Talk:Paulette Goddard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Unless the picture on the cover of the book Kitty is a photo of Paulette Goddard, its presense in the article is needless. Amerindianarts 01:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this?

Opening paragraph: "Her exceptional beauty and fame led to several marriages to notable men" 1. Beauty being POV 2. Source stating that it was her fame and beauty that led to these marriages LordRobert 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Charlie Chaplin article, it says she claimed being "secretly" married and Charlie later denied this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabertooth (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Accuracy dispute: Paulette Goddard's birthyear

Since I have been monitoring this article the birthdate has had several changes. The last edit placed it at 1911. Since this date did not correspond to the date on her gravestone which is entered in the section "Later Life" as 1910, I reverted it. Please use this page to resolve the issue.Amerindianarts 19:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I made some major changes here. I think that until concrete, factual evidence can be presented on her birthyear that it should be left as unknown. This concerns fact, it is not something that can delegated to majority rule or a democracy. We cannot vote on the year Paulette Goddard was born. I researched several sources and found as many different dates. The website on her activities with Zeigfeld even had two different birthyears on the same page.Amerindianarts 09:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• What is the source the clippings used? If she shaved years off her life (lied about her age), as has been stated, then how do you know she was born in 1910?Amerindianarts 23:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Due to a controversial birthdate, anonymous entries with conflicting information, and POV, please use this page to discuss Goddard's birthdate. If Goodard lied about her age as one reverted anonymous entry stated, then "clippings" from whatever sources may be questionable. Is there an authoritative biography which would have checked records?? Can the records themselves be checked? Amerindianarts 23:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Years that have been cited for Goddard's birthyear: 1905,1909,1910,1911,1913,1914. I believe it to be 1910 or 1911, but I'm not going to cite either of those years because I don't have an authoritative source. The year on her birthstone means nothing. She died in Switzerland without surviving children or husband and the information the Swiss authorities posessed was probably dependent upon the same information that is doubted here, or upon Goddard herself who was known for lying about her age.Amerindianarts 23:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• If someone has an authoritative source, please enter it here. In my research I have found no biography of Goddard. Various websites give various years and I would now question the reliability of such sources. Newspaper clippings can also be dubious, considering they may have Goddard as their source for the information. Amerindianarts 05:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This book says she was born in 1910. It has a very detailed geneology of her family, I would trust it. You can look through the first few pages with this info at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0595122965/qid=1127074156/sr=1-1504/ref=sr_1_1504/103-1474594-6266247?v=glance&s=books

I will remove the Factual tag from the article.

1)You cannot simply remove the dispute tag. It must be replaced with an icon (which links to this conversation) stating that there was a dispute and you claim to have resolved it. You can find the link/icon by following the dispute link. If this link is not inserted I will revert your entry.

2)Which book? The very same page you cite above listing the source has a link with Goddard's birthdate listed as 1911. This link goes to a list including three biographies of Goddard. Can any of these other bios be glanced?Amerindianarts 21:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what your idea of a detailed geneology is, but on reviewing the book I see no detailed geneology. There is also a review on the book on the same page which claims it to be sloppy, full of typos, and as containing erroneous info. I am trying to review the other bios and I am also trying to contact the author of the review. I suggest, and am pursuing, further research. Amerindianarts 22:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please sign your entries to this conversation.Amerindianarts 22:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted unsigned, anonymous entries, and no dispute resolution tag

Three biographies? I was just referring to "The Smiling Girl On The Cardboard Moon" book. Some books can be glanced, some can't. That's the only one I found on Amazon that could be. I said it had detailed geneology because it had the year when one of her ancestors came over from England, the year of her parents marriage, her mother's exact birthdate. There is only one user review of the book so you can't really call judgement on it. It seems accurate to me. It's no big deal if you want to do further research, but I would just assume a book with those kind of dates to be accurate. - 24.141.149.226

You can remove the dispute tag if you want, but it must be replaced by a link as described on the dispute page letting viewers know that it has been disputed in the past and could be subject to further revision as allowed by validation and confirmation in their own research. The new tag is also your signature. I personally don't see the source as authoritative. I have been trying to contact the reviewer to see if they have read other bios, as is implied in their review. I also wonder why the user "list" containing all bios, including your source, would still give her birthyear as 1911. That tells me that the other bios, which you haven't viewed, may state other sources which can be authoritative. I assume the compiler of the list has read all the bios. Solid research method and validation is not quite so simple. Confirmation of your source should include eliminating the very discrepancies right before your eyes. Amerindianarts 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The bio by Joe Morella and Edward Z. Epstein gives her birthyear as 1911. Other sources for this date are Made in Heaven by Victoria Houseman. It is also interesting that in 1940 she was sued by her father for $150,000, claiming she lied about her past and he was libeled. She agreed to pay him $75 a week. Amerindianarts 06:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC) I am in contact with the Greater Astoria Historical Society in New York (Long Island). They give her birthyear as 1911. This Society's Board membership consists of educated people trained in gathering historical and biographical information. Paramount had studios located in Astoria. Amerindianarts 06:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting confirmation on Paulette Goddard's mother's name. Sources indicate that her mother was Alta Hatch, not Leslie Goddard (Gozard). This may be the source of confusion as to the birthyear. Amerindianarts 07:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The following information was obtained from the Greater Astoria Historical Society. They did not have access to original, primary source documents in ascertaining Goddard’s birthyear as 1911. It was gleaned from many sources as the most cited and most probable date. They also added that like much American folklore and myth it is perpetuated and all but accepted as fact by the American public.
  • It appears that a central issue to this dispute is what level of editorial integrity do Wikipedians wish to maintain. It is fairly easy to insert a date and many editors would probably like to do so stating it as the definitive date. It is much more difficult to cite conflicting sources and simply say "I don’t know". But this later option has much more integrity and is preferable in academia. Should Wikipedia follow the lead of so many other sources, in print and across the internet, and insert a date which is for the most part uncertain and questionable? Or, set itself apart from this editorial policy and maintain a certain editorial integrity by stating the truth- there is too much conflicting information at the present time to cite a specific date? What is to be gained by citing potentially erroneous information in lieu of what is certainly the case?
  • The Encyclopedia Britannica cites the date as 1905. One hesitates to dispute their information, but they are the only source for this date. There is also a question of Goddard's mother's name from source to source, which could be a source of discrepancies even if original documents were consulted. Different sources give her birth name as Paulette Marian Levy and her mother as Alta Hatch. She has been credited in some productions as simply Marian Levy. Another source has given her mother’s name as Leslie Goddard (Gozard) asserting this as the source for her adopting Goddard as her last name. And there is also the question of why Paulette Goddard was sued by her father for libelous concerns. It is also certain given the circumstances that the date of 1910 on a gravestone in a Swiss cemetery doesn’t mean a thing.Amerindianarts 06:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • imdb's detailed biography says that 1905 given as her birth year of record in Ronco Switzerland, where she died. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That is the same year given by the Encyclopedia Britannica. But why a 1905 birthyear of record and a 1910 on her gravestone at Ronco???.Amerindianarts 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the detailed bio give her mother's name?? This seems to be the source of much confusion. The mini-bio at imdb gives 1910 as her birthyear and I'm sure this is the source for most people trying to insert a birthyear in the article here. The Greater Astoria Historical Society is the historical society within the community where Goddard was born, but they tell me they didn't have original documents as their source, but state that 1911 has the best support unofficially. It is possible that the Ronco record is based upon a passport, which would have to be based upon birth records, and the date on her gravestone is the date according to Goddard, who was known (notoriously) for lying about her age. This is what I think, but not with enough certainty to make the article change. I think that no matter what year is put in the article people will continue to try and edit it. Amerindianarts 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

One editor of this article had given Goddard's mother's name as "Leslie Goddard (Gozard), citing the book The Smiling Girl on the Cardboard Moon: The Saga of Paulette Goddard. This misquotes the facts presented in the book. However, the book itself gives information that is conflicting in regard to dates and ages given in other biographies. The website http://www.adherents.com/people/pg/Paulette_Goddard.html cites the biography Opposite Attraction: The Lives of Erich Maria Remarque and Paulette Goddard in giving Goddard's birthyear as 1910 on a birth certificate. It is difficult to argue with a birth certificate as a source, but it is even more difficult to reconcile this information with a passport birthyear of 1905. Passport issuance currently requires by law a birth certificate. So one would assume that there is also a birth certificate stating her birthyear as 1905, but it is also possible that restrictions for passport issuance may have been pretty lax or easy to circumvent at the beginning of the twentieth century. I have no proposed solution and cannot argue with either 1905 or 1910 as the year given in the article. But I would hate to see a different year cited in the article every time I visit the page as it was before the disputed icon was in place. So, if anyone needs the ego boost in placing a year in the article, so be it, but I will strongly oppose any removal of the disputed facts icon.Amerindianarts 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As a genealogist who has dealt with passport applications from that era, I can tell you that presentation of a birth certificate was not necessary to get a passport. However, is there any official statement that the 1905 year of birth is indeed from a passport? Note that I have added to the article a reference to Goddard's parents' listing in the U.S. Census taken on April 15, 1910 (New York County, New York, enumeration district 603, p. 13-A, family 285), when they were still childless. — Walloon 08:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a government website link that could be used as an inline citation? If so, it would be helpful to include it as a reference. Rossrs 08:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No government website link. But the 1910 U.S. Census is available online at Ancestry.com. Because that is a subscription website, no general access URL is available. But many libraries subscribe to Ancestry.com, so the census listing is easily verifiable. Another pre-show business source would be her listing in the 1915 New York State Census, available on microfilm. It is indexed by street but not by name. — Walloon 10:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It's great to have that information. Rossrs 10:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the 1905 birthyear was simply conjecture on how how the Swiss authorities would have that year as her birthyear according to the article referenced above by DropDeadGorgias. It is also the birthyear given in the Encyclopedia Britannica and was first used in this article. Since she didn't have to present a birth certificate for a passport she could have conceivable lied to make herself older, but this doesn't make too much sense since she often misrepresented her age to make herself younger. The evidence cited by the census report would definitely eliminate 1905 as a possible birthyear. Makes you wonder about the stuff you read in the Britannica. Amerindianarts 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well here's a theory. Assume she did lie to make herself older, there would have to be an explanation that makes perfect sense. If she was an underage chorus girl (and there's anecdotal evidence to support the notion that she was) and suppose she needed to get a passport, lying to make herself appear older would be necessary. Passports are then usually renewed without making a complete new application so the lie would continue on to subsequent passports. Of course, when she was older she had more reason to lie to make herself younger, but she'd be stuck with the damning passport, which I imagine was kept under lock and key. Just a bit of theorising, but there would have to be a good reason for her making herself older, and that's something only a very young person would try to do. I'd love to know when the first passport was issued - I'll go out on a limb and guess 1926. As for the census info - I think that lends more weight than many of the other supposed sources. It's still problematic though - if she was born after April 1910, the 1910 date on her gravestone may be correct. Then again, any year after could be correct too. It's fascinating. Rossrs 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

More documentary information! The U.S. Census taken on January 1, 1920, shows Paulette Goddard (as Pauline G. Levy) and her parents (Joseph R. and Alta M. Levy) living in Kansas City, Missouri. Her age is listed as 9 years old. Hence, it can be inferred that she was born between January 2, 1910, and January 1, 1911. (Jackson County, Missouri, enumeration district 236, p. 5-B, family 145.) Please note that this was before Paulette entered show business. Combine that with the information in the 1910 census, and the time frame for her birth is narrowed to between April 16, 1910, and January 1, 1911. Can we all get some rest now? — Walloon 07:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work!!! Have you ever thought about becoming a detective? You don't suppose Paulette could have got into the census records and falsified them? ;-) Seriously, this is very interesting and what you've found is so good. Rossrs 10:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent job. This is the type of "verification" that warrants removal of the disputed tag.Amerindianarts 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also her gravestone in Switzerland states 1910 quite clearly. Quis separabit? 15:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of disputed tag

I appreciate the investigative work done by User:Amerindianarts however it may yet be an unsolveable puzzle. I've removed the "disputed" tag because it was incorrectly added and creates the misleading impression that the article as a whole is suspect, rather than just one point ie Goddard's date of birth. As per Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute the tag {{disputed}} should be used if there are more than 5 errors or if the overall article seems to be inaccurate. Nobody has suggested that is the case here - it's all about the birth date. Page also says that the correct tag to use when only a particular sentence or fact is disputed is {{dubious}}. This tag is currently nominated for deletion, and comments in that forum (although it's only newly been added there) suggest that a notation of the disputed fact is sufficient. In the case of Goddard, there is a footnote linked from the date explaining the situation, the date provided is prefaced by "c." which is standard when the date is doubtful, and finally the date used is the one that more evidence seems to point toward. It's not acceptable to resolve the inaccuracy to the best of our ability but then leave the "disputed" tag, because it will remain there forever, and that is clearly not the intention of the tag. I think the issue of the birth date is adequately noted in the article, with the footnote and that this is the best we can do at the moment.

I'm concerned that the incorrect use of the "disputed" tag simply creates an article that is not only ugly and unprofessional, but that also casts doubt on Wikipedia's credibility. Put simply, if a new user came to Wikipedia, I would hope that Paulette Goddard with it's crude tag, is not the first article they read.

I'm also puzzled by this quote from the above discussion "You cannot simply remove the dispute tag. It must be replaced with an icon (which links to this conversation) stating that there was a dispute and you claim to have resolved it. You can find the link/icon by following the dispute link. If this link is not inserted I will revert your entry." Can somebody please show me where this is written as policy? Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute says "once you've found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your edit summary: Verified article -- removed accuracy dispute" so I have followed this procedure. Having said all this, I hope that somewhere in the future some definitive record may be found - if not a birth certificate, perhaps some census information that predates the time Goddard felt the need to lie about her age. As census records are currently being added to the net, it may eventually be possible to determine her age, especially if she was born before the 1910 census. Rossrs 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to this I would assume you have a strange notion of "verified". Absolutely nothing was verified. I also disagree with the "c." tag regarding birthyears. It is fine for artifacts, events, but re: birthyears in recent history is bad form, regardless of Wiki policy for using it. I would have removed the "c." long ago but I grew tired of arguing the point. Too many egos wanting their names up in lights for solving a "great mystery". Amerindianarts 18:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of the word verified - I said it had been investigated as far as was possible which is a different thing. The action I have taken is in line with the relevant policy. If you think the policy is wrong, you could always argue that, and if you want to think that I want my name "in lights" go ahead, but the only name other than mine, on this talk page, is actually yours. (Excepting one brief signed comment by User:DropDeadGorgias). You are not the only person with a right to express an opinion or to make edits and it's not necessary for you to attribute motives to other users. I certainly don't appreciate the inference to me. Rossrs 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I had also reinserted the icon to prevent the wholesale changes that this article was experiencing prior to the insertion. The date was being changed on a regular basis by every newby who thought they knew. Now that the icon is gone, the talk page will be ignored and the changes will probably return to their wholesale nature. Amerindianarts 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

in which case you or I can revert them. Rossrs 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You should probably reread the comments a little more carefully. You used the term "verified article". As far as motives I was referring to those individuals who repeatedly inserted a specific date. Read the damn history of the article. You did not enter a specific date and the comment was not directed towards you, but to those individuals who wanted a "date" irrespective of the evidence to the contrary. I think you took the comments a little too personally, which really doesn't surprise me here at Wiki. I also in no way inferred that I was the only with a right to an opinion. The lack of other's participation should make it obvious that no one wanted to discuss the issue, but merely wanted to be the one to insert a date. As far as your remark "I'm concerned that the incorrect use of the "disputed" tag simply creates an article that is not only ugly and unprofessional, but that also casts doubt on Wikipedia's credibility," the credibilty issue as you stated it is rather one-sided and does depict a very narrow notion of "verified" in regard to appearances of credibility. Amerindianarts 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You should probably reread the comments a little more carefully. I was quoting from the Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute page which used the word "verified" as part of an example (it says "like the following") of an edit summary to use when certain conditions, such as those under discussion, have been dealt with. In my actual edit summary I chose not to use the incorrect word "verified" and said "removed disputed tag. see talk page" which makes no claims about it being verified. I haven't used the word "verified" in any other context - but let's not allow this to degenerate any further. The point is that the article makes it abundantly clear that the date is doubtful, and that it is absolutely NOT verified, and in doing so actually does a better job of highlighting the fact than any other book or website I have referred to, so all credit to you for that. It simply does not need the tag there any longer as the tag is now redundant, and in fact, should not have been used in the first place. It makes it appear that the 'entire article is disputed - this what I was commenting on regarding credibility. It makes it look like we can't even get a badly written article on a dead movie star factually correct, when the truth is that the subject deliberately blurred her age by changing her birth date. If this situation is addressed in the article itself, what exactly is being disputed? Rossrs 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, what is abundantly clear that no one wanted to discuss the issue, hence, I quite naturally dominated the discussion. Users kept changing the date before the icon was in place and the substance of the article presented the date as disputed. Do I need to reinterate? Read the damn history.Amerindianarts 04:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary for you to repeat yourself. Once is enough. I've read the damn history ok? I read it before I did anything. I understand how frustrated you are - I've experienced a similar problem with the Joan Crawford article - but even so, the rude tone you're projecting is not necessary. Rossrs 08:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care about the removal of the icon. I was simply trying to control a situation that was out of control and turning into an edit war. I reported the issue to an administrator and receive absolutely no response or help. So, if you are an administrator, all I can say is it took you people long enough to give it some attention. Do I resent the references to credibility, dispute, etc. Yes. If you rethink the appearance of credibility, then consider how many sites mirror Wiki and ask how often they refresh their content and do they refrsh at the same time. If someone goes to several of these mirror sites looking for info on Goddard's birthyear and finds different dates at different sites all crediting the info to WIKI, exactly what appearance of credibility does this reflect?? This was the issue I was concerned with. You put the page on your watchlist and you perform the reverts. Amerindianarts 07:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm not an administrator. The page is on my watchlist, and I'm quite willing to do the reverts. Rossrs 08:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Losing Scarlett O'Hara role

I have removed "(legend has it the ambiguity of her marital status to Chaplin was a factor in this decision)" - this was obviously not a factor. Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier were conducting quite a public affair despite each being married to other people. This caused David O. Selznick some concern, but did not stop him hiring Leigh. Rossrs 10:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I question your claim of "quite a public affair". Can you quote from even one major U.S. publication from 1938-1939 that stated that Olivier and Leigh were an item? — Walloon 16:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. But why just a US publication? Americans don't live in some kind of vacuum. News from Britain, where the couple were better known at the time, and were therefore written about more frequently, did travel and the British press had reported their relationship well before Leigh was considered for Gone with the Wind.

Hedda Hopper: June 27, 1939 wrote that Leigh was "just so happy to be back with Laurence Olivier and who could blame her? Wouldn't we all like the chance?" - the casual tone also suggests that she's not exactly breaking the news. It implies some level of previous knowledge.

Louella Parsons: July 1939 wrote that Leigh spent "her first American Fourth of July in New York with the boyfriend" who was named as Laurence Olivier, and stated that Leigh was very anxious "to play the wife with her very good friend Laurence Olivier". The cryptic comment may have related to the upcoming film Rebecca or Parsons may have been winking as she wrote the words.

Both quoted in Olivier by Terry Coleman, 2005. As far as gossip columnists go, there have probably never been others with the same level of reach and influence as Hopper and Parsons and their comments would have gone from coast to coast, so I would call both references "major".

Also from Olivier : (June 1939) "By this time there was nothing secret about Olivier and Leigh's affair. The Syracuse Herald, in New York State, ran a detailed and substantially accurate story under the headline "VIVIEN LEIGH'S ROMANCE GIVES JITTERS TO GONE WITH THE WIND DIRECTORS""

In Vivien, The Life of Vivien Leigh by Alexander Walker, he writes that Leigh arrived in New York on December 1, 1938 and the waiting reporters asked why she had come to New York, and then duly reported her reply "Why, to see Laurence Olivier, of course."

The issue is really not whether they were having "quite a public affair", and my choice of words was probably wrong, I agree. In Britain it was much more open, but my point was that it was not the reason Goddard was discarded. In fact, she was passed over for someone even more dangerous - Goddard's marital status was merely questionable, while Leigh was actually committing adultery, and her adultery was a matter of public record as it had been reported by the British press. It was inevitable that the facts would also become known in the USA. Selznick (according to David O. Selznick's Hollywood ) worried about how the public might react but decided it was worth the risk. If he was equally convinced about Goddard he would have taken the same risk, and that, in a nutshell, is why the Goddard "legend" is just that. Rossrs 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

At present the article has two different sections discussing her loss of this role. Perhaps someone would like to edit this down to one? Nandt1 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was odd, wasn't it? Trimmed down as you suggested. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

TIme of Indifference

The Italian movie Gli indifferenti (Time of Indifference) opened in Rome in 1964, and in New York on 12 October 1965. Halliwell's Filmgoer's Companion is a bad source for years of release, and I am someone who is a credited contributor to two editions of that book. — Walloon 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the article: Russell Birdwell, the head of Selznick's publicity department, had strong misgivings about Goddard. He warned Selznick of the "tremendous avalanche of criticism that will befall us and the picture should Paulette be given this part… I have never known a woman, intent on a career dependent upon her popularity with the masses, to hold and live such an insane and absurd attitude towards the press and her fellow man as does Paulette Goddard…

Disputed birth names and date of birth

Both of those issues seem to be hogging up a lot of commentary space. That section of 260 words devoted to her birth date could be a sentence or two in the bio, and the rest in a note. Same with her birth name, which is cluttering up the infobox with trivial differences. All those minor name variations, assuming we have sources, could also be in a note. -- Light show (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Light show -- OK, dude. Fix it up. I deputize you. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)