulah Bankhead and Scott, untrue as it was. Marc Eliot is also bad, but the cite is not about Mr Grant but his wife, who before she married Grant, failed the screentest for Desert Fury for still disputed reasons. But I'll remove both as their names in the references would raised questions to reliability as would a Darwin Porter cite. I'll remove the character names for the leading men. Of the personalities I'd like to keep some dates as there would be readers would not be familiar with them in a time context.Jamesena (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jimknut, this article is a bit too long, and could benefit from some judicious editing. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose splitting the article in two—the main article and filmography. If there's no objection, I'll start the filmography, then trim back the main article when the filmography is completed. Jamesena (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's the answer, Jamesena. All the actor filmography pages I've seen (e.g. Peter O'Toole filmography, Clint Eastwood filmography, Tom Cruise filmography) are lists of films, not places for extraneous narrative. I rather think that lots of things need to be removed and edited, not merely moved. I can tell, Jamesena, that you like the subject and have worked quite hard on this article, but it is quite tedious to read. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, 8 months later and this article is still way too long. An encyclopedic biography does not need every detail of a person's career. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lizabeth Scott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

First, let me say the authors (from the history I think mostly one author) of this article have done a tremendous job collecting copious information and sources, and compiling it into a generally coherent narrative. With that said, the content is simply too long and detailed for an encyclopedia article. Even after the filmography and critical reception have been split into a separate article, this one is over 12,000 words. That is without counting the footnotes that sometimes contain additional content rather than references. I can't see how I could pass this on criterion 1a ("clear and concise") or 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I am not familiar with Scott's life and career, so I can't say exactly what are the most important elements to keep, but overall my advice is to cut the article by at least a third. I started a list of specific issues, but I quickly realized it would be so long that it would seem overwhelmingly negative and picky, and I don't want to discourage you from improving what is in some respects a fine article. So I'm going to discuss just a handful below, to help give some impression of the types of things that seem problematic.

  • Most critically, anything from an anonymous and presumably self-published website is entirely unacceptable for an article about a living person (see WP:BLPSPS) and should be removed immediately unless it can be cited to a better source. For example, the information about Scott's smoking in note 33. If anything of this nature is retained, the article will fail on criterion 2b.
  • The amount of side information about her movies, co-stars, rivals, etc., seems excessive. For example, do we really need a list of actresses that are purported to resemble Lauren Bacall? The footnotes here seem to have some particularly off-topic digressions, such as note 176: "Producer Walter Wanger cast Yvonne de Carlo (1922–2007) for Salome, Where She Danced (1945) due to her supposed resemblance to Hedy Lamarr and Joan Bennett, though de Carlo is usually compared to Gene Tierney in facial appearance." What does this have to do with Scott?
  • Minor events and details that have no greater impact on Scott's life and career are probably not needed. For example, "During the production Scott was a guest at the Odeon Cinema, Leicester Square, London, where the Royal Film Performance of Where No Vultures Fly (1951) played. Along with other Hollywood actresses like Jane Russell, Scott got her chance to curtsy before Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother)." Is this incident even significant enough to mention, much less including what film was being screened, the location of the cinema, and the name of another actress who was there?
  • Anything that relies heavily on primary sources, such as the minutia of when and where her parents were born. If no secondary source has discussed the discrepancies around this, then it may be undue weight to go into it, and the repeated use of census records gives an impression of original research.
  • Any time the article goes into a detail from a source that does not mention Scott, it may be headed into unnecessary detail, and could have problems with synthesis. For example, do the sources describing the mid-Atlantic accent (notes 30, 31, 32) mention Scott? If not, why do we need to know these details about linguistics?
  • Despite the excessive length overall, there are a few places where more material is needed. A one-paragraph lead is too short for an article anywhere near this long (even if it is cut in half). Also, sections that have been shunted to a sub-article should still be summarized briefly in this one.

Given that cutting a long article could be a significant project, I will leave it up to the nominator and other article editors to decide how to proceed. If you think the cuts could be made in relatively short order, I could put the nomination on hold for a week, then proceed with reviewing a shortened version. If you would like more time, I can fail this nomination, which will allow you to work on it longer for future re-nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedit article[edit]

It would take more than a week to reedit the article to your suggested specifications. You can fail it for now. Thanks your detailed review.Jamesena (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood; consider it failed. When you resubmit, you will get a new reviewer, but if there is anything you would like me to look at beforehand to help ensure it is ready, I'm happy to help. --RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the editing is going faster than I thought. The article might be reduced by a third within seven days after all. Your review offered some useful guidelines. Thanks again.Jamesena (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Content Dispute[edit]

Medeis, we've gone over this issue before. Other researchers, including credentialed professors at US universities, have asserted non-Rusyn origins for Lizabeth Scott. The academic consensus is that Scott is not Rusyn. These sources are cited in the article and cannot be called "falsifying sources" or "opposing consensus." Magocsi is included in the cites. To be objective, we must include multiple points of view, not merely the Rusyn one. You appear to have an ethnopolitical agenda to promote—but Wikipedia is not a venue for Rusyn nationalism. Jamesena (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Medeis said in the revision history: 09:43, 8 February 2015‎ Medeis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,428 bytes) (-51)‎ . . (Scott did not refer to herself as Russian, she offhandedly referred in one interview to her russian blood. Magocsi calls her Rusyn, and he farther's passport said austria-hungary, of which ruthenia was a province.) and from a previous thread: The consensus is that she'sRusyn, certainly not Russian. Thefact that she mentions her "Russian blood" in an inteview doies not contradict the country of arival of her parents or Magocis's statements. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Medeis, to repeat from last year, neither Scott nor her parents have ever claimed Rusyn ancestry. "Rusyn" appears nowhere on any US census record on the Matzo family. Published bios and interviews with Scott always claimed other national origins for John Matzo and Mary Matzo nee Pennock, as well as the US Census. The New York Times 2/6/15 obituary on Scott claimed Ukrainian nationality for her family, while the Associated Press 2/6/15 obituary (based on Bob Thomas' research, who was a regular interviewer of Scott during the 1940–50s) said Scott's father was English and her mother was Russian. In US and British English, a claim of "Russian blood" means a claim of Russian ancestry, not a Russian blood donor or a visit to a Russian blood bank. It can mean either the father or mother or both are of Russian ethnicity. The claim of Russian ancestry goes back to newspaper interviews with Scott during the 1940s and did not start with the 1996 Langer interview. For example, a Scott interview by J. D. Spiro (September 11, 1949, "Lizabeth Is So Different," The Milwaukee Journal) describes Scott's mother as a White Russian, who came to the US at the age of 16. You cannot ignore this, despite Magocsi's claim. Historically, Austria-Hungary contained citizens of Austrian, Hungarian, Italian, Czech, Slovakian, Bohemian, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Russian ancestry—all which have been claimed for the Matzo family by different writers on Scott and US government records on the Matzo family. And just because Ruthenia was in Austria-Hungary doesn't automatically make John Matzo or anyone else with a Austria-Hungarian passport a Rusyn as you apparently assume. As I stated in a previous post, I've read Magocsi's book (Our people: Carpatho-Rusyns and their descendants in North America, p. 81), which makes a bald statement of Scott's Rusyn ancestry with no references or supporting documentation whatsoever. He just "says it's so". I'm reverting your edits. After that, I'm seeking a ban on you if you persist on vandalizing this article with your political spam.

Jamesena (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Jamesna your behavior is simple ownership, counter to comments above by Cam and everyone but yourself. I have formally warned you abot edit warring. The sources all give Rusyn or Austro-Hungarian, none of them Russian, except Scott's informal declaration which is easily explained by the fact tha Ruthenians call themselves Russians as an easy way to address outsiders, the same was Catalans and Galicians call themselves Spanish. Here's your RfC. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Should Lizabeth Scott be described only as "Russian"?[edit]

Scholar Paul Robert Magocsi describes Scott as Rusyn. Other sources describe her as Slovak, and Austro-Hungarian. Scott herself refere to her own "Russian blood" offhandedly in one interview. But this usage is explained as a simplification for those unfamiliar with Transcarpathian Ruthenia, or the Rusyn people. This article long described Scott as Rusyn, a nationality west of Ukraine and divided from Great Russia by the entirety of Ukraine. Should the article call Scott Russian, regardless of sources calling her Rusyn, Slovak, or Austrohungarian? μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

On page 71 of the 1984 Canadian edition of Our people: Carpatho-Rusyns and their descendants in North America, Magocsi writes "Among other performers to achieve national success are two actresses from Hollywood. Lizabeth Scott (born Emma Matzo), the daughter of Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants from Subcarpathian Rus', played the role of a sultry leading lady in several films during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Somewhat later, Sandra Dee..." There are no references or footnotes anywhere in the Our People to support this statement. According to a 1880 census of Subcarpathian Rus, 59.84% of the population were Ukrainian and Rusyn, while the rest of the population were Hungarians, Germans, Jews (unaccounted then but possibly 13% of the population), as well as Czechs, Slovakians and Romanians. The parents of Scott, if they indeed came from Subcarpathian Rus, could have descended from any of these groups. The Magocsi assertion in Our People has no more validity than a third-hand anecdote as it's presented. And on page 141, Magocsi admits to using "more than 60 newspapers, journals, and annual almanacs"—the very kinds of sources that Medeis disparages when they contradict the Rusyn hypothesis. When Scott was signed on by Hal Wallis, every Ukrainian-American newspaper in the US claimed Emma Matzo as one of their own. Were these newspapers wrong because they're "only" newspapers or because they said that Scott is Ukrainian? A specialist in Eastern European affairs and editor of the Ukraine Quarterly, Dr. Walter Dushnyck, has described Scott as being of Ukrainian ancestry in The Ukrainian Heritage in America. He's as academically credentialed as Magocsi. And an academic with multi-Ph.Ds, Bernard Dick, interviewed Scott in length in Los Angeles. He described Scott's father as Italian and the mother as Slovakian. And Dick's assertion is as well supported as Magocsi—no footnotes or any other citation. He just took Scott's word for it. As I've stated before, the only reason I went along with the Russian hypothesis was that Lizabeth Scott was telling interviewers from the 1940s to the '90s about her supposed "White Russian" mother, though at the same time Scott still promoted the "English father" fable, which originated back in 1944–45 from the Paramount publicity department, which claimed that Scott's father was a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, New York banker. But during the 1980s, she apparently was telling a friend in LA that she was "Swedish." The sad truth is that Scott was an ethnic chameleon—being all things to all people—she was an actress after all. She did like the idea of being Russian, possibly due to her adoration of Ayn Rand. But until someone finds a Matzo family genealogy, it's best that Scott's ethnicity not be listed in the infobox or definitively stated in the text. I also intend to remove Scott's own assertions as Medeis finds them unacceptable.

Jamesena (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You may have the right of the situation and it certainly seems that you've made a thorough review of the sources, but the problem is that most of your conclusions cannot be added to the article itself without running afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think your compromise solution of removing mention as to the ethnicity by and large may be the best path forward given the current state of sourcing. If there was discussion of these many conflicting accounts, it would almost certainly necessitate an independent section in order to lay out the various claims, within which great care would need to be taken to keep the information well contextualized and useful to the reader without veering into original research. Given the fact that the article's length already strains at the limits of summary style, I'm not sure this is advisable. I personally don't think that an encyclopedic understanding of the actress and her work is really hindered much by simply referring to her as American in the lead and leaving it at that. We could also say something along the lines "The exact nature of Scott's ethnic heritage has received mixed commentary, with publicity sources, scholars and Scott herself variously describing her as Russian, Russyn, Ukrainian, Slovakian, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and English." But truth be told that strikes me as less than terribly useful to our readers. Snow talk 04:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Snow. Either elide this discussion, or give it a section laying out what the source indicate, without engaging in synthesis as to how to interpret those sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Smoky looks and film noirs[edit]

Medeis disapproves of the phrasing "her deep voice and smoky sensual looks" in the older version of the leading text, saying "women have "husky", not deep voices, "smoky" is an editorial comment, and she had a look, not "looks"." "Deep voice" is a common film historian description of Scott: "She had a very sultry, deep voice, blonde hair and blue eyes..." (from Ronald Schwartz's Houses of Noir). Or looking at another actress: "Most shocking, of course, was her voice: when Zarah Leander opened her mouth a rich,sultry, mellifluous, and extraordinarily deep voice escaped that left Marlene Dietrich sounding like a scratched record." "Smoky" is a standard description of Scott as well: "...sultry Lizabeth Scott, the thirty-four year old smoky voiced heroine of countless films noirs, strolled in during a take..." Or "The heavy-lidded, smokey-voiced ambiance of Lizabeth Scott." "Smoky" in the contested sentence, however, refers to the eye makeup that Scott and other actresses playing femme fatales worn in film noirs. As one makeup artist pointed out: "If you want to cover the whole upper lid (with eye shadow), be aware that this can create a smoky look, which is generally an evening look." Of course most of the action in noirs take place at night, where the femme fatale must look at her seductive best to lure the hero to his doom. "Smokey look" is a standard term used by cosmetologists, as a survey of cosmetic texts will attest. Scott also had several looks—not just one—smoky or not. However, the use of "looks" in our example is idiomatic US English, as in "She has great looks." The rewrite doesn't sound like a native speaker of English. Since has asked for cites to the rewrite, I will revert back to the original wording as it has been sufficiently explained here. Regarding "film noirs", insists that we must follow French convention and spell it "films noir," despite "films noirs" being the normal French plural and "film noirs" being normal English one. The Wiki film noir article that linked to uses "film noirs" 21 times. Also see this link on the English and French plurals of film noir. But in the interest of not offending any further, I will shortened the plural to simply "films" and move the noir link farther down in the leading text.

Jamesena (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One each point individually:
  1. "Deep" is certainly a commonly used and acceptable way to describe a voice (feminine or otherwise), as is "husky"; if there's a difference of opinion on which is approrpiate -- and honestly guys, this is getting pretty nitpicky -- then we should be using the term which is most common to the sources, not the option which suits any specific party as particularly semantically apt.
  2. "Smoky" is acceptable if it was used commonly in sources to describe her look. I will say though that it's not a very common term to describe a woman in modern parlance and it may not be the best way to differentiate her appearance in an encyclopedic context.
  3. Clearly both "look" and "looks" are used broadly in English and have essentially the exact same idiomatic function. Is this really a detail worth bickering over, guys?
  4. By clear community consensus, we are meant to be using the common English construction (including syntactical/morphological conventions) for any terminology we employ in a mainspace article. That's a matter of well-established and long-standing policy for en.Wikipedia and the only exception would be if the article in question were a linguistic one, wherein the discussion of the original French usage would be relevant -- but that's clearly not the case here. That being said, all three of the options being debated ("films noirs", "films noir", and "film noirs") are incredibly awkward sounding in English, the first being a French construction and the second two being kinds of back-formations that do not follow usual English conventions for nouns in this context. I think was is called for here is clearer language along the lines of "works of film noir" or "films in the noir genre", with appropriate Wikilinking just to make the subject being referenced that much more explicit and less prone to generating confusion. After-all, we don't use French word order in describing other genres of film "films action" or "movie mystery" and its confusing (and I'd say grammatically inappropriate) to do so in this case just because we are using French-derived term that already has the word "film" loaded into it. Better to arrange the noun phrase so that the pluralizing suffix attaches to a separate noun which references the genre by way of a prepositional construction. That's how one adapts a noun phrase which uses French word order into an English statement without it turning to gobbledegook. However, I'm quite certain that it must be the case that the less elegant "films noir" and "film noirs" have been used commonly in English sources, so if you guys insist upon one or the other of them, probably you should just n-gram both options and use the one that has more hits. But using a Wikipedia article as evidence that one form or the other is the appropriate one is not really an argument with an policy traction, being a kind of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Snow talk 05:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lizabeth Scott (criticism) - why a separate article?[edit]

The recently created subarticle Lizabeth Scott (criticism) seems needlessly separated. Why not simply incorporate the critical commentary into her biographical article? If the resident film biographers see fit to keep it a stand-alone article, it should at least be retitled something more precise like Critical reception of Lizabeth Scott. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Why the heck a criticism article? Cary Grant doesn't have a criticism article. To be honest the Liz Scott article is way over-long and could easily be cut in half and this criticism subarticle deleted or incorporated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the article isn't about her specifically anyway. A paragraph about Crowther's dislike, another from the acting style section and a few odds and ends could be merged here. I'm going to nominate the criticism article for merge and deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Rephrasing my comments at the AFD: The length of Lizabeth Scott can be addressed by editorial choices. Much of the coverage of particular films, for instance, can likely be moved to the respective film articles, and additional biographical information can be condensed and summarized by relying less on individual newspaper articles (which by their nature reflect isolated moments in time), and more on secondary/tertiary sources like biographies or encyclopedias which synthesize and contextualize info. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

I notice one of the categories for Lizabeth Scott is "Actresses from Pennsylvania," while another one is "Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania." Did she have a sex-change operation I wasn't aware of? I always thought that an "actress" was a woman who acted, while an "actor" was a man who acted. Have I been misinformed somewhere along the line? If I haven't been misinformed, shouldn't the category "Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania" be corrected to "Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania?" HaarFager (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Another Quick Question[edit]

I see one of the categories is "Actresses from Pennsylvania," while another one is "Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania." These seem to be describing a female, in the first instance, and then a male in the second instance. Isn't there something wrong about that? Lizabeth Scott was a female for her entire life. HaarFager (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The categories are somewhat inconsistent, as "actors" can mean actresses as well. Category:Actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania includes actresses and there is no category for Scranton actresses, which you could have easily discovered for yourself. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I also now see that your Category:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania was merged to the actors category recently. This is not the place to try to overturn that verdict. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)