Talk:Barbara Stanwyck

Minor question on personal life

... (He and Stanwyck eventually became estranged.) ... He being Frank, the husband, or Dion, the son? Can someone who knows clarify the sentence? 74.104.110.56 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality: More Gossip on Page

Somebody has been at it again, adding "lesbian" data. Did Stanwyck even meet Greta Garbo?? I have never read of them even being in the same room from a legitimate source. Somebody at wikipedia really needs to watch some of the entries on classic stars because there are people posting all sorts of gossip as fact.

Much of Boze Hadleigh's work has been questioned, as everyone is always dead and he never seems to have a tape recorder around. It's a shame that Wikipedia allows this type of work in, but they do, so there's nothing to be done about it.

No need to rely on Hadleigh, though he's usually right. See Axel Madsen's excellent biography "Stanwyck", Harper Collins, 1994. --Kstern999 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From an interview with Victoria Wilson in Backlots: "I had one ambition for my biography of Barbara Stanwyck, and that was to write a book that reflected the truth about my subject and her world, regardless of what it was. I have written quite detailed portraits of Stanwyck’s two marriages; the first to Frank Fay; the second to Robert Taylor. Each marriage was complex and came about because of complex reasons – and stayed in tact because of equally complicated reasons; neither marriage came about because of homosexuality. I asked many people who would have a somewhat informed inkling about Robert Taylor’s sexuality, people who knew him at the time, or would have heard about the (then, of necessity) underground truth of his sexuality and nowhere did I come across any hint of his being gay, including interviewing Harry Hay, founder in 1950 of the Mattachine Society. If anyone would have known, or heard about the truth of Taylor’s sexuality over the years, it would have been Harry Hay. . ."

"The last thing Metro wanted was for Robert Taylor to be married, until they did, and it was not as a cover up for his sexuality. When people read the book they will see in detail how Stanwyck and Taylor came together, and what it did for both people; how it helped both and changed both. Volume Two portrays the shape of the marriage and how and why it ultimately fell apart, which, as in real life, happened over time and grew out of a set of subtle and complicated circumstances – and out of two people changing and changing out of different needs at different stages of their life, and their work." Chandler75 19:21, 11 September 2015

As far as Stanwyck meeting Garbo - NO. I worked on the Garbo biography for author Barry Paris, and she and Garbo never met. The Hepburn book states that Garbo and Hepburn had an affair, but in fact, the met only once.Chandler75 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian Rumor

This is a rumor, it should not be stated as a fact. The allegation does not come from individuals who knew Stanwyck personally but a handful of "books" with authors of questionable accuracy (see the reviews on amazon.com for various comments from multiple readers questioning the accuracy of the books in question.)

I completely agree - it's a widely enough reported rumour for it to be included in the article as a rumour. This needs to be fixed. There are other examples in other articles - for example in the Boze Hadleigh article, Agnes Moorehead is identified as a lesbian, rather than as a rumoured lesbian. We shouldn't be taking such liberties, simply because the dead can't be libeled. I think Hadleigh's books should be viewed with extreme scepticism as source material. Rossrs 11:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I have no problem with acknowledging the homosexuality or bisexuality of stars when it's a given fact (Marlene Dietrich, Montgomery Clift) or there is considerable proof despite denials (James Dean) but I don't believe every rumor means the story is true. Stanwyck should also be taken off of the "Lesbian actors" link at the bottom because at the very least she was bisexual, given her marriages and acknowledged affairs with Robert Wagner, Frank Capra, and other men.

Don't forget Nolan Miller.Lorrobhen (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia has made it clear that it does not care. It only has to be published and, fact or not, it is therefore verifiable. It's made clear in the rules - it doesn't have to be true.

The problem is, the dead have no rights. I think there needs to be a law that an estate can protect an image as far as making sure there is solid evidence behind published material and make authors and publishers accountable. Look at what has been done to the reputation of Errol Flynn by being called a Nazi. That was very easily debunked, but no publisher fact-checked it. They don't have to - he's dead. The problem is, the stories get bigger and bigger and more exaggerated as time goes on. I frankly at this point don't have any idea how Tyrone Power managed three wives, his mother, his sister, two kids, countless female lovers, and a film and stage career with all the sleeping around he did with men. It's absurd. I'm not saying he didn't have a bisexual relationship along the way, but it cannot possibly be to the extent that it's rumored to be now. And face it - if Mr. Blackwell could have sold books by saying he had Elvis' baby, he would have. An interviewer said to him, "Well, you have an interesting story. And that's exactly what it is. A story." But the dead tell no tales.Chandler75 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the beefs that I have with the "lesbian" identification is the peculiar standard used for claiming a (deceased and therefore unable-to-answer) celebrity as a "lesbian": a rumoured fling with Joan Crawford outweighs a publicly established lifetime of marriages and love affairs with men and an attempted suicide when her husband had an affair with another man. Somehow, I thought being a lesbian entailed just a little bit more commitment to female homosexuality than that. Certainly I know what would happen if any ordinary woman (or living celebrity) made a claim to being a lesbian with that kind of track record -- remember how Anne Heche got dragged over the coals? And it's interesting how those who base a "lesbian" identification on one or two rumoured flings don't even stop to glance at "bisexual" before they go shooting straight to "lesbian" and all that it implies (this is biphobia, perhaps?). Hell, if a woman doesn't make romantic involvement with both men and women a pattern of her sexual life -- that is, if her involvement with women is limited to an occasional fling that doesn't progress to pairbonding -- I'm not even sure the word bisexual applies. If one or two episodes are sufficient to change a person's very sexual identity ...Excuse me! You can never be involved intimately with someone of your own gender and still be bisexual! It's about attraction. Many people live in repressive situations and are unable to explore their feelings and desires. If a person honestly identifies as bisexual ( or any other sexuality) then that is what they are. The conceit involved in deciding that "an occasional fling" or "one or two episodes" aren't justification for someone's bisexuality is astounding. Mind your business, you are NOT judge, jury or even entitled to an opinion.

In any case, I would say that assigning someone a sexual identity that they never claimed for themselves in life -- or, especially, that they publicly rejected -- falls nicely into the crosshairs of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". --7Kim 20:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Wilson has only published part one of her book on Stanwyck. She worked on this biography for over 15 years. She went back to original sources, she spoke to friends, family, to coworkers, and even to Stanwyck's estranged son. She corrected a lot of "facts" that appear in other books. What happens is that people add to the original fact, so over 70 years or so, affairs that never took place happened, meetings that never took place happened, quotes are added to. In Part I of the Stanwyck book, it's evident that Stanwyck clearly married for love in both instances; there will be more information in volume II, and, knowing how hard Ms. Wilson worked on this book, I think we will be able to trust it. Chandler75 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Stanwyck being added on the basis of her performance in Double Indemnity. It was a brilliant yet campy performance. And Stanwyck always had a tougher-than-nails presence.

What I have a MAJOR issue with is the emphasis being placed here on her sexuality rather than her career. She had a career spanning sixty years and yet the issue of Robert Taylor prevails.

Cut me a break...are we discussing Barbara Stanwyck's career or her sexuality?

Well it is true that Stanwyck was most likely a lesbian, the title of "gay icon" has nothing to do with her sexual orientation, but the sexual orientation of her fansbase.

Bisexuality

Stanwyck was at least bisexual, she was known to have had relationships with Helen Ferguson, Joan Crawford and others. Her co-star Capucine indicated that Stanwyck, although always discreet, had a female lover while the film "Walk on the Wild Side", which also starred Jane Fonda. Clifton Webb referred to Stanwyck as "My Favorite American Lesbian". And I don't think anyone ever claimed that Garbo and Stanwyck were lovers. - 216.194.58.195 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, some seem to think that they can build their own illusion and POV by removing direct quotes and without discussion here. Doc 02:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

McJonathan-- I am not clear what your edit summary meant, but I have rv User:Demiurge's vandalism. - 216.194.4.2 03:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. No-one knows for sure that Stanwyck was bisexual, and as she is not alive, people are able to make up anything they want about her. Just like Cary Grant warned his wife and daughter, as soon as he was dead, people would take up the most popular and bad rumors about him; either he was gay or cheap. [LD] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.175.77.189 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The only mention of the possibility in the article is one single quote by Clifton Webb, which is apparently secondhand and may or may not have been tongue-in-cheek. There is no -- zero! -- other reference to homosexuality in the article, and yet this article is included in Category:Lesbian actors. Er, what gives? Since no significant basis is offered in the personal article for the idea that she was lesbian or bisexual, I am taking it on myself to remove this article from Category:Lesbian actors. If anyone wishes to contest that removal, I expect to see both sources for the assertion that she had any same-sex involvements at all and an explanation of why she should be in Category:Lesbian actors rather than Category:Bisexual American actors. --7Kim 08:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have difficulty with the sourcing for the Clifton Webb quote. If I read things right, he was quoted in a book that was not by him, nor even about him, but about the leading men of classic Hollywood -- in other words, the source for the article's sole statement about non-heterosexuality comments on her with at least three levels of indirection and multiple layers of filtering and decontextualisation. I'm not going to delete it immediately as I did the categorisation under Category:Lesbian actors, but I must note that this is extremely poor sourcing for a claim, on a sensitive subject, that the subject of the article denied strongly throughout her life. An ISBN number does not a reliable source make. I'm giving it until 10 June, and then it's getting removed in the absence of reasonable, well-supported objection. --7Kim 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So what?

I'm a bit tired of actors and actresses being branded as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual". I have never been able to find out exactly how that was supposed to influence their abilities to act. We're not told about their hair colour, or eye colour, so why does it have to be revealed that either there was a rumour or an opinion that anything to do with a sexual practice was important enough to be mentioned? Is it to reassure gay people that gaiety was going on long ago among celebrities, or is it a valid way of shattering an image? I don't really care who did what with what to whom, as I've just simply loved to watch Barbara Stanwyck in a movie, as that was always an interesting story, with a woman playing a great part. Bette Dash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.96.16 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From the tone of your posting, I can see you think being gay is a bad thing ("branded as gay", "shattering an image", etc). To me personally, an actor's sexuality is not important and has little to do with their work. However, repression of sexuality (by Hollywood or any other industry) is a highly relevant topic in this day and age. Not as gossip and tabloid fodder, but more to do with prominence and visibility (or lack thereof). I suggest that if you do not like knowing the personal details of your favourite stars (proven or otherwise) then don't read any kind of biographical details and just keep yourself focused on their work alone. You will enjoy it so much more not knowing anything about them. Incidentally, I have absolutely no idea whether Stanwyck was a lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual, but I hardly think that gay people need reassurances that "gaiety" (as you call it) was going on long ago. It's already a proven fact that it was. 79.74.111.82 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals

Something should be said of Stanwyck's involvement with the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. I'll try to add some info after more research, but if anyone knows anything about this... - AKeen 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Kane?

Bob Kane, the co-creator of Batman was a film producer? --Mike Castle (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

This desperately needs inline citations

There are numerous claims made in this article which are not referenced, so I am putting a tag on it. The first person to ask me for examples will be requested to read the article.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no. If you see specific points that you believe needs a citation, then you really need to tag them. The tag you put isn't the appropriate one, it is the one that you would use if there were a list of external links/printed materials and no inline citations and reads "This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate." It isn't appropriate to say "don't ask what needs sourced, go read it." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed your tag, which was unwarranted. If there are specific things that need citing, labelling them if you must -- although it would be better to actually do some editing and research a bit to see if you can find a citation. Tagging is not a substitute for editing, a tag is simply a goad to other editors to so something that the tagging editor is unwilling to do themslves. In short: Don't tag it, fix it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They also serve who only tag. One could equally say: Don't be annoyed at the tag and demand the tagging editor do everything; fix it yourself. Ricardiana (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That might be a valid observation if in fact the tag that was added was not unspecific and incorrect. Suppose you point out what exactly was the complaint for this tag that was added. The article did not have a list of references, related reading or external links but no inline citations. Which of those external links or the "Bibliography" obituary article was suitable for adding inline citations that were relevant and sufficient enough to source content. The tag was incorrect and was unhelpful. Maybe a refimprove tag, but not the tag that was placed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the tag. I am responding to a different point. Ricardiana (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on color & font size

As a point of information, the background color and size of text in the quote box added in the career section is not legible for some persons with vision disabilities and color distinguishing problems. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest? Ricardiana (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A much lighter and neutral color, although I'm personally a fan of that color you used for other things - a light grey or even a lighter plum color. I'd also increase the font size to no less that 90%. I speak from my own vision difficulties - I have to increase the font size on all my webpages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a change and post here when I'm done so you can let me know if it's better. Ricardiana (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find a hex code for a lighter plum color, so I went with a very light grey. I also got rid of the tiny font for the attribution. What do you think? Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's much better. I have found a lot of useful colors at List of colors and Web colors. There might be something helpful there. Also, you might take a look at Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles. It explains a bit about color blindness and deficits and what might work or not (although it isn't 100% reflective of every problem). The table heading color (I) used at List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men works quite well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK; thanks for the tips. I'll check those out. Glad the box is more readable now. Ricardiana (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Role in McCarthy Hearings

I think I remember that Stanwyck and Taylor both testified at the House Unamerican Activities hearings and named names. If I'm right, it's a highly relevant, and illuminating, historical fact that ought to be recorded in ther bio here. Any thoughts?

I had no idea. If true, it was incredibly courageous of them. Fairydogmother (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Stanwyck

I've always understood that her name was pronounced "Stannick", but in recent decades people seem to be more commonly pronouncing it as "Stanwick". If I'm right then I think there should be a pronunciation entry after her name at the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.105.247 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of Common Names

The infobox already lists "Ruby Catherine Stevens" as a birth name as well as the name appearing in the lede and in the first section on her early life. Barbara Stanwyck was more than a stage name, it was the name which was most closely associated with her. Only once in her later life did she revert to the use of her birth name. FWiW , see Common names. Examples given include: Bill Clinton and Mother Theresa, Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC).

Hi my name is theodore and I currently along with my wife live in a home in Dallas Texas I've been told was previously owned by Barbara Stanwyck, can anyone confirm this for me by way of history facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.248.73 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Filmography list

I restored the summary list of Stanwyck's films because it is helpful to readers who print the PDF articles or simply want to scan the actor's history in a convenient way without forcing them to a separate article. Please note that WP:SIZE applies to "readable prose" in the main body of the text and excludes "material such as footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.), diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up." Regards, Bede735 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is far too bulky and totally redundant in the face of a separate filmography article. I oppose its inclusion here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's neither fish nor fowl, and contrary to standard practice: see Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe. A few articles do include real "summary" lists (e.g. Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis), but even they don't list everything twice. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is an issue. The list, in column format, offers a complete filmography list within a single screen view. If readers want more information about these films, the filmography main article is a click away to see the role, leading man, director, etc. Bede735 (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's not an issue, why are you so set against the general consensus? If readers want more information about her filmography, the article is a "click away". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is this "general consensus" captured? Summary lists and annotated filmographies serve different purposes. Bede735 (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus is demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of film bios with separate filmographies are set up that way. Also, what's here is not a "summary" list; it's a complete one. A summary one is what Hepburn and Davis have. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "vast majority"—for example, see Claudette Colbert, Gary Cooper, Myrna Loy, Amy Adams, etc. We've expressed our opinions. Let's see what other editors think about the issue, especially editors who've worked on this article. Bede735 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I'll put up a notice at WT:FILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor of having a filmography on an actor or filmmaker's article. As a reader, I've been frustrated with the practice of having to go to yet another article to find a link to a film when I go to an actor's article. I don't work much with biographical articles, but I think a good practice would be to have a simple filmography on the person's article and a more detailed filmography in a separate article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Erik. I think the two articles have a good balance. You have a simple list of films here which is very compact and you have more detailed coverage (which would swamp the biography article) at the filmography article. Yes it is redundant, but that in itself isn't a problem if it serves a different need. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I find it annoying to have the entire list in a separate article and no summary. But it's not a huge deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• (too many colons - went back to the left margin) First, I think there should be some sort of consensus reached, and then all articles, whether it be the Bogart or Cooper model should be used. Personally, I agree with Bede735, Erik and Betty Logan, that there should be a list of the films in the actor's article. A simple list like the Cooper and Stanwyck articles, with a link to the main filmography article, which then gives expanded information on each of the films. I'd be willing to help to go over articles which need a simple list added to it (e.g. Bogart). Onel5969 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is, if we do support a "simple list" being present in such articles, how simple is simple? Should it be a complete, exhaustive filmography, which makes it long, or should it be a selected filmography of career highlights? If the latter, then what are the inclusion criteria, and how do you prevent edit-wars over what stays and what goes? Elizium23 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be simple (in other words, just the title and date), yet comprehensive (e.g. including all the films of the artist). Onel5969 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that we include a selected filmography in the main article. Something manageable and easy to glance through. No, I don't know how to select the films, but I would suggest that they only include leading and/or award-winning roles. For Bruce Campbell, something like Ash in Evil Dead, but not the cameos in Spider-Man or Escape from L.A.. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

When I favor a simple filmography, I prefer to list all films, just with the release year and no other detail. Multiple columns can be used to avoid extraneous white space. The problem with pursuing a "selected" criteria is that we don't know what a reader will want to look for. Even if we write out the criteria in a passage above the simple list of films, it does not indicate what is being omitted. I'd rather that a simple list on the bio article and a detailed list on the filmography list article be the same number of films. As for placement, I am fine with keeping the filmography relatively low in the order of sections, either at the end or above a "Personal life" section. The earlier sections will discuss the important films in prose, and a straightforward report of a career's works can follow that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erik's format suggestion. Onel5969 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with having full lists in articles at all: it's utterly pointless where withere is a long list of films (such as in this case), adds too much clutter, and is a distraction. It's also pretty pointless where a separate article contains all the relevant information. I'd also add that I rarely see any of the lists within articles that carry any citations at all—as is the case here. I'd rather see a concerted effort to check that the information is correct, and to add citations, which is far more important. (Although I note that the list page also carries no citations). - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As a reader, I don't find it pointless. I expect an actor or a filmmaker's article to list their works. They are represented by their body of work, and it is a hindrance to not provide a navigational tool (the list) in their own article to look up their contributions to film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We agree on a few things here Erik: that there should be links to films from this page. Whereas you prefer a long list, almost out of context, I prefer to have the information written within the body of the article, to give full context about the film at that stage in their career. My eyes glaze over when I look at a list of films in an article: they tell me nothing about the individual, and act only as a navigational aid to the film's page: I'm not sure that's the best approach to take and we may as well just move on to having navboxes instead. I look at the FAs of Charlie Chaplin, Judy Garland and Vivien Leigh, who don't list the films in which they appear (Chaplin's includes his films as director only) and can only think that these are far more reader-friendly and useful (and yes, less ugly) that the featureless list that actually tells me surprisingly little. - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I find the lists of films within an article to be an annoying distraction; when that list is incomplete I find it misleading (who decides what to include or omit - and on what basis?) Such "selected" lists tend to be along the 'here-are-my-favourite-films-of-x' lines, as I've rarely seen one I agree with, except when it is limited by an express criteria (films for which x won awards etc). A well-written article should cover the main and notable films within the text, while a separate page listing all appearances of the individual covers everything they have done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this discussion be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I removed the list at Amy Adams, saying it's unnecessary and redundant, and Bede735 directed me here. I see that the list at Barbara Stanwyck is even longer (I would call it "ridiculously long"). I think that if there is going to be a list like this (when there is a separate filmography article), it shouldn't be longer than about 20 titles. But, it's better not to have one at all. If anything, the section should contain prose. Almost all featured bio articles for actors do not have such bulleted lists. The redundancy aspect is not just because there is another filmography page, but also that most of the films listed are already found (and linked) elsewhere in the article. And, I think the main reason for creating a separate filmography article is because the list becomes too long to be on the bio page. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

This should definitely have a legacy section, no? She's terribly underrated. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do Jewish New York actors change their names when they move to Hollywood?

I dont understand why these talented, gifted actors, who speak with an undeniable Brooklyn accent and have undeniably Jewish features, feel the need to "change" their ethnicity, their heritage. Why not embrace and celebrate these things? It's kind of off-putting, as if they fear and don't trust the rest of us. Fairydogmother (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

there's no such thing as "Jewish features" except in racist terms - also, the TP is not for discussing the subject - it is for the improvement of the article by bringing Reliable Sources to the table for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.11.126 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"...should have won Best Actress"?

• Described as one of the ultimate portrayals of villainy, it is widely thought that Stanwyck should have won the Academy Award for Best Actress rather than being just nominated.

The highlighted part of this sentence is problematic. The Oscars for acting are voted on by eligible members of the Academy. Whoever these people who think that she should have won are, are they saying that the voters voted the wrong way? In a vote where one is free to choose from among all the nominees, what is the definition of a "correct vote" or a "wrong vote"? Answer: There's no such thing as either of those creatures. The vote was what it was. Any adverse commentary on that result is just sour grapes, and it is not encyclopedic and we should not be including it.

There was similar commentary when John Wayne won Best Actor for True Grit, only this time it was to the effect that he should NOT have won, and the voters only voted for him out of affection for his whole career in Westerns, rather than for any particular merit for that one film. But again, the vote was what it was, and anyone's opinion doesn't change anything and is irrelevant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the sentence as it stands is a shocking example of a dangling modifier, as the (unstated) subject of the first phrase (Stanwyck's performance) is not the same as the subject of what follows ("it", but I could concede "Stanwyck", which is still not the same as Stanwyck's performance). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It was from an editor quoting critics commentary that spoke to performance. I kinda went through hell with the editor to keep them from writing an essay on this and Lady Eve. They went on to edit Gregory Peck into a film review guide. The critics are cited at end of sentence; I searched online for Shipman but got sidetracked in sourcing content of this problematic quote suffering from possible WP:SYNTH. But both refs are RS's, as for dangling modifier within quote, it could be from source(s) or editor.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Her brother appeared in at least 20 of her TV and Movie productions (mostly as an "extra")

inurl:fullcredits site:www.imdb.com "Barbara Stanwyck" "Bert Stevens"

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Added paragraph about pre-Code work

I just added a paragraph about her pre-Code work in the correct place chronologically in the Film career section, but there's a problem: it mentions Double Indemnity, which isn't described until later in the section. Any thoughts? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

When I asked athe question, I didn’t ask about the part she played, I asked if BRbRawas gay, NOT the part she played!

The part she played but rather her real life persona!! 68.117.44.65 (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused ...

Why would anyone confuse her with Barbara Hershey ? Just because she is named Barbara ? -- Beardo (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)