Talk:Greta Garbo/Archive 2

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

Commented out references

Lots of references that may have been previously used are now commented out. There is so much it makes finding the real ones cluttered so I'm going to move them here on the talk page in a format that can be copy/pasted so if they are required in the article again later. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • <ref name="Bacon1998p208ff">{{Cite book|last=Bacon|first=Henry|title=Visconti: Explorations of Beauty and Decay|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0-521-59960-3|url=http://books.google.com/?id=LDnVJpwFNVoC|accessdate=26 July 2010|pages=208 ff}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Bainbridge1955-children">{{Harvnb|Bainbridge|1955c|p=118}}. About her visits to an infant that had been born on the voyage, she said, "I am always very interested in babies. The birth of a baby is always a miracle." Would she like to have children of her own? Garbo shrugged. "No. The world now seems much too difficult. ... I would not want to raise a son or any children to go to war. ..." (Bainbridge quotes from Garbo's surprise interview granted to the press onboard the liner Kungsholm on 7 October 1938 in New York after Garbo had returned from her summer vacation with conductor [[Leopold Stokowski]] in Europe).</ref>
  • <ref name="Bainbridge1955-married">{{Harvnb|Bainbridge|1955c|p=118}}. After she had parried questions about Stokowski she was asked if she ever planned to marry. "If I could find the right person to share my life with—perhaps I would," Garbo answered. (Bainbridge quotes from Garbo's surprise interview granted to the press onboard the liner Kungsholm on 7 October 1938 in New York after Garbo had returned from her summer vacation with conductor [[Leopold Stokowski]] in Europe).</ref>
  • <ref name="BeugnetSchmid2004p50ff">{{Cite book|last=Beugnet|first=Martine|last2=Schmid|first2=Marion|title=Proust at the Movies|series=Studies in European Cultural Transition|year=2004|publisher=Ashgate Publishing|location=Aldershot|isbn=978-0-7546-3541-3|url=http://books.google.com/?id=jEtoof432j4C|accessdate=26 July 2010 |pages=50 ff}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Biery1928a-moody">{{Harvnb|Biery|1928a|p=}}. ...When just a baby, I was always figuring, wondering what it was all about—just why we were living.</ref>
  • <ref name="Biery1928a-noplay">{{Harvnb|Biery|1928a|p=}}. I didn't play much. Except skating and skiing and throwing snowballs. I did most of my playing by thinking. I played a little with my brother and sister, pretending we were in shows. Like other children. But usually I did my own pretending. I was up and down. Very happy one moment, the next moment – there was nothing left for me.</ref>
  • todo; cite something from middle chap...<ref name="Biery1928b-something">{{Harvnb|Biery|1928b|p=}}. quote something</ref>
  • <ref name="coop">{{Cite web|url=http://www.coop.se/Globala-sidor/OmKF/Kooperativ-samverkan/Var-historia1/Tidslinjen/1900-1930/1920/Greta-Garbo-pa-PUB-i-statistroll/|title=Greta Garbo på PUB i statistroll|accessdate=17 July 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Goldstein1977p83">{{Cite journal|last=Goldstein|first=Patti|title=Garbo Walks|date=12 December 1977|page=83|journal=New York Magazine|volume=10|issue=50|publisher=New York Media, LLC|issn=0028-7369|url=http://books.google.com/?id=i-gCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA83|accessdate=23 July 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Hollis1965">{{Cite news|last=Alpert|first=Hollis |title=Saga of Greta Lovisa Gustafsson – Saga of Greta Garbo|newspaper=The New York Times|date=5 September 1965|url=http://www.greta-garbo.de/com/|accessdate=22 July 2010|ref=harv}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Mariani1975p54">{{Cite journal|last=Mariani|first=John|title=The Greatest Movie Set Ever|date=29 December 1975|page=54|journal=New York Magazine|volume=9|issue=1|publisher=New York Media, LLC|issn=0028-7369|url=http://books.google.com/?id=bOMCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54|accessdate=23 July 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="NYT-Obit-aloofness">{{Harvnb|NYTimes|1990}}. Garbo's aloofness frustrated the press, which published thousands of photographs of her frantically clutching a drooping hat over her face as she shopped or raced for a train, ship or plane.</ref>
  • <ref name="ParishBowers1973p241">{{Cite book|last=Parish|first=James Robert|last2=Bowers|first2=Ronald L.|year=1973|publisher=Allan|location=London|isbn=978-0-7110-0501-3|title=The MGM Stock Company: The Golden Era|url=http://books.google.com/?id=GLRZAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=26 July 2010|page=241}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Pensel1969">{{Cite book|first=Hans|last=Pensel|title=Seastrom and Stiller in Hollywood;: Two Swedish Directors in Silent American Films, 1923–1930|url=http://books.google.com/?id=eYQ-AAAAIAAJ|accessdate=17 July 2010|year=1969|publisher=Vantage Press|location=New York|oclc=301482962}}</ref>
  • <ref name="PorterPrince2005p382">{{Cite book|last=Porter|first=Darwin|last2=Prince|first2=Danforth|title=Frommer's Sweden|date=April 2005|publisher=John Wiley and Sons|location=Hoboken, NJ|isbn=978-0-7645-7827-4|url=http://books.google.com/?id=naliWrX1idUC&pg=PA382|accessdate=26 July 2010|page=382}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Svtplay.se"> {{Cite web|url=http://svtplay.se/v/1370513/oppet_archiv/reklamfilmer_med_greta_garbo_utan_ljud|title=Reklamfilmer med Greta Garbo (utan ljud) – Öppet arkiv | SVT Play|publisher=Svtplay.se|accessdate=15 July 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="TCM-GarboProfile">{{Cite web|url=http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/thismonth/article/?cid=102802|title=Greta Garbo Profile|publisher=Turner Classic Movies|work=TurnerClassicMovies.com|date=12 November 2009|accessdate=24 July 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Time1971-03-01">{{Cite journal|title=People, Mar. 1, 1971|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878913,00.html|accessdate=26 July 2010|work=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|date=1 March 1971|quote=Hardly since General Douglas MacArthur's 'I shall return' has so momentous a comeback loomed. According to Italian Cinema Director Luchino Visconti, fabled Film Star Greta Garbo, 65, who has been dodging cameras for 30 years, has actually asked to play in his forthcoming movie version of Marcel Proust's seven-volume Remembrance of Things Past. The role that caught her fancy: Maria Sophia, the sixtyish Queen of Naples, who will have only one scene. Nothing has been signed as yet, but Visconti sounded as if Garbo's reappearance was already a fait accompli. Said he: 'I am very pleased at the idea that this woman, with her severe and authoritarian presence, should figure in the decadent and rarefied climate of the world described by Proust.{{'-}}}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Wakeman1987">{{Cite book|first=John|last=Wakeman|title=World Film Directors: 1890–1945|url=http://books.google.com/?id=HKEYAAAAIAAJ|accessdate=17 July 2010|year=1987|publisher=H.W. Wilson|location=New York|isbn=978-0-8242-0757-1}}</ref>

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When GG requested black flats

Greetings. I undid the "which period" request since the title of the section states the period when GG requested that black flats, or screens, be placed around her scenes during shooting. Section title "Silent films (1925–1929".

Editing Relationships section

The relationships section had two parts; the second half was devoted to speculation on Garbo's relationship's with women. There was just one claim (Louise Brooks) who wrote with first hand knowledge and published during Garbo's lifetime. I kept that in and added it to the first part. All the other claims were second hand hearsay and all were published after Garbo's death, when she was unable to respond. The Wikipedia article repeatedly used qualifiers like "allegedly," which is a dead giveaway that claims are unprovable. Before reverting to the original article, consider the relationships section as it is now and determine whether gossip adds anything relevant.Princetoniac (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it does make sense. I agree that "allegedly" is not a good word to use; it is better to say "according to" and state who made the claim. I tentatively support keeping the bulk of this material but rewriting it somewhat to conform to our policies and guidelines. --John (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
All of her relationships with women were alleged because there's no proof. But there is so much circumstantial evidence that the recent biographers state them as essentially truthful. Read Paris, Swenson, and Vieira. The section about her relationships with women should be unchanged. Alleged is a perfectly valid word in an encyclopedia. And none of this is gossip whatsever. The section is fully legitimate and should remain as it is. Greetings to all,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Classicfilmbuff writes above, "All of her relationships with women were alleged because there's no proof," then says, "none of this is gossip whatsoever." Yet making a claim without proof is the definition of gossip. I would suggest that using the word 'allegedly' is unacceptable, since it allows us to say anything about anyone. Would we allow the sentence "Barack Obama was allegedly born in Kenya" to remain in his article? How about "John F. Kennedy allegedly ordered the assassination of Marilyn Monroe"? Saying that historians "speculate" about Garbo's sexuality, and she "allegedly" did this or that is, in fact, gossip, no matter what second hand source is cited. I will admit, however, that the sentence on Louise Brooks is acceptable.Princetoniac (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, I have a lot to say about GG’s sexuality and will return to this page if anyone wishes to discuss this further. But just a couple of quick notes about vocabulary. Since when is alleged equal to gossip? Gossip is usually used in a derogatory way and leans toward accusation rather than allegation. Alleged is a much weightier term that is used when, for example, 5 biographers write about a proclivity to same-sex relationships after conducting painstaking, extensive research. You would not say 5 reputed biographers gossip about such a proclivity.
You would say there has been uninformed gossip that jfk ordered the assassination....” or "Some right-wing enthusiasts ("birthers") insist that Obama was not born in the US but deny the facts.” I think Princetonian equates speculation and allegation with innuendo in the GG case and also overlooks a most significant nuance in the distinction between allegation, or speculation, and gossip. Finally, Princetonian, pls read the citations I provide for these statements. Better yet, read the bios and see for yourself! Add the 5th, which I haven't cited yet, a biography of Mercedes de Acosta which discusses their relationship at length. Moreover, two or three (I can't remember) of the 4 Amer'n documentary videos (since 1990) about GG mention her lesbian side. Please note I am not gay and have no agenda here. My concern as a writer has been to study GG exhaustively and contribute to an accurate and complete page.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Along with John, an editor has recommended other words and phrases that would replace "alleged" and "speculate" with vocabulary that conforms to WP policies and guidelines per John's point.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
So I'll get to this when I rise from a pile of work-related stuff. Will require a rewrite. One change will have a ripple effect in the paragraph. Still think alleged is good but trust the editors who are not disputing the content but rather some of the language.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Claire Koger and Tashman.

Greetings 98.210.231.62: Not sure why you deleted statement about Koger; there is written documentation that their friendship was extremely important to GG in her later years. Sisters quotation is only example of this documentation. Please read Paris for confirmation; pages in his biography are in the cit.

Also, unclear about deletion of Tashman affair. Mistake perhaps? You say, "Garbo was introduced to stage and screen actress Lilyan Tashman" without follow up. Without follow up, just says that GG met her. Mistake may be misreading of Louise Brooks statement? Brooks didn't say that GG had affair with Tashman (see cit about that affair); Brooks said she herself had liason with GG. Maybe change from semi-colon to period is in order.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Editorial conflicts about new material in Retirement Section

I added an enhanced section over the last few days re her last 50 years in retirement. Much of it was lacking in details, a speculated on her character, leading to vmental health "conclusions" all the way up to bipolar. However, Classicfilmbuff didn't like this and reverted the lot - I note from his talk page that he has been criticsed for nitpicking, which is not such a bad thing on an encyclopedia unless editors let their own biases get in the way. This is a public-source and able to be editted by anyone resource. I place the correspondece from my talkpage her o record, so that a better balance betwen early life (18 years); career (20 years); and retirmeent (50 years) may be obtained. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I was not criicized for "nitpicking" on my talk page; an editor was criticizing himself for nitpicking one of my edits. As for bias? nah. But you can see for yourselves--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Trident, I have been reading your addition to the Garbo page. After the first edit, I thought great. This is a welcome addition. I'll just correct the factual errors. But I strongly think you have added far to much information about a friendship (along with the tapes) that was important but no where near as important as others with whom she had much closer friendships, including Mercedes de Acosta (who did not in any way write a tell all autobiography--a myth), with whom she had a 30 year friendship, Salka Viertel (about as many years if not more), with whom she worked and who had huge influence in her life, and George Schlee, to whom she was absolutely devoted for 20 years. Her friendship with Green was indeed important but it most certainly does not warrant an entire very long section. To devote an entire section throws the entire article out of balance and basically states by implication that her relationship with him was the most important of her life. There are so many extremely important people and events in her life that receive no such attention. You have written almost as much text as is spent on her entire career at MGM. Moreover, your changes now dominate the retirement section which is inappropriate since she spent 2/3s of her life in retirement with many friends and activities.
Here's a rough draft the amount of space I think their friendship deserves to keep the entire article balanced.
In 1971, Garbo vacationed with her close friend Cecile de Rothchild at her summer home in Southern. De Rothchild introduced her to Samuel Adams Green, a well-known art collector and curator in New York, and the two formed an immediate bond.[1] Green, who became an important friend and walking companion in New York, was in the habit of tape-recording all of his telephone calls and, with Garbo’s permission, recorded his many conversations with her. In 1985, Garbo ended the friendship when she was falsely informed that Green had played the tapes to friends.[2] In his last will and testament, Green bequeathed in 2011 all of the tapes, which reveal Garbo's sense of humor and many eccentricities, to the Wesleyan University film archives.[3]
As you can see, you also made several factual errors which I corrected, above, (See Paris and Swensen whose GG biographies have been scrupulously researched.) It was Paris, in fact, who introduced their friendship and published some of the tapes' content). I believe, as a long-term editor of this page that the section be radically cut and that this needs to be taken up on the GG talk page. Such an enormous edit needs to be discussed, I think, and I will reduce it to what I've written until this discussion is underway. Talk to you soon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is really getting way, way, way out of control. Another serious problem is that most of your references come from the Garboforever site which is an absolutely unacceptable source by WP standards. I'm sorry to say but I am definitely going to revert much of what you've written. PLEASE STOP!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I continue reading. I'm going to revert your edits. Most of your sources are illegimate. Have you not read the recent biographies?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
To stay in balance with the rest of the article, the retirement section should be no longer than it is now. You've written more about the last 15 years of her life than what's written about her silent film career. Bless your heart, Trident, but the length, along with the illegitimate citations, means that I've taken radical action. We can do more than what I've written, but very little without damaging this article.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your message. Secondly, the pre-version concentrated on her film career: a period of some 20 years. Yet, there was little focus or detail on her 50 year retirement, and what was that there was was speculation on her character resulting in assued mental health, all the way up to bipoler. You say my edits are "vandalism", but much as though I didn't like the use of GarboForever - intersting perspective - having added refs from the LA Times, Telegraph and Scottish Daily Record which say the same thing, your revert looks poor and biased. Take it to the articles talk page, where I have copied this entire correspondence. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with rewriting what I've put in. But you're not speaking to my point: Pls read again:
...What was important but no where near as important as others with whom she had much closer friendships, including Mercedes de Acosta (who did not in any way write a tell all autobiography--a myth), with whom she had a 30 year friendship, Salka Viertel (about as many years if not more), with whom she worked and who had huge influence in her life, and George Schlee, to whom she was absolutely devoted for 20 years. Her friendship with Green was indeed important but it most certainly does not warrant an entire very long section.

Moreover, it's her film career that's most important to cultural history. For God's sake, Trident, who cares about all this stuff on Green and Daum? It's totally irrelevant to her legacy.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You say there's very little about the last 2/3s of her life but that's fundamentally unimportant; there's plenty of stuff about her relationships and personal life and the section on her retirement is extremely concise (unlike, respectfully, your additions) and gives an excellent picture of her life in retirement. Please try to be realistic, as I believe I am being. By all means, add this material to Green's and Daum's pages, but we can't just overwhelm this page with material that's of tertiary or less importance. If you decide to put all your writing back in, we will take the two versions to the WP editors and they can arbitrate this. Sincerely,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read your work, Trident, on the Sam Green p. and see that you've duplicated much of your work on him directly into the G p. I think this material does belong in Green's page, but not Garbo's. In just one of many examples, it just isn't important that Garbo went to Fire Island with Green where she "bathed nude." (She bathed nude during her entire life, btw, because it was a Swedish custom. Certainly we wouldn't want to cite each incidence! Otherwise, it looks as if this is unique behavior perhaps once during her retirment with SG. In any case, has no important relevance to her life or legacy. Oan you persuade us why it's important information?)
But more importantly, Trident, all but two of your citations in the GG section of the Green p./GG p. reference the Garboforever web site, which, as we've established, is an illegitimate source. One of the other two cits is to a Scottish tabloid paper--also not acceptable. (LA Times good) By the way, I have no problem with your adding another short paragraph on Daum since, after all, he wrote a book, Conversations with Garbo, about his obervations of her.
The "nit-picking" comment you cite at the top of this discussion was written by an editor on my talk p. who was criticizing his own penchant for nitpicking, not mine! Furthermore, I'm responding to a very long section you've devoted to two relationships she had in her later life. This section is longer than the section of her career in talking pictures at MGM. Before your additions, the retirement section is about as long by itself as her Talking films career. The retirement section should not take up more space than her important career or legacy sections. For it is in these areas that she has made her contribution to history--not her years in retirement.

Finlly, this talk p. conversation makes no sense unless you put your rewritten section into the gg talk p. Shouldn't you put it in so readers can read it and then judge? Or do readers access that information on the talk p.? Greetings,Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


Trident, you've titled the G talk p. discussion, "Later life - poor focus, speculation, lack of details." Now, to begin, I respectfully disagree that it has poor focus and think that it is, instead, clear and rather well organized. But if you think it's poorly focused, why don't you refocus what's there before adding a new self-contained section? Next, the "speculation" about bipolarity is cited to one of her definitive biographers, Barry Paris. But if you think it doesn't belong there, you can just delete the two sentences. There's not a single other speculation in the section. Finally, you say "lack of details." However, you have not added details about her relationship in later life to Cecile de Rothchild, Salka Veirtel, George Schlee, along with other important friendships she had, and the many things she did and places she went. Instead, you've written an enormous, self-contained, section on just two of her friendships during her later years in New York. So I think your title of the section is misleading. In any case, I respect you for listening to me and taking seriously my perspective. Cheers,Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see list of acceptable sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Acceptable_sources. As you can see, Garboforever cannot be referenced to reputable source with a tracable author, such as in publication. Read 1, 2, 3. Garboforever is written "by fans for fans." Therefore, all information that references Gforever needs to be deleted. Greetings,Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Grand Hotel image

Hi Wikiwatcher1, curious about why you changed Grand Hotel pic. Advantage of the one you replaced is that it captures her emotional state in the movie. With JB, can't see her face. Is the pic no longer available in the commons? Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the photo was uploaded by you, or else I would have asked first. I came across this one, which seems more dramatic than the previous one, despite the side view. Naturally, I don't have strong feelings either way, although the previous image is still used on the Grand Hotel and John Barrymore articles. But I'll leave the choice to you if you want to restore yours. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First one better. much more expressive. Agree with cfb--emotional state.--24.25.62.235 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I've been keeping up with this thread. NOone seems to be rooting for the replacement so I'm going to revert to the previous photo. I think it's much more dramatic. It tells G's "story" more vividly because her acting is always in her face and specifically her eyes. The more the reader sees of her eyes, the more they understand her. Thank you.--174.106.64.107 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

LGBT stuff - again

The facts seem to be only "so-and-so claims this and so-and-so claims that" - which the article should make clear, nothing else; plus the problems that (1) no one reliable was present when any of the alleged sexual acts or lesbian behavior took place and (2) Garbo herself never acknowledged any such thing. Many people, of course, think it would be nice to be able to categorize her and hundreds of other celebs, but maybe we should only do so with the ones who "come out" themselves or at least have been photographed "doing it"?

If anyone has a reliable/y published source that gives us first hand facts about any lesbian sexual activity or interest of hers, or of Garbo herself having admittied to any such, then that could be included in the article with that source. Speculation should not be included.

I am removing the categorization which would seem to need to be based on facts, not on conjecture. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Serge. Back at it again as I see. (Why are you so interested in this matter?). OK, first, clear evidence exists that she was lovers with Mercedes de Acosta. Please read MdA Wiki article. Second, Have you read any of her biographies??? We know almost nothing about any of her alleged male lovers. She denied having a sexual relationship with virtually every one of them. And of course she never said anything about her sexuality. Heterosexual me (so I have no agenda) is the writer of the section about GG's relationships, as you know, and I took pains (over a long period of time!) to write a section that is fair, balanced, objective, and cognizant of all that has been written about this aspect of her life. I've also seen all 4 documentaries about her made since 1990. If you wade through all this stuff, I'm sure you'd write just about exactly what I've written. Also--read trade papers in 30s which are full of stuff about her "ambidextrous" lifestyle and new "gal pals"--that sort of thing. By the mid-30s, she had a reputation in Hollywood of being bisexual. All this is in the bios.

But something else, Serge. Gay and lesbian history finally has evidentiary status but of course it is an extraordinarily difficult task to sort out the threads. But we owe it to their history to try to learn and understand their same-sex friendships and romances from the tangled webs of secrecy. We can't just keep silent because someone didn't "admit" it in a public forum. Before recently, this just didn't happen. We have to draw tentative conclusions, compassionately, about the evidence we DO have, which of course is true with all empirical research. I'm not at all challenging your positions and assertions. Just trying to put them in some kind of perspective as a GG expert and scholar. Take care,Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Doing a quick read of the Relationships section, I think a few revisions to the phrasing might help: "Legend has it . . . " and "Her recent biographers, however, question the veracity of this story," along with, "In 1937, she met conductor Leopold Stokowski with whom she had a highly publicized friendship or romance." All three have some conjecture stated. What would Garbo think about such details? "She made no public appearances and assiduously tried to avoid the publicity she loathed," states the article, which is possibly related to what Ewan McGregor once noted about actors' privacy. --Light show (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The next paragraph has some similar speculative phrases: "evidence indicates that the two began an affair," "Several letters suggest she may have had romantic feelings for Pollak," and " After learning of Pollak's pregnancy in 1930, for example, Garbo wrote,", which uses innuendo to support earlier statements. I think both paragraphs should be trimmed and combined using only factual material without conjecture. --Light show (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that of all G's friends and acquaintances, as discussed in her bios and other sources, who discussed her sexuality, none stated that she was heterosexual. They all believed she was either a lesbian or bisexual. This is cited at the top of the section. So Serge's point that no reliable sources exist is actually incorrect. Again. I refer you to the reliable evidence stated in the MdA article. Perhaps we should add that. Also, "evidence exists that the two women...." is not speculative.
Now the problem is that every Garbo relationship is conjecture, the possible exception being that with John Gilbert with whom she lived for a short time in the late 20s. Her relationships with men are just as conjectural and speculative as with women. There are no letters from her to a man, or anything else, that confirms a relationship between them. Many said Cecil Beaton lied about their relationship. There's nothing, in other words, to make "innuendo" even possible. There's no reliable evidence, in sum, that she was heterosexual. So if the section is to be edited at all, it should be in the first paragraph about men. Or the whole section should be deleted, which would be a shame. What I tried to do was piece together a picture that sheds light on a subject that has that has been widely discussed since her Hollywood years.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It that's true, that all her relationships except for Gilbert, are based on conjecture, that implies a synthesis of gossip for most of the section. --Light show (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
That would seem to depend on how much – if any – of the section is based on our editors' interpretation of what the RS biographers say as opposed to directly reflecting what they actually say. If reputable Biographer A says that Garbo was widely believed or reported to be having an affair with Person X, and notable Person Y has written that s/he hermself had an affair with Garbo, both those statements can be included without crossing over into synthesis. Adding something uncited like "reports of relationships such as these led to the belief that Garbo was bisexual" would be synthesis (though in this case, I'm fairly sure that a diligent search of LGBT-themed reliable sources would probably turn up a few articles that have reached the conclusion for us already). Fat&Happy (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
F&H's point is absolutely correct, in my view.
Back to the content. It's imperative that those who question the content of the section conduct their own research on Garbo's relationships from what's been exhaustively researched in 3 recent biographies. Two definitive bios about her--Barry Paris, 1994, and Karen Swenson, 1997, and a third about Mercedes de Acosta, Schanke, 2004. All reputable biographies, published in premiere houses. These writers have in no way drawn conclusions on the basis of "gossip." Only after reading these sources could one legitimately claim another point of view, I would argue, and it would be highly unlikely that he or she would draw different conclusions. The section could be elongated, of course, to cite every single person or friend who, on the basis of their personal relationship with Garbo, has spoken about her sexuality, for example, and there are dozens of them. This would double the length of the section and deviate from the spirit and essence of the full article, which would of course be absurd. It is, after all, just one aspect of G's life. Still, it is one that deserves careful and thoughtful attention, based on current research, because it has aroused keen interest since she became a star. To do otherwise would misrepresent her.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's not really the job of other editors to support speculative comments. But for someone like Garbo, there's a special duty to be accurate and factual, without insinuations or innuendos. But to keep things moving, considering that Barry Paris is already cited in the article, this is a direct quote:
"Paris is careful to say that the whole of Garbo's sex life is a matter of gossip, and he shares the opinion of several people that she was not much interested in sex and may have 'done' nothing. She certainly acknowledged nothing . . ." (in Feeding the Eye: Essays, by Anne Hollander, Univ. of Calif. Press (1999) p. 209)."
If anything, that would be a good lead-in to the section on her Relationships. A few brief examples of such gossip might be OK to support it, without giving undue weight to gossip or "legends." --Light show (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read the Paris biography in its entirety three times and can assure you that Anne Hollander is wrong. He never said that the whole of Garbo's sex life is a matter of gossip. Buy his book (not a critical essay or review), look up sexuality in the index and read the sections. You will not see the word gossip in any of his discussions. Read Swenson who does not "make an informed [perspective]" as Paris states of his remarks. Swenson's entire book is unequivocally dispassionate.

Per reliable evidence. Once again, read the de Acosta article in which an editor writes, "[when] she was destitute, de Acosta sold her papers to the Rosenbach Museum & Library in Philadelphia and claims to have reluctantly included romantic letters from Garbo.[4] 'I would not have had the heart or courage to have burned these letters', she wrote William McCarthy, curator of the museum. "I mean, of course, Eva [sic], Greta's and Marlene's who were lovers...." This is reliable evidence, not gossip. As for those who’ve read the 181 letters, cards, and telegrams from G to de Acosta, and seen no evidence of a romantic relationship it must be remembered that only 87 of them are open to the public. Therefore, they do not constitute reliable evidence.

Per statement about disinterest in sex. In all my reading, I found only one person who spoke of this, and in only in two sentences. It was Betty Siegel a friend, who told Swenson in 97 that G "didn't seem to be interested in sex," and so “she didn’t really [know what to add].” She was referring to Garbo when she was in her 70s.

Per “legend”. The word "legend" is used only once in this section in the context of an alleged planned wedding between Garbo and Gilbert. I don’t see how it’s relevant to the gist of this conversation.

Non sequitur: In reading the section over again, I see no "insinuations" (insinuate: to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way)(Webster’s)"

I don't really know what to say anymore to the doubters, who's preoccupation with this is curious to me. The discussion is going nowhere. With all due respect, Light show, your comments demonstrate bias to this reader. Whoever wants to should go ahead and change the damn thing reflecting your concerns. But I believe changes to this effect will diminish the section, and by extension the entire article, and show a complete disregard of the extraordinary number of people who have spoken about G's sexuality and as I say, discredit their thoughtful observations. None of them are "gossips." At the very least, this word should absolutely be omitted from the article. Why would all these people want to mislead the public? Their views should be judged with respect.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My preoccupation with this (to lower myself to respond to a term that reasonably can be sorted somewhere between sarcastic and insulting), is based only on one thing: no enclyclopaedia should ever mention anything as fact about any persons sex life based on either the busybody gosspi or learned opinions of others, and it especially important not to put a stamp of erotic classification on any life story by categorized someone as being this, that, or the other thing sexually. Is my preoccupation unclear? Create Category:People gossiped about sexually or Category:Beauties we wish we could prove to have been gay and I'll support their use here anytime. Otherwise, let's stick to facts when labelling people! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Whoa! Chill man! You've expressed your feelings and attitude quite clearly! It seems you have misunderstood my intentions in my last paragraph I think it is. But really, all innocent. Absolutely nothing I’ve written is either insulting or sarcastic. On the contrary, I've taken this discussion very seriously and have made every attempt to argue my points in a systematic and rational way. In any case, I don't see any justification for such a virulent attack. Certainly nothing I've said warrants that! I think there's a name for this and in any case, is certainly counterproductive in Wiki talk. Please don't do it again. Moreover, you haven't responded to a single point I've made. It seems they should count for something! (yes, that is sarcastic, but how can I help it having spent more than a few hours on this discussion.)
Anyway. I was wrong. Paris does say, "Virtually all the reports and 'common knowledge' of G's affairs with women (or men for that matter) are gossip." But the term “gossip” needs to be contextualized within a broad spectrum of commentary. (And paradoxically, he goes on to provide evidence from reputable sources about her sexuality as the book develops.) In a way, the "gossip" line is a throw away. None of the friends Paris, and particularly Swenson, cite spoke in the spirit of gossip. Same thing in the TCM documentary. Always a searching effort to understand. One must draw inferences from extensive reading about G and a wide variety of sources. All of this reflects, too, the difficulty of piecing together the history a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person.
I stand by everything I've said, and the arguments I've made. Any edits, I submit, should include the de Acosta evidence. Pollack’s letters should also be considered legit evidence. When P was pregnant, G said "We cannot help our nature, as God has created it. But I have always thought you and I belonged together.” Pretty unambiguous. “Suggests” romantic feelings” should be probably be changed to “revealed.” Followed by her letter in 1976.
I hope if you edit you will retain the central meaning of the section, which is expressed cautiously and with nuance (not to be confused with subtle or covert). I think it is as close to accurate as possible and that this is very clear in the writing.
Finally, it must should understood that recent philosophical and critical scholarship in all fields has shown that “fact” contested concept. In the spirit of truth, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no reliable source that can show (from what I understand) that Garbo herself, identifying as homosexual, bisexual or otherwise. That is what is considered a reliable source her...secondary sourcing of her own claim. Not the claims of others.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Taking that reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, Wikipedia would record the existence of almost no non-heterosexual people before several decades ago. Articles such as this one need to reflect what reliable sources, such as books by reputable authors, say. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Right. Perhaps the centralizing point in this debate.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Should GG's nominations for Oscar award be 3 or 4?

Hi, My source was the Academy Award site, which states that rules for the third ceremony allowed for a performer to receive a single nomination which could honor their work in more than one film. The same applied at the first ceremony, when Janet Gaynor won best actress for her work in three films and Emil Jannings won best actor for his work in two films. The best evidence of the rule, is on the Academy Award site's awards database, browse statistics, where they list all performers who have five or more acting nominations. On that list, they credit Norma Shearer with five nominations. Shearer, like Garbo, was nominated for two films at the 3rd ceremony and if both were counted separately she would have six nominations. The same applies for three best actor nominees that year. The situation with Shearer (and that years best actor George Arliss) gets a little confused as they were both only named for one of their two listed films. L1975p (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Fascinating. I don't think many people know this. For this reason, I recommend that you cite your source because someone will doubtless come along and change it back. Also her nomination for Ninotcha still says 4th nom. If you need help sourcing a web p. let me know. I can't do this stuff but I know an editor who can. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, help with the sourcing would be great, thanks. L1975p (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've contacted the user (who's helped the p. with a zillion formatting and other issues) to come to my talk p. to help you. He's brilliant at this stuff. His username is F&H which you'll see in the GG history. Hopefully he'll show up here (Hi FH!)soon and get it going with you. Hope you've had a good LD weekend. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my. This one looks like a lot of fun. First off, I'd honestly be a lot happier if we had some secondary source saying Garbo got three nominations instead of needing to source the statement to a somewhat convoluted interpretation and synthesis from the primary source (the Academy). But to bring CFB up to speed on the actual sites being used, if you haven't yet searched them out yourself, it seems to go like this:

Starting at http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/3rd-winners.html, the 1930 nominees and winners page, we see Garbo listed once with two films; Shearer listed twice, once for each film. At that page, clicking on "Search the Academy Awards Database for more nominees and winners" near the top right,

takes us to: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp, the basic search box. We can't give links to the search results themselves, since the URLs are session-dependent and time-stamped. But successively entering Greta Garbo and Norma Shearer in the "Nominee" box while leaving the rest blank takes us to the pages mentioned, where Garbo shows three listings (plus the honorary) and Shearer shows six with explanations of the 1930 situation.

Clicking "Browse Statistics" from either of those results pages takes us to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics/indexStats.html, a menu of the various statistical pages available.

On the menu, clicking "Persons with 5 or More Acting Nominations" takes us to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/Act-5ormoreNoms.pdf, which lists Shearer under "5 Nominations".

The closest thing to a citable source in all the above would be the search results for Garbo, where the readers would have to count to three by themselves. Such a citation isn't impossible (I've seen it a few times to the RIAA site for gold records), but it's messy and subject to challenges and feuds. Alternatively (assuming the secondary sources I mentioned at the beginning aren't available), could the relevant passages be rephrased to eliminate actual nomination counts by judicious use of "again", "another", "in three years", etc.? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I've been trying (and mostly failing) to find other sources. I've looked at various bio's, books on Oscar history and UK and US obituaries, without success. One of the very few things I've come across that backs up the Academy Award site is an article in the Chicago Tribune called "outstanding actresses absent from Oscar list" which correctly lists Garbo as having received three nominations plus an honorary award. Other than that It's been a struggle. F & H's good suggestion about eliminating the nomination count might be the best bet. L1975p (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Well unless I misunderstand, we have to list a number. What else would we say? She won several academy awards? That certainly Won't do. One option would be to go back to 4 and add footnote saying something like, it is generally accepted that she was nominated for 4 but the [your site, L1975] says 3 and then explain it.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
FH suggestion: "Garbo received Academy Award Best Actress nominations for her work in four films...", then for 1930 "she was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for her work in both Romance and Anna Christie". Etc., etc., etc." Problem as I see it is that someone will likely come and addem' all up. People like to know this. Easy to remember.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, If a number has to be listed, I think it should be three, as that is the number that is correct, at least as far as the official Academy Award site is concerned. The Academy rules for that year are quite clear that a performer could receive a single nomination for multiple roles. I don't think the wiki page should go along with information just because that's what is generally accepted, especially when that information is actually incorrect. L1975p (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Good mornin. couldn't agree more. But I think F&H makes a better point: "I'd honestly be a lot happier if we had some secondary source saying Garbo got three nominations instead of needing to source the statement to a somewhat convoluted interpretation and synthesis from the primary source." Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Should we move this discussion to the talk p. to get, perhaps, some other pts of view? I think it might be useful. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Split the Filmography section to a new page

Suggest to split the Greta Garbo#Filmography to Greta Garbo filmography to be in line with other similar articles. - Thaejas (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead. The article's pretty long, so it's not particularly controversial. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Per comment about an author whose citation was removed: David Bret is NOT considered a reliable source. His book, like all of his, is based on uncited gossip, rumor, and innuendo. I read the book. Pure nonsense.

Considering he's published over a dozen celebrity biographies, we need some support for essentially excluding his material as a RS. The section about Garbo's relationships is already loaded with sources relying on innuendo, which is logical for someone like Garbo, who considered her private affairs secret. In any case, Bret includes 399 footnote references. Celebrity biographers typically disagree.

As for Bret's commentary about her fling with Max Baer, that seems generally to be supported by other sources. For instance, Cinderella Man, by Jeremy Schaap (Houghton Mifflin) notes their affair. As did Hollywood Femmes Fatales and Ladies of Film Noir, by Maximillien De Lafayette. The Milwaukee Journal, (Aug. 19, 1933) includes an article about how he was allowed to watch her filming, despite a highly-protected double-walled closed set: i.e. "Garbo, known for her penchant for demanding the departure of anyone she doesn't approve, smiled discreetly at Baer."

My understanding about disputed details from different sources is that rather than delete one as not being reliable, we simply add another one which disputes the first, hopefully with better references. After all, we're dealing with celebrities, like Garbo, whose personal lives were generally surmised based on rumors. --Light show (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"celebrities whose personal lives were generally based on rumors" - horrendous! In the real world these people were/are real human beings whose lives were/are based on exactly the same things as yours and mine. If you meant celebrities whose fantasy life stories were generally speculated about based on rumors that would have been acceptable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed? --Light show (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess so, but your editing attitude really had/has me worried. Please respect even celebrities as human beings! Will you? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Identified" as lesbian

Nobody has ever reliably "identified" Garbo as a lesbian, nor as bisexual either for that matter. There have been rumors and gossip, but no identification whatsoever, and there are no reliable sources for any such identification. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Serge, I undid your edit for the reasons I stated in the edit p. I've read virtually every book about GG in print and what I learned is that no one knew for certain what her sexuality was. Friends, acquaintances, and biographers alike. When I wrote this section, I tried to convey this ambiguity as best I could. The gist of my comments is that nothing is certain. I suppose we could say that specifically but it seems embedded in the text. To delete "lesbian" would ignore what so many have said and written. I hope this clarifies. If not, please read the citations. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Your use here of the word "identified" is what I didn't like. That went too far. Personally, I can't see the importance of all this speculation. Why is it so important to try to label her sexuality, maybe to label it, probably to label it? WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to carry on like that in excess year after year here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
But that use of "identified" was only in an edit summary, wasn't it? It wasn't in the article itself, was it? What do you think of "Various recent biographers and others have asserted that Garbo was bisexual or lesbian ..."? (or "... suggested that ..."?) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Did I say it was anywhere else? What's the point? The key word here is speculation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The word "speculation" implies that a concept is mere conjecture without having any reasonable degree of foundation or evidence. It seems like a rather POV word to me, and does not seem to accurately convey what is described in that paragraph. Do most sources use that word? To me it seems that words like "said", "asserted", "suggested", or "wrote" are probably more accurate. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There have only been speculations about her sexuality. Nothing else. No assertions, no suggestions, no one has said or written anything determinative about her sexuality. No one seems to have been present for any kind of looky-loo, touchy-touchy or listened in for ecstatic outbursts or smelled anything telling in any of those bedrooms that have been fantasized (there's another good verb!) about by people who like to wallow in erotic gossip. Nobody that we know of and can cross examine has found any porno or paraphernalia that we can use - as evidence I mean. (Maybe she threw it all out when she turned 85 or so, we'll never know.) No "reasonable degree of foundation or evidence" exists, anywhere. Like it or not. We just don't know anything substantial about her sex life, and there doesn't seem to be one single eye/ear/nose/finger witness left alive whom we could beg on our bare knees to publish a delicious, first hand, reliable, academic exposé. It's jusssst a no go, that's all. I think we should leave it at that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That's all true. Which makes the fact that a third of her "relationships" section devoted to "speculations," "allegations," "claims," etc. about any bisexual flings look over-weighted. Phrasings like, "were partly interpreted as indicating that there may have been romantic feelings for many years. One such speculation . . .," are quadrupled redundancies and could easily be tightened. The same imbalance and forced attention to speculations can be seen in the James Dean's section.--Light show (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thx, you should have seen that phrasing before. Go for it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite a bit more work has now been done on the article regarding Greta Garbo's sexuality, however with next to nothing discussed here before making changes. ??? The entire was-she-or-wasn't-she paragraph has now reached a stage where it's ridiculousness is much clearer, showing, I think, that removing the whole ever-lovin' thang would benefit Wikpeia's efforts towards a non-tabloid reputation. In one sentence the word "suggested" has been reinstated, where I think we had alleged or claimed or speculated or gossipped or blabbed or something (hard to keep track nowadays), any one of which was better. I would like to see an exact quote of that alleged suggestion in the source citation. If I don't see that, I will be rewording it again. I challenge any and all editors involved here to show me clearly where anyone reliable has suggested that Garbo was lesbian. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Before "suggested", the word was "allegation". An allegation is something stronger than a suggestion. It also tends to have a negative connotation about the action that is alleged to have occurred. So it sounds to me like you should be happier to see "suggestion" than "allegation". —BarrelProof (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't start skirting the issue! Instead, provide a source - the exact wording you want to cite - which shows that any such thing has been suggested! Otherwise, I will remove that . --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the one that put "allegation" there, and that's a much stronger word – basically a synonym for "accusation" – I thought that seemed way too negatively judgmental, which is why I softened it. So if you think the evidence of a relationship with Lilyan Tashman is not strong enough, I don't see how you could complain about it being softened to just a "suggestion" instead of an "allegation". I doubt the source used the word "allegation" either, and I don't understand why you wanted to use that word. I don't have the source either, but "suggested" is a very low threshold. A mere mention of a hypothetical possibility can support "suggested". I also don't mind if you change it to something else that's very soft – such as "hypothesized" or "said it's possible" or something like that (although it would seem a bit pointed to repeat "speculated" there, since that's also in the previous sentence). I also don't personally mind if you just completely delete what it says about Tashman, since I don't really know what the sources say about their relationship. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! To me, a rumor that suggests something entails a considerable possibilty of truth, whereas a rumor that alleges something should be considered much more sceptically, since allegations most often are based on personal bias and thus are more lacking in credible substance. These are nuances where we apparently differ in opinion. I agree to disagree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I see where your thinking is coming from now, and I think we're basically agreeing with each other here. I just changed it to "speculated". Although that's repetitive (and might seem to imply that the speculation is unfounded), it avoids the potential misinterpretations you and I see with "suggested" and "alleged". It would be best to see a copy of the cited source, of course, but neither of us seems to have it. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be forthcoming does it? Would love to see that text. Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Swelling gossip

Are we being careful not to help spread more and more gossip? If one erotics-mongering writer blabs unsubstantiated stuff (no eye/ear/nose/finger/tongue witnesses) about someone's sex life and then others start spreading that same blabber, are we supposed to cite both, plus each and every subsequent writer who goes on blabbing what the first one blabbed? In other words, should be back the whole blab gang up in their blabbing and then even make English Wikipedia their crowning success as the biggest and most effective blabber-mouth of all? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anna Christie

There is no way Anna Christie was the highest-grossing movie of 1930, the information on Wikipedia doesn't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.233.63 (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Recapturing American film stars

Per the guidelines about opening paragraphs, it appears to be wrong to redefine a person who achieved their notability and spent their career in the U.S. based on where they were born.

  • "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability..."
  • "...the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

Garbo as an unknown actress moved to America when she 20 and where she became a notable film star. The fact that she studied acting in Sweden, had a few roles in some silent films such as Peter the Tramp and The Saga of Gösta Berling should not be used to mislead readers. When she became a U.S. citizen is secondary, since she was a full-time resident in the U.S. during her career, and died in the U.S. To therefore state as the first sentence to her 8,000-word biography that she "was a Swedish film actress" is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, this same continual effort to recapture American actors and actresses has undermined many other biographies. For instance, Olivia de Havilland, who was not born in the Britain, never worked in Britain, and never lived in Britain, is described as a "British-American actress"! Similarly, Elizabeth Taylor while born in Britain, moved to the U.S. when she was 7, where she became notable as a child actress, where she spent her entire career, where she spent the rest of her 72 years of life, and where she died, is nonetheless described as "a British-American actress"! There are countless other misleading recapture efforts.

This repeated distortion of biographies by redefining the nationality of celebrities is unfortunate and should be fixed as it will undermine the accuracy of WP. --Light show (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mind you that she has been described as Swedish (briefly Swedish-American or simply only Swedish born in 2009) on here for the past 14 years (2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, etc), so I am not looking to redefine anything. Nymf (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Even after six years at least, no one has questioned this. A sample of other misleading opening sentences for the same reasons:
  • Charlie Chaplin, "an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer" (who, BTW, didn't even move back there when he retired)
  • Ann-Margret, " a Swedish-American actress", moved to the U.S. when she was five.
  • Joan Fontaine, "a British-American actress," moved to the U.S. as child where she spent the next 90 years of her life.
  • Angela Lansbury, "a British-American actress", moved to the U.S. when she was 15, after "first appearing onstage as a lady-in-waiting in her high-school's production..." After 75 years, she still acts in the U.S.
  • Ida Lupino, "an Anglo-American actress", moved to the U.S. when she was about 12 after having a few parts in Britain.
There are obviously many more. --Light show (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
And to note some more male actors, besides Chaplin, that may have the same issue:
  • Peter Lawford "English-born American actor" one description that's accurate.checkY
  • Freddie Bartholomew, "English-American child actor," moved to the U.S. at 10, and as his bio states, was only in "four minor British films" before then.
  • Leslie Howard, "an English stage and film actor," although his major film career and notability came from his 18 U.S. major films.
  • Boris Karloff, "an English actor." Mostly notable from his American films.
  • Stan Laurel, "an English comic actor", almost all U.S. films from an early age.
  • David Niven "an English actor", but noted primarily for his U.S. career.
  • Claude Rains "an English film and stage actor", also noted primarily for his U.S. films. --Light show (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's articles are intended to reflect what's written in reliable sources. FYI, the MoS states that

"In most modern-day cases this [nationality] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

Garbo was raised in Sweden, and appeared in major roles in the Swedish The Saga of Gösta Berling and the German The Joyless Street before her Hollywood films. She remained a Swedish citizen during her Hollywood film career, and was specifically marketed as a Swedish/European star, that was her 'brand' or star image. She became an American citizen only in the 1950s, long after her film career had ended, and maintained links to Sweden throughout her life (she was also buried there, not in the US), although she did not move back there as she would have been mobbed by the press 24/7. Do we know whether she even renounced her Swedish citizenship upon her naturalization in the US, or did she hold dual citizenship from the 1950s onwards?
If we take a look at obituaries and other articles published by notable newspapers, magazines and news agencies (NYT, LAT, Washington Post, UPI, The Guardian, Reuters, Chicago Tribune, BBC News, Variety...), she is invariably described as either "Swedish" or "Swedish-born". I also checked various articles published in major American publications during her heyday in the 1920s-1930s, and these same descriptions were used in them. I can not find a single article in which she would be referred to as an American.
It would therefore seem correct to refer to Garbo as either Swedish, Swedish-born, or Swedish-American, but there's very little to support Light show's claim that she should be referred to as simply an American star, even though she was a major Hollywood star. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
My only recent edit to the lead was to do what you are implying we do, and that's to describe her as a "Swedish-born American actress". Saying that my suggestion has "very little support" when you just proved the opposite, that it has very strong support, seems to be inaccurate. --Light show (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Do we know for sure that she renounced her Swedish citizenship when she became an American citizen? If not, then I think Swedish-American is more accurate.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greta Garbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1925 images

Elisa.rolle

There were two images added of her from 1925. Both images would benefit from cropping, which I will do in commons.

It would be good to select just one of the images, because it makes the top of that section busy. Do you have a preference?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

They are both nice, but I think the one facing front is more right (even if my artistic side likes the profile). It has been said that the Genthe's photos of Greta Garbo helped burst her career in the US (http://www.garboforever.com/Garbo_Portraits-01.htm). There are many more at the Library of Congress. But yes, I understand having just one. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. It's such a different and vulnerable photo of her.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greta Garbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greta Garbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Greta Garbo

While much of the site is really rather wonderful l do take lssue with Garbo being bisexual or lesbian how does anyone know after so many years? I think references to actress Lilyan Tashman should be removed as it does not match her Wiki Page therefore l assume she was Heterosexul she was married till her death in 1935. I looked at encyclopedia britannica they used these sources. 1. Turner classic movie biography of Greta Garbo 2. John Bainbridge Garbothe famous biography, lavishly illustrated 1975 3. Garbo A portrait by Barry Paris 2002 Perhaps this will help update it ; otherwise excellent. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

When some author writes something in a book about somebody'e sex life it often gets used as a source to spread sexual gossip on English Wikipedia. We have far too much of that here. It's sad. It's disrespectful. And it's not encyclopedically serious. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Name Change

Skim-reading this (long but generally very good) article, I can't find any information about when she changed her name to Garbo. Could someone who knows what happened please add it to the article? Edit: I note that the Swedish Wikipedia article has the following, which I've Google-translated: "The screenwriter Arthur Nordén is said to be the one who has given Greta Gustafsson his artist name Garbo, at a planned film production with Stiller where she would have been given the lead role. Garbo is a distortion of the name of Gustav II Adolf's brother-in-law Gábor Bethlen , and which Nordén often talked about in his history teaching at the folk high school Hvilan 1915-1918, before he became scriptwriter for Stiller." That sounds like a good start, though it's unsourced. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

The woman lived ín the United States most of her life, did most of her work there, in English, lost her Swedish citizenship early to become a U.S. citizen and died in New York, yet there is an ongoing edit-war to have her called "Swedish actress" in the first line of the lead. Greta Garbo was a Swedish American actress. I will be writing to the latest edit-warrior. Will reverse again tomorrow after that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Loss of Swedish citizenship

Garbo lost Swedish citizenship under the Swedish Citizenship Act of 1950 as a naturalized U.S. citizen. She had never held dual citizenship. Infobox amended to reflect this. 184.148.38.90 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Does it work like that? Since the source doesn't specifically mention Garbo actually losing her swedish citizenship it should be taken for a fact that swedish authorities wrote her out after passing that law? And that instance? Eg it didn't take x amount of years to go through a citizenship roll or something?

The lesbianism thing again

Text now reads "bisexual or lesbian". Why not "heterosexual or bisexual or lesbian" (order of evidence) ? Or "bisexual or heterosexual or lesbian" (alphabetical order) or "lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual" (sensationalist order). There is no "evidence" (quoting recent edit summary) about any of Greta Garbo's sexual activity. Nobody we know of has witnessed any of her erotic behavior or shown that she has revealed anything definite about it to anyone ever. No one has even speculated that she had any sexual aversion toward men. Speculation that she was bisexual is truthful & acceptable wording. I will be removing "or lesbian" (mainly because it looks ridiculous without "heterosexual") unless someone reasonably can convince me that that's the kind of wording we should have there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC):

In response to Sergewoodzing, above:

For several reasons, I have reverted your edit removing the word “lesbian” from the first sentence in the third paragraph of the “Relationships” section. To begin, you essentially say that, because “we have no ‘evidence’ about any of Garbo’s sexual activity,” speculation that she may have been a lesbian is baseless. Therefore, to deduce from available sources that she may have been a lesbian is illegitimate. The word “lesbian,” then, should not be included with “bisexual” in the paragraph. But failing to acknowledge the numerous stories and observations of people who knew Garbo well, and understood her to be either bisexual or lesbian, is tantamount to erasing important information from the record. The paragraph would be, in the end, misleading and incomplete.

Second, you add at the end of your post, “[S]peculation that she was bisexual,” however, “is truthful & acceptable wording.” Please note that the words “lesbian” and “bisexual” are invoked once and in the same sentence. So the wording of both is the same. But more importantly, five citations are provided to order to verify the entire statement—that speculation about Garbo’s same-sex leanings, whether they be bisexual or lesbian in nature, is justifiable. An editor can’t simply cherry-pick the content of a well-cited statement and, without consulting the sources, remove a part that s/he finds objectional.

So I’m going to offer a suggestion in good faith: if you have a compelling interest in providing accurate representation of Garbo’s reputed sexuality, it’s time for you to exercise due diligence. This would entail examining the five (5) citations by actually reading the source material they reference. If you do this responsibly, I’m certain you will accept the speculation that Garbo may have been a lesbian is justified by extensive, reliable, and credible evidence and available information.

So in conclusion, Serge, please know that if you persist in removing “lesbian” from the third paragraph of the “Relationships” section, I’ll continue to revert your edit. If you want Wikipedia to formally arbitrate this conflict, I’ll happily submit this statement for the committee’s consideration.

Respectfully and sincerely, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Classicfilmbuff.

P.S. Parenthetically, if scholars studying gay and lesbian history used reasoning along your lines, the entirety of its history before about 1969 would be summarized in little more than a short paragraph.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We are supposed to indent all of our update comments by using one or two or more colons, not only the first paragraph. Doing that automatically creates new paragraphs & avoids extreme tedium wading though all kinds of confusion.
Also, we are supposed to have consensus here before we revert. Do you not know that? We do not just revert to what we want and recommend arbitration as the next step. I will keep removing "or lesbian" whenever you have added it since nobody reliable that we know of has ever speculated or claimed that Garbo's sexual interest was only in women. That is pure conjecture on your part, and conjecture cannot be added to an article. (We are up to 3 no-nos now). No need for these long long long long comments by you or tedious source verification by me. It's up to you to substantiate your allegation, not up to me to investigate it.
So:
Has any reliable source ever speculated that Garbo had no sexual interest in men? If you say so, what publication, what page & what wording (please quote it here)?--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
PS If the words "or lesbian" are to stay, the sentence must be reworded to: "Recent biographers and others have speculated that Garbo was bisexual, or lesbian, and that she had intimate relationships with women as well as men, or only with women" to make any sense. Is that what we want? Or do we want "or became lesbian"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
1) Serge: see the last last citation of the statement in the article, which is[5] (you could and should have done this years ago when I first wrote this section), click on the included link, and read the letter. And then please do not ever again base your entire argument on the false belief that "nobody reliable that we know of has ever speculated or claimed" that Garbo was a lesbian. If you believe that Daum's claim (and that of every other source I've cited in the article) is fraudulent, well, I'm going to guess that you simply don't want to acknowledge that Greta Garbo may very well have been gay. 2) On what grounds to you assume that lesbians have no sexual interest in, or relationsips with, men? This belief is considerably out-of-step with current understanding and knowledge about lesbian sexuality, as is your earlier implication that "lesbians have a sexual aversion to men." Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently you need to try to educate me about the difference between a bisexual woman and a lesbian. What is it, to you? Having had many close friends who consider themselves lesbians, and who have no sexual interest in men and thus do not consider themselves bisexual, I am not able to understand your point of view at all. Can you quote a reliable source that says lesbian women who also are interested in men are different from bisexual women? Or is that only your personal opinion?
I do not intend to subscribe to the NYT to read your source. Please verify & quote the wording here that you are referring to which clearly shows that a reliable source has speculated that Garbo was a lesbian (which, as far as I know, would exclude sexual relationships with men). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Two rhetorical questions: Is it truly your judgement, SergeWoodzing, that in addition to the substantive reasoning I’ve already provided, I--a Wikipedia writer and editor--"need to educate [you] about the difference between a bisexual woman and a lesbian" in order to justify my research about Greta Garbo's same-sex leanings? And do you really expect me to “verify & quote the wording” of the cited source I provided at your request (which has long been accessible in the citations to which I have repeatedly asked you to refer) because “[you] do not intend to subscribe to the NYT to read [it]”? For god’s sake! Find out how to read something in the NYT as a non-subscriber! Why? because it’s your responsibility as a Wikipedia editor.
Now, if at some point you should want to understand more clearly why I will never respond to you again, consider the following. Submit this Talk thread to several serious, experienced, and level-headed Wikipedia editors; ask them to examine to your posts directed at me, an anonymous but experienced Wikipedia writer and editor, and have them evaluate your contributions for cogency, rationality, soundness, tone, and overall value to this discussion. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Your source is not verifiable as long as the rest of us only can see "Get unlimited access for €0.50 a week. Limited time offer." when we try to access it.
You do not need to justify your research. You need to provide verifiable reliable sources, including page numbers & quoted text. They need to confirm what you are alleging:
  1. Why should our article say that there has been speculation that Garbro was bisexual, or lesbian?
  2. What is the difference between a bisexual woman and a lesbian? (Important only because of your allegations and the word "or".)
If you do not provide that information, and nobody else does either, I will remove "or lesbian" again. If you then reinstate the words without providing verifiable, reliable sources to justify their inclusion, I will take action against your behavior.
This page is supposed to be about the article, not about you and me. You made all this so personal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
So i guess the core question here is "do the relevant sources describe Garbo as lesbian, bisexual, or something else? Does anyone have access to the sources cited? Bonewah (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Good question. Even more specifically, as I see it, the core question is "does any reliable source speculate that Garbo was a lesbian, meaning, to most of our readers, that she had no sexual interest in men?" --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lesbianism, Cont'd

Because I have been unable to publish my posts in the section, below, The Lesbian Thing Again, I am attempting to do so by creating, here, a new section.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, In response to your question, “Does anyone have access to the sources cited" I have copied below the source from The New York Times for readers unable to read it, presumably because they are overseas.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

See the article in its original context from May 7, 1995, Section 7, Page 47Buy Reprints

Title: The Private Garbo

To the Editor:
Patrick McGilligan's insightful review of "Garbo" (April 2), a biography by Barry Paris, gives the impression that the world's most celebrated film star was, in her private life, "a lonely, pathetic woman" and "an empty vessel."
As a close friend and neighbor of Garbo's in New York for many years, I find it a disservice and a pity that film scholars like Mr. Paris perpetuate this counterfeit portrait that does not honor the woman behind the actress. I was privileged to know the private Garbo. She was a highly intelligent, self-effacing, generous and kindhearted woman, and she had a delicious sense of humor.
The reviewer notes the chapter on "Garbo's puzzling sexuality" and quotes Mr. Paris's assessment that she was "technically bisexual, predominantly lesbian and increasingly asexual as the years went by." I think not. Walter Wanger, who produced "Queen Christina," told me in the 1960's that Garbo was the most sexually alive woman he had ever worked with, and added, "There is nothing she doesn't know about sex!"
I think it is fair to say that a same-sex relationship was her obvious choice, despite numerous affairs with men. She once told me, "Homosexual love without discretion and dignity, if flaunted, is sordid." Garbo was haunted by a private code of conduct, trapped by the mores and traditional old-fashioned values of her generation.
RAYMOND DAUM Austin, Tex.
A version of this article appears in print on May 7, 1995, Section 7, Page 47 of the National edition with the headline: The Private Garbo. Order Reprints

You can learn more learn about Raymond Daum by googling him, and about his book, "Walking With Garbo: Conversations and Recollections", at Amazon.com. While you're there, you may be interested in books by other authors I cited along with the letter above, in particular, Hugo Vickers and Robert Schanke who wrote at length about this subject. Respectfully, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


User SergeWoodszing has threatened to “take action against [my] behavior” unless I accede to his recent demands, which I consider, like most of his reasoning in the section he titled, “The lesbianism thing again,” to be groundless, obstructionist, and, to use Wikipedia’s term, “disruptive.” I therefore want to record the following statement in preparation for an increasingly likely “Conduct Dispute,” initiated by him.
For two years, beginning in 2013 I believe, I conducted extensive research about Greta Garbo. I then restructured and re-wrote the Wikipedia article about her which I considered insufficient for many reasons. Since then, it has been expanded and improved, of course, by many succeeding editors and is, now, I believe, a comprehensive and solid article.
When I completed the section I titled “Relationships,” under the “Personal life” heading, several readers challenged my assertion of significant and reliable speculation about Garbo's same-sex orientation, whether bisexual or lesbian, which I meticulously and painstakingly supported in five citations. After discussion and debate, consensus was achieved and the section was unchanged for many years. (This speculation—not my assertion of it—about her sexuality is widely accepted and acknowledged in scholarly and general-readership articles, documentaries, and books easily available to anyone interested in learning about Garbo.)
When I posted the section, I understood that some readers, reluctant to acknowledge Garbo’s same-sex interests, whether bisexual or lesbian in nature, would continue to contest it. So monitored the paragraph for years in order to protect its full integrity from unjustified or spurious editorial changes. After many years without any, I decided to stop doing this.
But when I recently checked, I sighed in frustration that someone, after all these years, had removed the word “lesbian” from the sentence that introduces the subject of Garbo’s same-sex orientation. Nevertheless, after SergeWoodzing "reminded" me, correctly, that I couldn’t “revert” an edit the way I did, I proceeded in good faith to elaborate in the talk page the reasons for why it's necessary to include.
After several days of communicating with him I have come to believe, lamentably, that he is impossible to reason with.
Sincerely, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a letter to the editor to me. We don't use them as references on Wikipedia. I am still looking for (1) much less about other editors, their reluctance, their acknowledgements, their behavior, their bias, their extensive research, etc. and (2) concise wording and page numbers in reliable sources where it has been speculated that Garbo was lesbian, in contrast to bisexual and (3) much fewer words about other Garboesque matters than that specific issue. I met Greta Garbo IRL in 1981 and later collaborated with one of her intimate friends & biographers Sven Broman. That does not give me or anyone else special privileges to add whatever we like here without reliable sources clearly cited, especially not about such subjects as sexuality. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
So i put this question to the [Wikipedia LGBT project] and the response was along the lines of 'go with what the sources say unless she self-identified' which i dont believe Garbo did. Does anyone have access to the sources used here, aside from what has already been covered? Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sam Green - Obituary". The Telegraph. 18 Mar 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
  2. ^ Paris 1994, p. 526.
  3. ^ "Sam Green - Obituary". warholstars.org. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
  4. ^ Schanke 2003, pp. 169–170.
  5. ^ Daum, Raymond (7 May 1995). "The Private Garbo". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 October 2012.

"Lesbianism" Thread, no.3

Hi Bonewah, just broke wrist so can’t write much. Glad you checked with LGBT WP. Please explain question, “anybody have access to sources?” So many sources and pages cited that I’m unsure what you are asking for. All sources I cited are recent, or relatively so. (First one, Laramie, not mine and I think unreliable but have to look into before possible editing.) The issue abt her sexuality was extensively discussed 10 yrs ago and after (see talk p. archives 1 and 2) including much commentary by me about all things GG and same objections about use of “lesbian” by SergeWoodzing. I’m always interested of course in improved wording (sentence has already seen several iterations) but doesn’t seem right to continuously relitigate forever. Your thoughts? Thanks, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to relitigate the wording, baring some major discrepancy between what we say and what the sources say. Im mostly interested in the exact language used by the sources cited for the sentence "Recent biographers and others have speculated that Garbo was bisexual, or lesbian, and that she had intimate relationships with women as well as men" So, "Spirit of Garbo". Laramie, Moon (2018). Spirit of Garbo. London: Martin Firrell Company Ltd. ISBN 978-1-912622-02-3, p. 43., Paris 1994, p. 249., Vickers 1994., Vieira 2005, pp. 134–36 passim., Schanke 2003, pp. 103–13 passim. if you have any of them. If not, ill go to the library and check the source wording. If it says 'lesbian or bi' then we can more or less leave it alone, if they are split, we will deal with that. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
“I think it is fair to say that a same-sex relationship was her obvious choice, despite numerous affairs with men.” Daum, 1995
Paris, p. 279: “Garbo was technically bisexual, predominantly lesbian, and increasingly asexual….”
But, but finding additional “exact wording by sources” is probably impossible, along with finding exact wording of a source claiming she was heterosexual because her relationships w men are just as conjectural as those w women. One would have to comb through all available sources and take note of every single time a friend, acquaintance, or relation who believed she was gay or bi and there are dozens of them. Who's going to do this?
Moreover, Vickers, writes an entire book about her relationships with de Acosta and Beaton; another, Schanke, in his biography of de Acosta, “That Furious Lesbian,” writes about their relationship in detail throughout the book. Yet it’s unlikely either specifically says, “GG was a lesbian or bisexual.” Because it’s intrinsic to the biographical narratives it needn’t be explicitly stated.
Most importantly, if one reads extensively about GG, as I did, her same-sex proclivity is unmistakable and indisputable.
I have just read WP’s NOR policy as well as that of “synthesizing sources” as a form of original research. Unfortunately, these policies present perhaps insurmountable obstacles to editors writing about LGBT history before about 1970. As one user noted on the GG talk page in 2013 about the requirement for explicitly stated claims: “Taking that reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, Wikipedia would record the existence of almost no non-heterosexual people before several decades ago. Articles such as this one nceed to reflect what reliable sources, such as books by reputable authors, say. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC).
This is what I took great pains to do: “reflect” what reliable sources say.
So what to do? Perhaps we turn this issue over to the LGBT WikiProject. After several years of trying in good faith to edit/write judiciously, sensibly, and accurately about GG’s relationships (see archives 1 and 2) it is perhaps time for someone else to take up the mantel. I will say, though, that while it’s impossible to confirm anything certain about Garbo’s sexuality, failing to acknowledge the countless friends and acquaintances who suspected or believed her to be primarily lesbian strikes me as mistaken.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Bonewah, just went to LGBT talk p. I didn't get a sense of consensus that the article needs more than what I've already cited.
One editor said it's fine the way it's written and another said "There's no reason to remove the word "lesbian" if it's attributed, as it is." As I understood it, no one objected to the wording. Perhaps we could add the exact wording of Paris and Daum's statements in those two citations? Maybe we should we consider taking this discussion to the LGBT page.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again Bonewah, are the changes I made to the citations what you were looking for? Are they sufficient to quell future objection? I wish an editor would come along and convey the same message but w improved wording. E.g., perhaps her well-documented relationship w MdA should be at the top of the section, not mid-way. A decade ago I spent 2-3 years on this article and am not in a position to return to it w any rigor or time. Have moved on. Your thoughts?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This has now been sufficiently sourced even without the (inadmissible) letter to the editor. I have adjusted the wording in accordance with sources now cited in more detail. Thank you all for your work on this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The sourcing a wording look good to me. I know what you mean about rewording, but im not particularly good at that sort of thing. Sounds like SergeWoodzing is ok with it too so hopefully we can count this disagreement as resolved. Thanks for everyone's efforts here, its refreshing to have editors actually work to solve problems rather than just bicker! Bonewah (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, “the editors” did not work together on this issue. I do not work with editors who are, to quote a Swedish editor on his talk page, “condescending, sarcastic, belligerent [and] rude”; users who make unreasonable demands and nonsensical arguments; and whose editorial history on WK and Swedish WK reveals a compulsive inclination to badger editors. Instead, I worked with you, Bonewah, who mysteriously intervened (?), and approached the matter with civility, respect, and legitimate concern. Thank you for breaking the stalemate and helping to improve the clarity of the section. As for you, Serge, your wording is indeed an improvement. I appreciate that you rose to the occasion. I hope I’m right that you are oblivious to how you come across. This means there's hope you can change your approach. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Wrote to the user about that attack which does not belong here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Why GG called "The Divine"

The last sentence in the opening paragraph is: "She was nicknamed "The Divine" because of her whimsical attitude and her determination to avoid the press." But this is NOT why she was called The Divine. To begin, there was nothing "whimsical" about Greta Garbo in any way whatsoever. (Def of whimsical: "playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way.") Furthermore, the statement is not properly cited (an entire book--Swensen's biography--without identifying page numbers). Certainly her effort to avoid the press and publicity added to her enigmatic public persona. But really it was the captivating magnetism and allure of her film performances that earned her the nickname "the divine." (I can't find the name of the person who first coined the term.) Thus, without further citation and elaboration, I think this sentence should be removed. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Swedish American actress

Some users want her as a Swedish actress at the top of the lead, not Swedish American. It's been going on for years. Hard to understand why. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Garbo shot in the face?

In his first memoir, actor David Niven recounts that Greta Garbo was struck by bird shot upon the side of her face while vacationing with friends somewhere near where hunting was being accommodated, and that several shot pellets remained permanently lodged within her cheek and orbital bones. This injury supposedly occurred after Garbo initially declined to go walking in the countryside because of a premonition she had of being shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:4:E90A:4DD2:F8D8:937A:B62E (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greta_Garbo/Archive_2&oldid=1180352058"