Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Grant not an icon

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

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

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

AOL NetRange: 92.10.0.0 - 92.13.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IP4240207xx (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mother

I lived in Bristol briefly in the 1970s and was told by local people that Grant came back to Bristol regularly to visit his mother who was in a local mental hospital. These unpublicised visits continued until she died in the the early 1970s. However, I can't source anything yet, anyone else help on this?Bedwasboy (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to fit the bill, if the BBC are to be believed. --Rodhullandemu 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I lived in Bristol in 1971, and remember a picture of him in the evening paper, with a caption saying he was visiting his mother. 86.143.139.43 (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Further confirmation: my late mother was a nurse in Bristol in the 1960s (she never mentioned it being a mental hospital though, I got the impression it was an old folks' home or maybe a geriatric ward). Cary Grant's aged mother, Mrs Leach, was under her care and he used to come and visit her. The article doesn't seem to mention his mother later than 1938, and perhaps ought to mention when she died.Paulturtle (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Citizenship

It is also important to note that it says Cary Grant is a British born American actor. He is a British born British Actor! He just worked in america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.180.145 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some fact-checking would be in order. Did he have dual citizenship, for example? It does seem wrong to describe him as "British-born American". Unless he actually tore up his British passport or something.--82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I have changed it to British actor. At worst he was a British actor who held american citizenship but he was in no way American. Spudbynight (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source is? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

"British-born American actor" would seem to be the right way to say it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

His place of birth was Bristol. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000026/. He was born to British parents. If you think he was American then quote a source. Spudbynight (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cary Grant became an American citizen on June 26, 1942 and legally changed his name, from Archie Leach to Cary Grant. See: <Cary Grant FAQ> , <Cary Grant bio> Cary Grant, ad infinitum... Fwiw Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

He was born in England, worked in America, and became an American citizen. "British-born American actor" describes that situation properly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How could an actor who became an American citizen not be an American actor? If he also retained his British citizenship, then he was a British-American actor. It seems to me he was a British-born British-American actor, but that's a bit of a mouthful. Maybe best to describe him in the lede as a British-American actor, and get into his place of birth later on. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph gives citizenship as a determining factor. "British-born American actor" and "British-American actor" each are correct, and as long as both "British" and "American" are included, I don't think that one option is more correct than the other. It covers both his origin and the citizenship he chose, so it seems like an accurate and neutral way of describing him. Rethinking my opinion... if he retained British citizenship, "British-American" would be correct. If he relinquished it, "British-born American actor" would be right. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How many of his films were British releases? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

None? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

I can't think of any. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Until 1988, with the passage of some landmark legislation, American courts would not consider dual citizenship. I was actually present at a Canadian citizenship court when the first American citizen was granted Canadian citizenship status and still being allowed to retain his American citizenship. The same applied to British citizens prior to recent times. For example, Scottish-born Alexander Graham Bell became an American citizen in 1921, thereby revoking his British citizenship. The same premise applied to Cary Grant in 1942; in order to become an American citizen, he had to relinquish his British citizenship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

So, going back to MoS, by citizenship he is considered to be "American", and "British-born" seems like a reasonable way to qualify his origins. I think that "British-born American actor" is the more appropriate term. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

His films have no bearing on this whatsoever, I am amazed anyone could thing this. If you look at the entry for Peter Frampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Frampton you will see an inconsistency. Peter Frampton is exactly the same scenario - born in England to English parents and later moved to American and claimed citizenship. Only a loon would ever dream of calling him anything other than English. With respect to the fact that America does not allow dual citizenship, well that is countered by the fact that the United Kingdom does not allow citizens to renounce their citizenship. We are therefore back to the standard wiki rules of source. There is no argument over Cary Grant's origin but there is no source to claim that he renounced his UK citizenship. Spudbynight (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The US government would not allow dual citizenship in 1942; Cary Grant quite openly became an American citizen to deflect criticism during the war years that had been directed at actors who had not enlisted in the military. He had taken steps to see if he could enlist in the RAF but was counseled to remain in Hollywood as his services were better used in the film industry. FWiW, at the same time as he became an American citizen, he took steps to legalize his name to "Cary Grant" which until that time had been only his stage name. Bzuk (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

The British government wouldn't allow him to renounce his British citizenship in 1942 either. Worth noting that the world extends outside America. Channel 4 in the UK listed Cary Grant as #19 on their list of Greatest British Actors http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/greatest-brits/results/nominees/actor/16-20_results.html , seems like I am not alone. I am going to change this back to British actor who also held American citizenship and this should be left unless someone can quote a source indicating that he renounced his British citizenship in the eyes of the British government. Spudbynight (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is your documentation that Cary Grant was a British citizen after 1942? Your change neither has consensus nor supporting documentation and will be subject to removal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

You may not be alone in describing him as a British actor, but you should take into account that several editors have expressed a different viewpoint as to the way the information should be presented, and you have made the change to the article despite being the only editor in the discussion to hold this view. Bzuk's comment about lack of consensus above, is correct. Also, rather than presenting the information in the way that you personally believe it should be conveyed, you should look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph which explains Wikipedia's generally accepted format. Your preferred wording may ultimately win support, but the discussion has not ended yet. Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is there any source stating that he was not a British citizen after 1942? Spudbynight (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) In addittion Wiki states "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.". Cary grant completed 38 of him movies before 1942, well over half of them. Surely then by any criterion he was British when he became notable? Spudbynight (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1942, citizens who took the oath of naturalization had to swear in their American oath of allegiance a promise to renounce all previous citizenships upon assumption of American citizenship. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

The actual wording is quite specific: "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..." FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Here's an alternate wording that may be appropriate, "British-born Hollywood actor" and leave the reader to find that at some point he had become an American citizen. FWiW, any of the reference sources I have located do not refer to a British citizenship after 1942, but that may not have precluded an unenforced revocation of his British citizenship. The only thing I had noted is that Grant never referred to himself as a British citizen after 1942. Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

That seems like a reasonable compromise. It certainly reads better than "British-born British-American actor". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the British government not "allowing" someone to renounce their citizenship, how would they enforce such a rule? Would they send a posse into the USA to grab him and conscript him in the British military, and risk re-starting the War of 1812? I don't think so! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How would the US government enforce things? As I mentioned earlier there is a world outside the United States and just because he claimed citizenship (as many do PURELY for work reasons) does not mean that he was no longer a UK citizen. You still haven't answered my points as per his nationality when he became notable. Spudbynight (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If he actively worked to undermine the US in some way, he could be charged with treason or whatever else they might come up with. All or nearly all his films were made in America, or certainly in Hollywood. I like "British-born Hollywood actor". It covers all the bases neatly. You don't need an essay in the lead. That's in the body. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where his films were made. Most of Sean Connery's films were made outside Scotland - try telling him he isn't Scottish! Spudbynight (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Connery become an American citizen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a different issue. Scottish he certainly is, but that's his nationality, not his citizenship. His citizenship is British. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making is that Baseball Bugs keeps referring to where Cary Grant's films were made as if that had some sort of bearing on this discussion. Nobody has answed my point on consistency on Wiki. He became notable before he claimed US citizenship.Spudbynight (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cary Grant was alternately leading man, "second banana" and character actor throughout his early film career. Donald Deschler in The Complete Films of Cary Grant (1995) lists all of his credits by marquee arrangement and it was not until 1942 that the name Cary Grant is consistently the "name above the title". However, the point that until 1942, Cary Grant was British is accepted but after that date, his citizenship is American. Again, I can find no record of him ever referring to himself as a British citizen after 1942, although his work with the shadowy wartime British Security Coordination group headed by Sir William Stephenson is the subject of speculation by Charles Higham and Roy Moselley in Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart (1989). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

I don't refer to myself as a British citizen - it just doesn't come up in conversation. It doesn't change the fact that I am British. As I have previously pointed out there is no record I can find of Cary Grant renouncing his citizenship with the British government. Can you find any record of Cary Grant stating that he was no longer British? I doubt it. I don't dispute that he held American citizenship after 1942 but citizenship and nationality are two different things. His nationality was British and he held dual citizenship. The first paragraph of the article smacks of typical American arrogance. Spudbynight (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) As for Cary Grant only being a 'second banana' prior to 1942 you only need look at the films referenced in the second paragraph of this article. In each of them Grant is the male lead (and in most of them he has the first credit) - surely that makes him pretty notable? Spudbynight (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dual citizenship for a US citizen in 1942 was not possible. Higham and Moseley refer to his taking the oath of citizenship (the US Nationalization oath specifically asks the individual to forswear their citizenship or allegiance to another country). The statement made about his status in the film industry is referenced to the leading role for Cary Grant, and that is denoted by marquee sequencing and by contract stipulations. Prior to 1942, he often appeared as a "number two" but rarely as the "lead actor." Whether that has bearing or not on notability, it merely confirms that after 1942, Cary Grant was considered a "star" and received the customary treatment accorded to a major film star. The statements made about arrogance are off the mark; first of all, you have not researched the backgrounds of the contributors, nor should their origins or nationality matter. Wiki editors assume a neutrality in writing, and if they stray into WP:POV, that is immediately redressed by numerous editors. As to Cary expressing himself as British, I have now consulted countless reference sources and after 1942, he never refers to himself as a British citizen. As already enunciated, his origins and nationality are not in question. FWiW, an offer of an "olive branch" was made, were you uninterested? Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

I've come to agree with Spudbynight after reading United States nationality law. That article states (in the section on dual citizenship) that "Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship." I think that pretty much settles the issue. Unless a source is shown that Grant specifically renounced his British citizenship with the United Kingdom and that that renunciation was accepted by the United Kingdom, he can be assumed to have remained a British citizen as well as an American one. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are reading is a recent interpretation that was based on some landmark legal cases being tried in recent court cases. In 1942, no US citizen was permitted to hold dual citizenship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Then please enlighten me as to how that was enforced, if it was. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Each applicant had to swear in the oath of naturalization a promise to renounce all previous citizenships upon assumption of American citizenship. The actual oath is: "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..." As a public figure or celebrity, Cary Grant would be held to that oath while a lesser individual might not be under such scrutiny. In checking every available reference source, Grant never refers to British citizenship after 1942. Of course, he remained at heart, a "Brit" but his citizenship was that of a US citizen. As reiterated, only recent legal precedent has confirmed US citizens with the right to hold dual citizenship. I took part in the first citizenship court in Canada where a US citizen was able to apply and receive both US and Canadian citizenship. He was a teacher in my school division and his case received a great deal of media attention as he was the first US citizen to successfully apply for a dual citizenship status and that was in 1988; there had been some previous challenges to the dual citizenship for a US-Israeli citizen in 1976 but was dropped in the lower courts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

The same oath is still sworn. Unless he renounced his British citizenship at a British embassy, Britain still considered him a citizen. Do you have evidence that Britain did not? Yworo (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In swearing the oath in 1942, the US would have now considered Cary Grant a US citizen only as they did not recognize dual citizenship until the 1980s. It is true that there was no requirement to turn in passports and even the formal declaration of citizenship would not preclude Cary Grant from claiming or reverting to a former British citizenship. I cannot find that he ever claimed to be a British citizen again after 1942. Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

I don't see what Grant said or didn't say has to do with it. Citizenship is a status granted by a government and can only be taken away by that government. Even if you want to renounce it, you have to follow the rules. For example, did you know that you can't renounce US citizenship from inside the US? You have to do so outside the US at an embassy. If the was simply a matter of what the individual in question says... but well, it's not.... Yworo (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a confusing issue, the US would not accept dual citizenship in 1942 while Cary Grant may have technically retained his British citizenship because Great Britain would not have revoked his original citizenship, even though he made the declaration to renounce that citizenship. As far as his status in this article, he was a British citizen until 1942 and then was a US citizen with the possible retaining of his British citizenship, although I still cannot find any mention of his claiming to be British after 1942. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Another interesting observation: most biographies of Grant are quite explicit and clear when they discuss Barbara Hutton's renunciation of US citizenship, they all say just that, that she renounced her citizenship to become a Danish citizen. But not a word about Grant renouncing his British citizenship to become an American citizen. Why is that, when he's the primary subject of the biography? Could it be because either he never did it or because there are not sources which say he did? Yworo (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, a few light years ago, I had suggested that in the lead passages he is identified as a "British-born Hollywood actor" while in the infobox, his citizenship can be listed as "British/American." As I have said before, Grant never claimed to be British after 1942 and we may have dug a very large molehill over this issue. Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

(outdent) Well, at least according to Marc Eliot, Grant was "arguably the biggest male star in Hollywood" (p. 204) after My Favorite Wife (1940). Which would mean that even if his British citizenship was successfully revoked, he was still a British citizen when he became a star. His already having achieved stardom is of course what attracted Hutton to him in the first place.... Given all the circumstances, I'd say British/American is the best way to approach it in both places. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you have already changed the article, what's the point in continuing the discussion?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I mentioned the opening paragraph smacking of American arrogance I was talking about the piece itself rather than any specific individual. Referring to Cary Grant as American does smack of American arrogance. (But this is beside the point.) Yworo has agreed with me above and saved me the trouble of replying. I think British/American is probably the best compromise on this Spudbynight (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, to revisit the MOS, MOS:BIO#Opening paragraph actually says "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable (emphasis added). Cary Grant was a notable actor prior to becoming an American citizen. I don't particularly think that referring to him as British-American is correct, either. To me, this passage indicates that it should remain British, with perhaps an additional comment that he later became an American citizen. I'm American here and honestly, I think this has nothing to with "American arrogance" and I find that claim offensive. This has to do with not clearly interpreting what the entire MOS says about citizenship and notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should be referred to as British and that is my interpretation of the wiki rules. Spudbynight (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the first to change "British actor" to "British-born American actor" and I'm Swedish, not American. Not a surprise, though, that a smug Brit would start speaking about "American arrogance" if someone (God forbid) referred to an American citizen who lived most of his life in the United States as an (gasp!) American. Stefan PJ (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) He was born in Britain to British parents - that makes him a little bit more than 'British Born'. Spudbynight (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just spotted that Greta Garbo is listed as a Swedish actress despite taking US citizenship in 1950. Why is she not referred to as a Swedish-American actress? Spudbynight (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Greta Garbo isn't mentioned in this article; you'd probably be better discussing that here. Rodhullandemu 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because Garbo didn't become naturalized until after her entire acting career, while Grant was naturalized during his acting career? Yworo (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Greta Garbo being referred to as Swedish but my point was merely to point out a lack of consistancy rather than question her nationality. Spudbynight (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no lack of consistency as I see it. Grant became known while British, but became much more well known after becoming a naturalized American. Thus, both nationalities should be included. You need to compare to other subjects with the same conditions, for example Peter Lorre, who became known (for his role in 'M') while still an Austrian citizen, but became much more well known after becoming a naturalized American. His article describes him as Austrian-American, paralleling the usage on this article. Yworo (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New section on citizenship

User:Bzuk argues that in 1942, the US government maintained strict standards such that it would have been impossible for a naturalised immigrant like Grant to maintain dual citizenship. This is incorrect; as far as the question of who held British citizenship goes, whether today or in 1942, the American government's view is irrelevant. One nation simply doesn't get a say in who another nation considers a citizen. This is especially true if Grant never did anything to act on his British citizenship, such as renewing his British passport (if he ever held one in the first place—he immigrated before a passport was required for a voyage between Britain and the United States) or attempting to vote in a British election. If he hadn't fulfilled the British government's criteria for rescinding his citizenship after 1942, he'd have still been a British citizen. But he did lose his British citizenship when he became a naturalised American. Any British subject naturalised by a foreign state between 1914 and 1948 lost their British citizenship automatically under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. It wasn't till 1949 that the British Nationality Act 1948 created the status of "British citizen", a status that is not lost when its holder is naturalised by a foreign state. This is why Alfred Hitchcock, who wasn't naturalised until 1956, retained his British citizenship, while Alistair Cooke, naturalised in 1941, did not. There's a good discussion of this at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock or one of its archives. Also, it's not true that the British government doesn't allow the renunciation of British citizenship; the form to apply to renounce your British citizenship is available on the Home Office website.

Having said all that, "British-born Hollywood actor" seems perfect to me for the lede. Binabik80 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

new discussion

I have changed his nationality from English-American to English/American. English-American denotes an American with English ancestry. Cary Grant was born in England to two English parents. This is certainly more than English ancestry. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but the way you did it didn't link to the right articles., and I disagree with your interpretation of English American, since Grant clearly falls within the definition IMO. We're splitting hairs here, I feel. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps placing "... with dual citizenship of both countries" may be appropriate ? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

From the wiki page on english-americans it defines them as "citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England." Cary Grant was much more than this. He was english born with two english parents who only became an american citizen in 1942. He had made over half his films before he took US citizenship (surely enough to regard his as notable) I don't think it is splitting hairs. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly by the definition of English American, Grant qualifies, and I see no gradation or scale within that. He either is, or he isn't, and try as I might, I cannot think of a terminology that encapsulates this without being clumsy beyond concern for our readers. We say he was born in England, and we say he worked in USA and later became a US citizen. Without being silly, what else can we do? The alternative English/American, even if disambiguated correctly, is unhelpful, because nobody has any idea what "/" means. If it means "or", it's simply wrong. If it means "and", it's confusing because it implies a nonexistent simultaneity. If it means anything else, it's just "undefined" and equally, if not more so, unhelpful. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also on the page on "English-Americans" the following people are given as examples. William Byrd II · George Washington · Ben Franklin · Betsy Ross · John Quincy Adams · Francis Scott Key · Abraham Lincoln · Clara Barton · King Camp Gillette · Ransom E. Olds · Laura Ingalls · Oliver Hardy · Ernest Hemingway· Jayne Mansfield · Bill Gates · Justin Timberlake · Britney Spears. All of them are born in America to American born parents. They may have some degree of English ethnicity but Cary Grant stands out as completely different. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and you need to justify this as a "special case" not to apply long-accepted guidelines. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And there in lies the problem, ethincity vs citizenship.

Often the American way is to consider everyone as "XXX-American" denoting ethnicity. For example see Catherine Bell - here the British part is demoted to simply a mention of her "British born" status whereas in the UK we would normally consider that she would be classed as "British American of Anglo-Iranian descent"

It is something that we have to deal with and understand rather than start raising issue at something which has been much discussed and an agreed on compromise has been implemented (see above discussion)

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to open up a can of worms on this but why is he not just listed as a British actor? Its been clarified on the article.. "MOS:BIO — Nationality: the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable". He was certainly British when he became notable - the majority of his films were made before he took US citizenship. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC) And the reason why I think this doesn't read right is that calling him English-American detracts from the fact that he is certainly more British than anything else. English-American takes a very US-centric position on this. 78.105.154.28 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC) So any case to not list him as British? 78.105.154.28 (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Is it OK to change him to British actor then? 87.194.162.141 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Article has been stable in its present version for a long time, and I think you would need to obtain a new consensus to make that change. Rodhullandemu 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) His nationality was changed from English–American in August last year without any consensus. I have reverted to this. It is a subtle change but one which has been discussed above since November without resolution. 87.194.162.141 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I am somewhat puzzled by all this. The change in his nationality was made without consensus to its current status. This has been argued above without resolution. When I tried to revert it to it's previous state the edits were undone. Surely some sort of balance needs to be applied here? The other user above posted three months ago without response. I personally feel that the current status is inaccurate. I believe that under Wiki guidelines he should be listed as British. (He only held British citizenship when he became notable) Certainly calling him English-American is contrary to the view that he was a British actor. There is disagreement on this factor and English–American seemed to be a logical compromise, acknowledging that he was both a British and an American citizen. 87.194.162.141 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I still believe this to be open. I like the other user User:78.105.154.28 feel that English-American is an inaccurate status for Cary Grant. It is fine for someone who is American with British ancestry but it fails to reflect the fact that some editors believe he was not simply American. As has been stated above wiki guidelines state that nationality listed should be that when the subject became notable. I am not disputing that Grant's star was still in the ascendance when he became a US citizen, but to say that having acted in roughly half his films before this point, he wasn't notable is just puzzling. This status is something which there is still not consensus on. The subtle change I mention above (I have registered for an account now) while subtle is significant. It was made quietly without consensus and there has been significant opposition to it above. This has been challenged for over 4 months without any reply. Sue De Nimes (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The link to English American, as the article has it at this moment, seems like the right way to go with this, as it gives an explanation, as opposed to linking to English and American separately, which doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on that. Certainly if Cary Grant had been born in America to a family that was ethnically English then maybe. As I understand it wiki policy is to state nationality not ethnicity (please correct me if I am wrong). The current English American reflects a nationality of American along with additional information on ethnicity. The question mark here from myself (and other editors) is whether he should be listed as American, British or both. For someone who was born in Britain to two British parents and spent nearly half his life with no nationality other than British to be listed as something that does not reflect it seems flawed. I see the following points as open at the moment (i) He was initially listed English–American and then in August last year changed to English American. This change was made without consensus and still seems to be in disagreement. With this in mind it should be reverted to English–American until such consensus is formed. (ii) Cary Grant was only British when he became notable. As per Wiki guidelines he should thus be listed as British. I have read the notes above and haven't seen anyone suitably address why this guideline should not be followed. There are several editors in support of that view. (iii) As an improvement on the current status I believe that British born Hollywood Actor is something which may act as a safe middle point. Sue De Nimes (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC) This has been left as "English" for some time now. I would like to propose the following change which I believe reflects the facts clearly. "Cary Grant was an English actor who later took American citizenship" Sue De Nimes (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the article back from "English American" to "English". The English American article is about Americans who had English parentage or ancestry. That clearly doesn't describe Grant, who was born in and grew up in England and didn't become a US citizen until the 1940s. Since there seems to be some disagreement and confusion over his nationality, we should consider looking at other sources and see how they describe him. I looked him up in some film reference books and on the Allmovie/AllRovi website, and they all refer to him as "British-born" without claiming him as American, so perhaps we should follow this example as a compromise. Jay-W (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jay-W. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear that we use the citizenship held at the time the subject became notable. We don't change or hyphenate it because they changed their citizenship after they had already become notable, even if they subsequently became more notable. The intent of OPENPARA, which I helped to write, has always been that there should be a clear single unhyphenated nationality in the lead sentence. We don't get to appropriate as somehow "American" a Brit who became notable as a Brit. Yworo (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that line of reasoning completely ignores the fact that he spent most of his life as a US citizen and lived even longer in the Us than in England. We need to stop with this pointy Bull Shit and leave well enough alone.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone agreeing with you here, you have no consensus for change. Yworo (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read every single statement in this or the preceding section about Grant's citizenship. But I'm about to make it longer. Because I have personal experience of the process and legality of various issues, I decided to add my two penn'orth. I'll refer to him as "Grant" even though there was a time when he was Leach. I will not attempt to explain the why or wherefore of the situation of citizenship, but it's necessary to acknowledge what actually happens.

It was stated that the US did not allow dual citizenship at the time of Grant's naturalization. That is correct. It is also correct that the US does not allow dual citizenship at the time I write this (April 25 2015); I do not believe that it has been otherwise in the last 100 years.

However... the US does not compel a person to renounce whatever citizenship that the person already has. That may seem to contradict the law, but it is nonetheless a fact.

The United Kingdom allows dual citizenship. Note that there are six different kinds of British nationality today. They include citizen, subject, national, etc. It might be simpler in the USA, perhaps. But the USA has never had a Commonwealth, for starters.

The result of this - to some, confusing - situation is that it is possible for a British person who is naturalized as a citizen of the United States to possess two valid and legally correct passports: one US passport and one British passport. Indeed, it is possible to travel between the two countries utilizing the appropriate passport to facilitate a much simpler and faster progress through immigration than would otherwise be possible. I hasten to add that it is rare that a naturalized immigrant views his or her citizenship trivially. I would say that all of them treat their citizenship with a high degree of responsibility. Therefore, to argue the point as if it is a mandated requirement for an immigrant to renounce original citizenship before becoming a "real" citizen is, plainly speaking and in the impersonal uncritical meaning of the word, ignorant. Surely the important thing is how Grant identified himself..... he might have said he was a Colonist.... 74.242.161.176 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality

This section was mostly insubstantial smoke and mirrors; what other people say about him or his lifestyle is irrelevant. Even if people are dead, we don't out them without incontrovertible evidence; Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for rumours or speculation. Accordingly, as is my right as an ordinary editor here, I require reliable sources; not rumours, not innuendo, and certainly not "well he must have been"-type additions. This is 2009; Grant's sexuality doesn't matter any more; compare and contrast with Van Johnson, where it is more or less reliable sourced. No more nonsense, please; it's irrelevant. --Rodhullandemu 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious--will you be taking the same approach to the Randolph Scott article? I'm not opposed to it (though I suspect you're going to get a lot of disagreement here). At any rate, if you're going to delete the Grant stuff, it seems only right to delete the Scott stuff from his article as well. I'm not inclined to take my own action, but since you moved on this article, perhaps you want to move on that one, too. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To 92.12.243.26: You don't get it. Your edits aren't being deleted because of content, they're being deleted because you're a banned editor. Your edits will be deleted forever, whether you have a good citation or not. You should get used to it. Had you behaved yourself according to Wikipedia guidelines, many of your edits might stand. But as a banned editor, not even your discussion page edits will be allowed. Now please save your "everyone you ever admired is a homo" raging for someplace else. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LSD

Some mention should be made of Grant's extensive use of LSD under the supervision of a psychiatrist in the 1950s and 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.53.35 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Accent & personality

"With his distinctive yet not quite placeable Mid-Atlantic accent, he was noted as perhaps the foremost exemplar of the debonair leading man, handsome, virile, charismatic and charming."

Fan written much???--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

English Not ? This Is 86.132.222.65 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And/or lifted from someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's weak. No sources. Noted by whom? "Charismatic" and "charming" are much the same. There should be a semi-colon or perhaps even a colon after "leading man". The more I look at it, the more I have the words "renowned curator" floating in my mind. In fact it should be deleted and rewritten as "With an accent described by SOURCE as DESCRIPTION, he was a popular leading man, appearing in box-office hits (SOURCE) such as FILM, FILM, and FILM. Writing in DATE, HIGHBROW FILM HISTORIAN JOHN DOE described him as QUOTE handsome etc". Given the autistic mind-clash about the picky details of whether he should be British-American or British-born American I suspect that the article will never progress to featured article status until the current generation of Wikipedia's Cary Grant fans have retired. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original name

so is it Alec or Alexander?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.163.80 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources are ambiguous and second-hand. Let's put it this way: if someone will pay for me to go to Bristol Register Office and the £7.50 fee for an extract from the births register, I'll happily scan it and post it here as a public document. That will put an end to this tawdry debate. Rodhullandemu 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected an administrator to be aware that that would be original research. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing a public document is "original research"? That's a a new one on me. Certainly satisfies WP:V, because any other editor could do the same. There's nothing in WP:V to say that the process of verification should be inexpensive, just that it should be "possible". Rodhullandemu 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well he himself said it was Alexander in his bio. Anyway I 'm addressing the problem here at wiki. It says Alexander on the left side, but on the right side it says Alec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.163.80 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've checked on Find My Past and he was registered as Archibald Alec Leach Libby norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who says?

The article says Grant was once considered a maverick as he was the first actor to "go independent," effectively bucking the old studio system...

Then later in the article it says "one of the" not THE first actor to go independent. "One of the the first actors to go independent" would be much more likely and not as specific and as the article stands it has both THE and ONE OF THE so it's not consistant.

I would have easily made that simple change to keep it consistant but it is locked for some reason.

Consider this little change mr. or miss or mrs. or ms. lock out person. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.158.137 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

The filmography has been updated with more detail. These details are taken from a separate and soon-to-be deleted filmography page. Jimknut (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is was such an extensive filmography moved from its own dedicated page? It takes up four screenfulls for goodness sake.  Skomorokh  05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed it be re-split, per filmography conventions.  Skomorokh  06:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The filmography was moved here because when it was on its own page it became labelled as an "orphaned article" that was being considered for deletion. Better, then, to have it here rather than no where.Jimknut (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

His infobox image

I have cropped the original image to his face, taking out the large screen text of his name. It now looks more like just his picture, rather than a trailer screen shot. I believe it looks better cropped, as are a lot of other pages of actors that their main image cropped. It looks better. Please discuss your opinions below if you wish. 21yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've expressed this opinion before, and you've said you don't like the look of the trailer image with the name on it. That's your preference, and one that I don't necessarily share. Some of these images are suitable for further cropping and in some cases a stronger "portrait" can be created. This is not one of those, because to crop away the lettering, you need to also crop away the bottom of Cary Grant's chin, and the result is not balanced. It also makes the image very small so that placing it in the infobox diminishes its quality. The answer may be to find a better image. This one is not that great, although I think it's the best of a fairly mediocre bunch. Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with this picture instead of the current one? All the classic stars seem to be using a studio portrait, and I'm not sure why it isn't so for Cary Grant?

P.s. (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

His 5th wife

I noticed there is no page on Cary Grant's 5th wife, Barbara Harris. There are articles on all 4 of his other wives. Maybe there should be an article started on her? 21yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If the other 4 wives were notable enough to merit articles for reasons other than being Mrs Grant at one time or another, they should and do have their own article. If Barbara Harris is notable only for being a Mrs Grant, then an article for her would not not be needed. Each individual needs to be looked at in terms of her own notability. Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notability is not inherited. Jim Michael (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Betsy Drake's comment

Cary's third wife Betsy, had once made a statement disproving his homosexuality and saying she didn't know what he did, he lived 43 years before I met him, and maybe he was bisexual, but we were busy fu**ing. Now, what I want to know, is, should language be censored or not, some user in the edit descriptions said that wikipedia is not censored, but can anyone confirm? 21yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this: WP:NOTCENSORED Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Singing

I believe there are at least 2 films in which Grant sings. One of them is Madame Butterfly (1932 film). I believe the other is also from his early career. Does anyone know which it is - and think it's worth mentioning in the article? -- kosboot (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he also sings a duet with Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby. -- kosboot (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, he sings early in the first "Topper" (before his "death", of course.). I don't remember at all if Constance Bennett sang with him but I believe it was Hoagy Carmichael at the piano.141.157.196.69 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He also sings very well to Jean Harlow in "Suzy" and also in "Night and Day," the Cole Porter picture. Grant was a superb singer from his extensive music hall days and it's a shame he turned down the Sky Masterson part in "Guys and Dolls" even though the edited Brando singing (reconstructed syllable by syllable in the sound department) fascinates in that no pauses for breath are ever evident, as Brando delightedly pointed out in that "Morituri" publicity film, "Meet Marlon Brando." Upsmiler (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

King's Medal

The article claim's that Grant was awarded the King's Medal for services. There is and was, as far as I know, no such medal. Acorn897 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have the section on his politics?

As noted, Grant was not a political activist, indeed made a point of shying from politics. Which makes it particularly odd that we devote so much column space to it here. It is not relevant to his impact on acting, film, culture; it is not part of his career and, apparently, a minor part of his personal life. So why an entire section devoted to it? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include just the opening sentence (about how he was a Republican, but disapproved of actors making political statements) of this long section in the personal life and leave it at that? this really seems to be the accumulation of trivia that adds little to that pithy opening. TheCormac (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include just the opening sentence (about how he was a Republican...."

The opening sentence does not seem to me to say or to intimate in any way that Grant was a Republican. It does seem odd to have a section called "Politics" in which we go on at some length about how the subject was actually not very political, but it would be much worse to reduce it to a single sentence if that sentence were misleading. Apparently Grant was not very overtly political, but the article does gives four instances of possibly anti-Republican stances (attacking McCarthyism, defending Chaplin, supporting gun control, supporting the Kennedys) and one possible pro-Republican stance (introducing Betty Ford), thus qualifying the opening sentence (that is, he occasionally took political stances, usually in support of friends). TheScotch (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture references?

I'm just wondering is the Archie the Leech in The Man with the Golden Torc a reference to Cary Grant? Perhaps it's just a coincidence but given the books use of some other familiar popular culture ideas I'm now wondering. If so are there other reference out there? 203.25.1.208 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea. You'd have more luck searching the internet than looking here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably a safe bet that "Archie the Leech" is some sort of reference to Grant's real name if not to Grant himself. It's probably the most famous real name of any actor since it runs so utterly counter to his image or the name that he chose. (A lot different from "Bernie Schwartz," which fits Tony Curtis much better than his stage name in some ways.) Upsmiler (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Upsmiler (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't mentioning "A Fish Called Wanda" where John Cleese's character's name was Archibald Leach be appropriate? Jtyroler (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Images of fan letter responses

Can someone present a good argument for the continued inclusion of responses to fan letters regarding Grant's death? As far as I can see, a fan wrote to various celebrities about Grant's death and got some very succinct and not particularly informative responses which now fill up the bottom of the article as if they had intrinsic value to understanding Grant. I fail to see what value they add, except perhaps in the eyes of the fan who presumably provided the letters. They're certainly not encyclopedic inclusions. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Tribune section I think it should be removed due to we are not a memorial. It's not encyclopedic and should be removed. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the person adding them would be the one to offer an argument. I agree that they say nothing about Grant and serve no purpose here. If there was something worth saying it could be quoted without showing a copy of the letter, but there's really nothing in the comments. Hepburn, Stewart and Sidney give a polite and essentially dismissive response to a fan, that does not give any insight into Grant's life or Grant's death. I also question the legitimacy of the public domain claim. Sidney's for example is clearly noted as copyrighted, and the other two assert "some" rights. Should be removed from this article, and should be removed from WP for the dubious public domain claim. Rossrs (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have come here but didn't think to. After two of the images were deleted I went ahead and removed all of the tribune section. I don't think it should be added to the article like this. I also think that more of the images are up for deletion. If you have a problem with my removing the section please comment. Thanks Rossrs and Monkeyzpop for your comments about this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the section as it was before the letters were added. The part about the erection of the statue is a long-standing part of the article. Yworo (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As Yworo notes, the statue has been there for a while, and it's different. It's a direct honour to him in a place closely associated with him. Not many men are represented by a statue in his hometown, so that's notable and it's worth including. The letters, not so. Rossrs (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. I can think of only very narrow circumstances where "fan letters" would have any encyclopedic value to any article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Parents' photos

Does anyone know if there are any photos of Grants parents or his early life in England.I get the impression that his British years have been air-brushed out of his biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.11.150 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Correcting talk page headers?

What is this obsession with redoing talk page headers? That is not considered: 1. Important 2: Necessary 3: A sign of anything other than pickiness (you don't have to correct others' mistakes on a talk page; it's a talk page and messing about with other entries is best left to the author of the statement...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Large changes in any article that engender controversy and in this case, an edit war, need to be discussed first. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

One revert is hardly an edit war and reformatting a filmography table is not what I consider a "large" change. I left a note on the editor's talk page further explaining my edits which I doubt they have yet to see. While I don't appreciate my edits being labeled as vandalism when I am merely following the MOS that is implemented on various biographies throughout the project, this issue didn't require someone stepping in and telling two people who have yet to communicate on the matter to go to their respective corners. If this became a huge issue, we probably could have worked it out amongst ourselves on our talk pages. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear, however, a 3,000+ KB change does tend to raise an antenna. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

If an edit raises someone's antenna, they should at least look at the edit summary of the edit (which I left) and perhaps take a peek at the edit history of the editor making said edit. A blind "this is vandalism" revert is unhelpful hence my talk page message to the editor that reverted. That said, I don't care enough about this to go further so both of you can do whatever you like. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Bzuk. "Reformatting" a filmography table is one thing but the wholesale and cavalier deletion of so much meticulously useful information from an article is certainly quite another, speaking as the contributor who spent several hours making that contribution. That having been said, I'm glad that the issue is resolved and of course I certainly bear no adversarial stance toward anyone. Upsmiler (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting a Cary Grant movie??

Someone has tagged the 1935 Cary Grant/Myrna Loy movie Wings in the Dark for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't fulfill the Wikipedia grounds of notability! I need some help here! Upsmiler (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting "obscure" titles

Not changing it, but you guys who deleted None But the Lonely Heart and Penny Serenade from the list of Grant's most prominent films do know that those are the only two films for which he received Oscar nominations, don't you? Lonely Heart had four nominations and one Oscar win, and was chosen best film by the National Board of Review. Just because you aren't very familiar with something isn't reason to presume it's obscure to knowledgeable people. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

They may be the only ones he was nominated for, and may have been successful at the time, but they are far from his best known films. I consider myself a big film buff, talk a lot about films with other film buffs online, and those two films are not regarded as classics. It has nothing to do with my personal tastes either, I added The Awful Truth and I don't even like that film, but the fact is that it's a classic. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who added these films to this list, I have to concur with Monkeyzpop that these absolutely remain two of Grant's most towering classics. Just have a look at them. I'm not sure about the age or breadth of knowledge of the people with whom you discuss films online but there's a good reason why None But the Lonely Heart, written and directed by Clifford Odets (do you know who he was?) and Penny Serenade secured Grant's only Oscar nominations despite Grant's not being tethered to any specific studio in a time when the studios controlled the prize-giving. These are Grant's two richest and most compelling performances and are more often discussed within my circles than any of his others. The scene in which Grant begs the judge to be able to keep his adoptive child channels his ungodly onscreen power into a direction not seen before or since, and None But the Lonely Heart was so tailored for Grant that he actually spoke with his original accent, pure Cockney, and it's a hard-edged drama glittering with intensity. To excise these films from Grant's Wikipedia article would appear criminal to those who appreciate his work. Upsmiler (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Look I'm saying absolutely nothing about the quality of the films, and I'm not saying they're obscure either (that was another editor) but the sentence mentions his "best known films" and those two are not widely loved, enduring classics. Just look at Grant's most voted on films at IMDB, Penny Serenade is almost half way down the list, and None But the Lonely Heart doesn't even have 1,000 votes. The latter also has a pretty low score, only 6.4. I know IMDB isn't the most reliable example but it's a good indicator and completely backs up what I already thought, and I really do think I'm knowledgable about film history. I'm speaking completely objectively as well, if it were up to me we'd be mentioning Monkey Business and I Was a Male War Bride, easily two of his funniest films and best performances IMO, but I know that they don't have the same popularity of the others. Let's just include PS and NBtLH in the next paragraph when it mentions his Oscar nominations? --Lobo512 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I should think votes in IMDB's contests only indicate the preferences of those who vote within IMDB, which I imagine remains largely restricted to a certain age group to whom None But the Lonely Heart and Penny Serenade remain almost utterly unknown despite featuring Cary Grant's two most lauded performances. I certainly have no problem whatsoever with mentioning them in the next paragraph instead, however, and actually prefer that because it singles them out in a different light, which is entirely appropriate. I think you suggested the ideal outcome and thank you for resolving this. Upsmiler (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in this topic, both films are shown on Turner Classic Movies with a degree of regularity, though Penny Serenade seems to be broadcast more frequently than None But the Lonely Heart. Therefore, they are both well known to fans of older films. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"particularly for comedy"

I only just noticed that my edit that Grant was known "particularly for comedy" is no longer there. Why did it get removed? It is obviously the case (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it), and the lead is meant to give a clear introduction to Grant for people who want to find out about him. And don't say 'because it's unsourced' because the current sentence is also unsourced. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A summary doesn't need cites as long as everything in it is taken from the body (where, of course, everything should be cited).

I disagree that Grant was known especially for comedies. Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey are clearly known primarily for comedies, even though both have done a few dramatic roles. Judy Garland and Fred Astaire? Primarily musical stars, despite Judgement at Nuremberg and On the Beach. Without counting but at first glance comedies make up the largest single bloc of Grant's work, but he did too many famous dramatic and romantic films (Destination Tokyo, his Hitchcock work, Gunga Din, An Affair to Remember, etc.) to be considered primarily a comedic actor. Ylee (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? I definitely think he's primarily known for comedy, it's the reason he is so loved. His Encyclopedia Britannica entry makes a point of singling out his "flair for romantic comedy" in the very first sentence. He did do a lot of dramatic roles as well, and I had included that (my edit said "noted particularly for comedy but also for dramatic roles"), but I think it is accurate and useful to single him out for his comedic talent. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

acting ability

I remember the remarks when Cary Grant died about him likely being the best movie actor ever. There's also a quote in this article about him being the best and the most-important film actor. Most-important, perhaps, but it would be easy to name at least a half-dozen better actors. I've seen a few films in which he walks through the part, something no "good" actor does. I'm not dumping on Cary Grant -- his best performances are wonderful and beyond criticism -- but the article needs a more-balanced assessment of his abilities. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well those are direct quotes coming from respectable people. You can't argue with them really: it proves the high esteme with which Grant is held. He was the ultimate movie star. If you can find a quote (from someone worth quoting) that speaks negatively of Grant, by all means add it to provide a balance. But I certanily don't think the current ones should be removed. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lobo512 on that one, the critical esteem in which he's held remains unique for sound era screen leading men. Upsmiler (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxx 24.72.176.240(talk) 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[expletive-laden insult by 24.72.176.240 to the previous speaker removed]

File:Cary Grant Commutative Stamp 2002.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cary Grant Commutative Stamp 2002.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a phoney entry. I've seen exactly the same entry, even down to the exact wording, in another, totally unrelated, thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.65 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Peculiarity

Why "...Known for his transatlantic accent, debonair demeanor and "dashing good looks"..." ?

Why not "...Known for his transatlantic accent, "debonair demeanor" and dashing good looks..." ?

Or "...Known for his "transatlantic accent", debonair demeanor and dashing good looks..." ?

Or how about "...Known for his "transatlantic accent", "debonair demeanor" and "dashing good looks"..." ?

I've got an idea. How about just this: "...Known for his transatlantic accent, debonair demeanor and dashing good looks..." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.65 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Early Career: Shurely shum mishtake?

According to this article, Master Leach performed on a two-year tour from the age of 16 to 18. Nothing much is said of the next nine years except that he toured as part of the the Vaudeville world. So far, so good.

But then, wait for it, all within the space of one year, 1931, at the age of 27, Mr Leach "...performed on the stage at The Muny in St. Louis, Missouri, in such shows as Irene (1931), Music in May (1931), Nina Rosa (1931), Rio Rita (1931), Street Singer (1931), The Three Musketeers (1931) and Wonderful Night (1931)..." He then (still, take note, in 1931) appeared "...in several musicals on Broadway under the name Archie Leach...", before, finally, "...Grant went to Hollywood..." and this, still, "... in 1931...".

[My bolding.] At least, what, 8? 9? 10? shows in St Louis. Rehearsals. How many performances of each? Several musicals in NY. Rehearsals. Performances. Then off to LA. That sounds like a pretty unlikely roster for just one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.65 (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)