Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

List of spouses in infobox?

A recent edit removed the list of Grant's spouses from his infobox, stating that it isn't relevant to the subject. So I'd like to start this discussion to see what other users think, and if there is a consensus on whether or not the mentioning of Grant's spouses in his infobox should stay omitted or not? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted, the listing of spouses does not seem to be a key feature of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the wives really shows up the value of the infobox. Incredibly useful and necessary...₪ Encyclopædius 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think to have his dates and places of birth and death together is a great asset of the infobox, also the list of his achievements. (Can't believe that I had to add that.) I'd rather read about private life in prose. Compare Beethoven. Some awards are fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know Gerda, you surprise me to say that.₪ Encyclopædius 09:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting ;) - I suggested Beethoven - as concise as can be - during the efficient workshop phase of the 2013 arbcase. It was installed by the arb who wrote the case following community consensus. I don't understand why the socalled infobox wars didn't end right then, with the compromise of a small infobox that Brian Boulton called identibox, also in 2013, - see Percy Grainger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Standards, please

their lifestyle prompted debate over Grant's sexuality and was common knowledge in Hollywood at the time that each was bisexual in behavior

Seriously? Wikipedia goes by it was common knowledge now? By whom? What about the many, many women Grant dated that stated the rumours were untrue? What about David Niven, who lived next door to Scott and Grant and stated in his autobiography they were both womanizers? It wasn't common knowledge to them, it seems. If we go by well, it's common knowledge in Hollywood, we might as well call everyone there gay. No, this was never commmon knowledge. Please, please, let's keep Wikipedia credible, because it's becoming more ridiculous. We cannot write it was common knowledge they were bisexuals any more than Marilyn Monroe was killed by the Cia...it was common knowledge, you see. Sources, please. Common knowledge by whom? It was speculation then, and it remains speculation now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.204.212 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality

I did re-insert Arthur Laurents' quote about Grant being possibly bisexual in the personal life section, and added Betsy Drake's view that he wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Scotty Bowers, who knew them both, wrote, 'I don't know if their wives ever knew what was going on between them.' After Grant's death, Bowers made a claim in his autobiography Full Service to have had sexual affairs with both Scott and Grant."
Yes, indeedy, and the world is flat, the holocaust never happened, the Apollo moon-landings were faked, Elvis is still alive, and there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you at a great price. In other words, only a blithering idiot would believe any of the garbage that a bald-faced liar like Scotty Bowers had to say. I'm amazed - and appalled - that Wikipedia gives any credence to someone like him. Jimknutt (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no wp:RS stating he is homosexual, unless I've missed something. I have therefore tagged the article with a NPOV template. This should be discussed, and/or proven. Opinions don't count. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree GenQuest but please don't tag the whole article for neutrality, please restore the sexuality section to what it was before when I wrote it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I restored it to the previous, I haven't examined the other edits yet.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Names of spouses and children in the infobox

@Nikkimaria: I'm not fully convinced by your explanation as to why the names of his wives and daughter need to be omitted from the infobox. I was hoping that maybe you could point at a previous discussion where a consensus was reached, but I assume that is not the case (let me know if it is). It is a common practice to include the names of relatives in the infobox, especially if they are notable. It is certainly done for actors and celebrities (Elizabeth Taylor comes to mind). If you have an issue with its length it can be added in the form of a collapsible list. Otherwise, I personally don't see a problem with including them. I was wondering what your point of view was. Keivan.f^Talk 05:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There was historically no consensus on that inclusion, but some of the broader commentary in this archive is relevant - while one user in that archive was supportive, others raised the concerns that this data does not contribute to an understanding of what is key about the subject but does contribute to bloat. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair enough. Let's see if this section attracts any people who might be interested in commenting on the issue. Because these names appear in the lede and in the body of the article, so why exclude them from the infobox then? I agree that adding the names would make the infobox rather lengthy, but I think the collapsible list is the best option. Maybe others could have the same view. Keivan.f^Talk 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Multiple partners/spouses adds a lot to the understanding of an article subject. The list should remain. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The Ultimate Malpractice

The doctor who stood by and watched Cary Grant die because Grant "refused to go to the hospital" is guilty of the ultimate malpractice imaginable: executing Cary Grant due to criminal incompetence. What kind of doctor doesn't realize that one of the features of a stroke is not being able to think straight while you're having one? Racing Forward (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Racing Forward- Do have a source for your accusations? According to his article, Grant's wife was with him in the hotel. What did she say about the night of the stroke and Grant's refusal of medical aide? Would the doctor not have followed her directions if she had told him to transport Grant? You cannot accuse someone of "ultimate malpractice", "executing", and "criminal incompetence" without a solid foundation, even if they are dead (is he dead?). I doubt that Wikipedia's lawyers would be very thrilled with these slanderous, unsourced statements. Please let us know where we can find your sources. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's all right there in the article itself, properly footnoted:

"Grant was taken back to the Blackhawk Hotel where he and his wife had checked in, and a doctor was called and discovered that he was having a massive stroke, with a blood pressure reading of 210 over 130. Grant refused to be taken to the hospital. The doctor recalled: "The stroke was getting worse. In only fifteen minutes he deteriorated rapidly. It was terrible watching him die and not being able to help. But he wouldn't let us." By 8:45 p.m., Grant had slipped into a coma and was taken to St. Luke's Hospital in Davenport, Iowa. He spent 45 minutes in the emergency room before being transferred to intensive care. He died at 11:22 p.m., aged 82."

A feature of a stroke is the brain being unable to function normally, by definition. The same is true of a heart attack, with its diminishment of oxygen to the brain. The doctor describes the "stroke...getting worse. In only fifteen minutes he deteriorated rapidly. It was terrible watching him die and not being able to help. But he wouldn't let us." When Grant eventually "slipped into a coma" he was finally taken to the emergency room, at which point it was too late to save him. It was the doctor's duty on the spot to overrule the stroke-impaired Grant and call an ambulance immediately, regardless of anything Grant or his wife might have said or done. This is all self-evident for anyone who understands strokes. Why did they finally rush him to the ER when he lost consciousness? The physician knew that in the case of a stroke, speed is absolutely necessary and that the patient is in no condition to make a cogent decision about his own life-or-death situation while impaired by a rapidly worsening stroke. Nor does the life-or-death decision rest with the spouse, for a variety of starkly obvious reasons. It's the physician on the scene's responsibility. Why was the doctor called in the first place if not to try to save the man's life? Once he was there, it was obviously his responsibility. Not the confused dying patient's ("It was terrible watching him die and not being able to help. But he wouldn't let us," the doctor later said), not his wife's, not the maid's or the porter's or even the owner of the hotel or the president of the United States. The doctor's. That's why he was there. Racing Forward (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)