Talk:Greta Garbo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

To be added

I've just listened France Inter, in French (2000 ans d'histoire), about Greta Garbo : (please excuse my approximate quotes and English translations)

- The miracle with Garbo was obvious in the lab when developping the film. She was very photogenic....

- According to partners and directors Garbo did "nothing" on the set or was "acting badly". However in the movie you will only see her...

- She went in conflict with directors that asked her to "act more"....

- She didn't appear in a lot of great movies, but whenever she appeared in a movie she was unforgetabble...

I don't know how to incorporate it in the the article. But I think it would useful to insist on her photogeny and her "minimalism"...

Ericd 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Hello, I worked on the Barry Paris biography of Louise Brooks, and I don't recall that Brooks had an affair with Garbo. I also worked on one of the Garbo books and don't recall it either. Brooks was a lot of talk; she wanted people to think she was bi. According to her letters, she tried it once and didn't enjoy it.

As far as Garbo's lovers, the list on her page is not correct - for instance, she only met Marlene Dietrich once and she was never involved with Claudette Colbert. Peter Viertel says that without question, his mother was never sexually involved with Greta Garbo. However, I understand if it has been published that Wikipedia says it can be left in, but whoever wrote that was not reliable, sorry. And the page has omitted her main lover for many years, Cecile Rothschild. Truthfully, Garbo was gay and not bisexual. She was very fond of Gilbert and he had a beautiful house she could live in. I've always doubted the Beaton story, but Mr. Paris seemed to buy it, so who am I to question it. A fascinating woman, a great screen presence.Chandler75 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual, we have the attempt by homosexuals to attribute their immature behavior to a famous person. This is done without proof or factual evidence of any kind.Lestrade (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Georges Schlee

There is no mention of Garbo's lengthy relationship with Georges Schlee. Anyone want to take a crack at this? Patrick925 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will happily take a crack at the George Schlee relationship with Garbo. My source is the book Garbo by Barry Paris, for which he did extensive interviewing and research (I was his assistant) for many years. Schlee was gay, and Garbo relied on him mainly for business dealings. She hated to buy things in her own name or put her name on anything, so Schlee traveled with her and purchased property, etc., and put it in his own name. (Her estate was $38 million.)

However, this all went awry when Schlee died because Garbo's mortal enemy, Schlee's wife, Valentina, who was resentful of the time Schlee spent with Garbo, got everything he had recently purchased for Garbo, because he died before he could transfer it over to her. So Valentina really had the last laugh.Chandler75 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well....Valentina did die before Garbo so perhaps Garbo had the last laugh??

You are assuming that Valentina's property passed to Garbo upon her (V's) death. 66.108.144.49 00:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Garbo is the last person V would have wanted her property to go to.

Indeed, Garbo was still alive to "have the last laugh".... but I doubt she would have taken any pleasure in that. It was not her fault that V became jealous and resentful of George's devotion which I suspect was more protective than physical. There are other examples in Garbo's life, (Stiller, Gilbert, Schlee etc.)I think they made her feel safe and reminded her of her dad. These are the more intense relationships she had.....with men.

Rewrite needed - wording too POV

This reads like a gushing fangirl summary of her life. Could you make the wording more neutral?

Agreed. Take this for example:

[...] "His last appearance with Garbo, in Queen Christina, was not as bad as some critics have suggested: he suffered from the problem all of Garbo's leading men suffered, which was that she was inevitably stronger and more powerful than they were. [...]

[...] Gilbert, John Barrymore, Fredric March, Robert Taylor, and others ended up like feeble drones worshipping before the queen bee. :[...]

Major POV warning! MatteusH 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these lines, but there is still a lot of POV language to be changed throughout the rest of the article. --DearPrudence 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all above, especially regarding the "Life in hollywood" section. 69.234.109.247 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Name?

In the article there is a dispute as to whether her surname is spelled Gustafsson or Gustafson. I found some clarification from this URL: http://www.beepworld.de/members12/garbofan2/garbo_facts.htm

"When Greta signed a standard player’s contract with Svensk Filmindustri on July, 1923, she changed her last name to Gustafson ( one 's' ).This was the more contemporary spelling of her last name. Like her children, Anna Lovisa would follow Greta’s lead and use the new spelling of her last name too."

Can anyone else verify this? La Bicyclette 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further references - music

There is a reference to Greta Garbo in the song "Circus" by Uriah Heep from their album "Sweet Freedom" released in 1973.

" Dressed up, messed up, walking around - thinking that you're Greta Garbos - I'm sorry, my dear but we only sat down and laughed and laughed in sorrows".

The song is a quiet, acoustic less "heavy" song than many of their usual material —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy livitt (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

To include such a trivial mention of the actress's name indicates the low, base level of contemporary popular culture. It also demeans Wikpedia to refer to it in an article. "Dressed up, messed up, walking around - thinking that you're Greta Garbos - I'm sorry, my dear but we only sat down and laughed and laughed in sorrows" has no apparent value whatsoever. It doesn't even rhyme.Lestrade (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.224.245 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The song Right Before Your Eyes by America. "And then just like Greta Garbo. You staring like there's no tomorrow." Rudolph Valentino gets a nod, too. Macshill (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Last straw

Her role in Ninotchka required that she mimic a prolonged scene of forced, extreme laughter. This loud expression of amusement was so opposite to her true character that she decided to retire from the business. She had a serene and dignified beauty which didn't accord with a wide open, laughing mouth. To satisfy her contract, she made one more film and then retired at the pinnacle of a successful career. After so doing, she was able to live the remainder of her life unmolested and not required to feign laughter that was unnatural to her.Lestrade (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine?

Possible typo?

Her first job is recorded as being a "lather coy". Wikipedia has no other entry for this phrase. In fact, the only use that Google can find is in biographies of Greta Garbo... Should this be used without explanation?

The OED has an entry under 'lather' as follows: "lather-boy, a boy employed in a barber's shop to lather the chins of customers."

How could she be a lather boy? She is female. I know that Hollywood has an unending fascination with gender-switching, but this is ridiculous.Lestrade (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Lesbian Actor? Changing Category

She almost married a man according to the article, and there's no indication that she didn't love him in this article. Thus she should be changed to a Bisexual Actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.22.16 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia defamation. Where is the proof that she was not heterosexual? Any statements by Garbo herself? Any witnesses? No.Lestrade (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Actually, this topic is covered in numerous biographical works and documentaries. It's been pretty well established that she was at least bisexual if not full-fledged lesbian. I have not checked the article for the veracity of its sources, but I believe Barry Paris' biography of her is one. In terms of witnesses, the books pretty much establish yes to that question. 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty well" established. Typical.Lestrade (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Greta's Car

I'm sure I've heard that Greta Garbos Dussenberg wasw at one time the record holder for the highest amount achieved at auction. Is this true and If so could it be incorperated here?(86.31.188.36 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Userbox Greta Garbo

For me, Greta Garbo is... divine.

If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--Tangopaso (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay man"?

The article on Gayelord Hauser makes no mention of his sexuality. Why, then, is there a parenthetical comment to that effect by his name in this article? --192.115.133.116 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but didn't want to take the time to trip through the history and find out when it was inserted to see if it was together with legitimate edits or not.... Thanks! --192.115.133.116 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mimi Pollak?

Can someone explain why she is no longer mentioned? She is clearly a notable lover, probably the most known. 75.72.213.199 (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm not sure why suddenly people are popping in to change images on this page. The photo that has been used as the main image is very very identifiable as Garbo, the quality of the image is quite good and it reflects a view that offers a clear image of her profile, which has been depicted many times in her films. A photo of her posing in a costume shot wearing a coat doesn't offer a readily identifiable view. The File:Greta Garbo 1924 2.jpg, which was put in tonight, is quite blurry and overly soft-focused and simply does not look a lot like the view of Garbo that is more often associated with her. I would suggest that further changes of the main photo be discussed here prior to making any changes and if necessary, then a request for comments can be opened regarding which images best portray a readily identifiable view for the main photo. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead photo

Most of the Garbo photos now available in Wiki Commons are from the mid-20s, prior to her Hollywood makeover. I would suggest using this as the lead photo at the top of the article. It shows Garbo in her most familiar MGM glamour mode, the image most people have of her from her 1930s films. Best wishes - Markhh (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides it being quite dark and of low contrast, there is that streak across the middle of the image. I'm not sure what that is, but it certainly mars the image. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The best and most normal photo of Garbo so far is File:Greta Garbo in Meyers Blitz-Lexikon 1932.jpg but unfortunally too low average quality. Maybe someone have a better copy. Lidingo SWE (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Was Garbo a religious person? If anyone comes across any sources please add to the article along with links

Apex156 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Relationship

Greggers32, please stop reverting this sentence. There is absolutely no problem with the use of the word "relationship" in regard to the friendship or whatever it was between Garbo and de Costa. Besides one small edit to another article in Nicole Richie, every one of your 161 edits to Wikipedia has been to this article, so that makes you a single purpose account, and that you've worked continuously for 15 months to control the content of this article.

Recently, you've made some rather disturbing edit summaries, which encompass bad faith accusations and include some unsupported claims. "that women experimented with their sexuality in America around 1930 and in the decade before, is historical fact, not simply my opinion", " the editor wants to push her biases about Garbo's lesbianism. de Acosta was notoriously unreliable. yet the editor takes her autobiography as factual", "there is no evidence to support the contention that Garbo was at all gay. to assert otherwise is licentious and libellous". Your opinion does not matter, regarding sexual experimentation in 1930, my biases, de Acosta's reliability or what is or isn't libellous or licentious. The only thing that matters here is sourcing to support content. Because you don't consider de Costa reliable doesn't matter. The burden is upon you to provide reliable sourcing to refute other claims and then it can only be presented as alternative information to another author. There is no definitive "truth" about this subject, only authors/biographers/editors opinion and what can be sourced. Regardless, the use of the word "relationship" is absolutely valid is describing the interaction between two people, regardless of its depth or meaning. Relationship does not imply a sexual component and if you'll look it up in any dictionary, you'll find the relevant definition here would be "A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other." That describes a friendship, sexual interactions, business dealings, whatever. Please stop removing the word and trying to remove any reference to questions regarding Garbo's sexuality. That there are questions is indisputable. Scrubbing the article of any mention of that is unacceptable and has its own bias. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not making any claim about the precise nature of the relationship, and "relationship" is a broad term that is used to describe various types of personal interractions. Even "romance" is pretty banal. Not all romantic attachments are sexual. There seems to an attempt to sanitize something that does not require sanitizing and that does indeed carry its own bias. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lovisa=Louisa

I think the article should mention somewhere that Lovisa is Swedish for Louisa. This is why Garbo's name appears in many places using either form. Another fact missing from the article are the circumstances surrounding the change in her name from Gustafsson to Gustafson. I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to find references and make the edits. David spector (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Was Garbo beautiful?

A recent edit removed the claim in alt text that Garbo was "breathtakingly beautiful", using the edit summary "excuse me, but do not change one page to match your change to the WP page - this should be as neutral as possible". The same editor followed up in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images #Garbo descriptions in ALT text, arguing that phrases like "beautiful" are POV and should therefore should not be in alt text, and went further by removing every statement that Garbo was beautiful from WP:ALT.

For other images the point might be valid, but Garbo is an extreme case. By common consensus she was strikingly beautiful, and this beauty was a central reason for her importance.

In the Greta Garbo article, there is real harm in removing the word "beautiful" from the alt text. A sighted reader who begins to read the article sees Garbo's beauty immediately, just by looking at the lead image. A visually impaired reader won't get it, if the alt text doesn't say it. So it's important for the visually impaired reader that the alt text briefly describes just how beautiful she was. Maybe "breathtakingly beautiful" is not the right phrase, but omitting all mention of her beauty goes too far.

In this context, using the term "POV" to describe the word beautiful misunderstands the intent of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is not about omitting all points of view; it is about representing points of view with regard to external consensus. With Garbo, there's no question about this consensus, and there's no POV justification this objection to calling her "beautiful" in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above reply is yet more proof that this pet project is a means for fostering the individual creativity of some editors, and has very little to do with usefulness. If Garbo's "beauty" is really that acknowledged (and it may well be), this should be covered, with quotes, in the article; so the user who is still in doubt about the beauty of a woman that s/he can't see will be able to pick it up in an encyclopedic context, relying on statements that have the advantage of being attributable and explicit subjective opinions. The above interpretation of NPOV is novel, and indications as to why we should avoid that terminology are explicitly stated in the policy, passim (for instance: "A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is", or, mutatis mutandis, "Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not"). Furthermore, wikipedia has a special guideline that focuses on that type of language. The "no question about this consensus" claim is a parochial and sectarian statement, and misses the point entirely. Dahn (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, no, your argument does not support using "breathtakingly beautiful" in a description. There are a large number of women who could arguably be described as breathtakingly beautiful, but that does not support calling them so in an encyclopedia, nor does that explain in any way why, of all images on Wikipedia, the ones on this page should be described in such a way. Garbo is not an extreme case and your arguments here supporting it are, in fact, POV arguments. Breathtaking beauty is in fact point of view. I clearly posted my issues with your edits on the talk page for ALT text and stand behind my issue with your changing the ALT text on this page to correspond with the changes you put on that page as a means of reference and vice versa. That is the place where this needs to be discussed and it was posted there in order to generate discussion regarding this. Your arguments here simply are POV. Is she extraordinarily beautiful? Maybe so, but that depends on the viewer, not claims that we put in image descriptions. The article here says simply that she "was once designated as the most beautiful woman who ever lived by the Guinness Book of World Records." That explains sufficiently that Garbo was regarded as quite beautiful and it is supported by references. Putting extraordinary claims in a description of an image is an extraordinary act and just is not encyclopedic. I can't say it enough - your argument itself is POV and such wording doesn't belong in ALT descriptions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comments do not dispute that Garbo was beautiful, so surely an acceptable compromise would be to omit the word "breathtaking" (which is not mine, by the way) and simply say "beautiful". Eubulides (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

a) You will find the word "beautiful" listed at WP:PEACOCK. b) This is not a question of disputing that she was beautiful, it's a question of this not being within the scope of this project. It's also a question of the term not being useful or rational in any given description. Dahn (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's both useful and rational, and well within the scope of the encyclopedia, to tell visually impaired readers the gist of Garbo's visual appearance. WP:PEACOCK says that the inclusion of words like beautiful in that list "does not mean they should always be avoided, simply that they must be used appropriately". Because there's no dispute that Garbo was beautiful, it's appropriate for alt text to call her beautiful; this is also as per WP:PEACOCK, which says "common sense and good editorial judgment" should apply. Eubulides (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is POV and inappropriate. The article covers the fact that she was regarded as beautiful, and does so in an appropriate manner, and I'll repeat what I said above. The article says that she "was once designated as the most beautiful woman who ever lived by the Guinness Book of World Records." That explains sufficiently and clearly that Garbo was regarded as quite beautiful and it is supported by references. We've told the visually impaired reader that she was regarded as beautiful in a manner supported by policy and guidelines. It's another thing entirely for Wikipedia to call her beautiful as a matter of unsupported description of an image, which is what you are doing. That is inappropriate peacockry and POV and isn't acceptable. Beyond that, there are always going to be people who would dispute a given person's beauty, and for the sake of argument, I could be one, or Dahn could be one. It's hyperbole in the way you're trying to use it an ALT text insertion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The argument that the lead image of Garbo cannot be called "beautiful" because some editor somewhere might object is absurd. By a similar argument, that image's alt text cannot say that the person depicted is a woman, because some editor might argue that it might be a man in drag, or a wax dummy, or entirely fabricated with Photoshop. One can always come up with theoretical objections like this, to any text anywhere in Wikipedia, that would fly in the face of common sense. But that's now how Wikipedia works: we can't write articles for any reader, no matter how bizarre.
• This amazing pickiness about calling an obviously-beautiful woman "beautiful" stands in sharp contrast to an almost complete lack of concern about the rest of the article. The lead image's caption, for example, claims that the image is that of Garbo, but this claim is not supported by a citation. Nor is the claim that the image was made in 1925 supported. Nor is the claim that that the image was made by Arnold Genthe. Nothing in the rest of the infobox is cited, either. How, for example, are we to verify that Garbo was an actress? or her birth and death dates and locations? or her active years? All of these facts are far more challengeable than the fact that she was beautiful (self-evident from the image), and yet they are not sourced. Why is the obvious "beautiful" so objectionable, but these far-from-obvious details are OK?
• As things stand, the visually impaired reader has to wade through about 1500 words before being told that Garbo was beautiful. This is poor organization. Garbo's beauty should be in the lead sentence of the article: it's one of the most, if not the most, notable thing about her. The only reason the article currently gets away with such a bad textual organization is that its lead image compensates: the sighted viewer immediately sees the gorgeous woman and immediately gets that Garbo's beauty was key, even though the text is silent on the subject. However, the visually impaired reader is left in the dark. That is why alt text is needed.
• An alternative fix to the article is to mention Garbo's beauty in the lead sentence or paragraph. This would remove the need to mention "beautiful" in the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Repetition. This should be done anyway, even for sighted readers, as beauty is so key to Garbo.

Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to support your argument here. You make some valid comments about the composition of the article but a lot of your points are not valid. Nobody is going to dispute that the image is of Garbo, or that she was an actress, or that she was female. They are facts. Beauty is a different concept and is based on taste. That the opinion is widely - or even universally - held, does not make it more than an opinion, and to resist the inclusion of opinion in something that should be brief and neutral, is not "amazing pickiness". A lot of actresses were/are noted for their beauty, especially in the Hollywood of days gone by, when so much emphasis was placed on a certain look, image or style. The article should discuss comments about Garbo as a beautiful woman, among other things that she was notable for, and the the lead should accurately summarize the article, including these points. This allows for discussion of her beauty. It's achievable but it doesn't need to be gushing. Vivien Leigh's "beauty" is briefly mentioned in her lead section, and in more detail in the article. Garbo's article needs a lot of work, and although it is acceptable to mention her beauty, even in the lead, simply adding it without balancing the whole article, is not going to help. I strongly feel that you are missing the point of alt text. The intention is not to convey any more than a general impression of what is contained in the image, and for it to work for the broadest number of people, it needs to be descriptive and neutral. The word "beautiful" means a multitude of different things to sighted people - what on earth does it mean to people without sight? How does it relate specifically to Garbo? The word "beautiful" has been used to describe Greta Garbo but it has also been used to describe a vast number of women from Cleopatra to Tyra Banks and even Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. They could not be more different in appearance or style, so the word "beautiful" has very little usefulness in explaining any of their specific appearances. It could be added to hundreds of thousands of images in hundreds of thousands of articles. A beach is beautiful, a sunset, a butterfly, Greta Garbo, a waterfall, a castle ..... it's ridiculous. Describe the images and keep the text specific, simple, neutral and clear for anyone to understand. The article and the alt text for the images are completely different things. Alt text is not intended to take the place of someone's eyes, or to attempt to convey the image through someone else's eyes, and it is not intended to convey an opinion no matter how widely held. The article can discuss it and provide context and attribution. The alt text should be "the face of a serious young woman, with dark wavy hair, gazing to her left" etc. That's all that is needed. Rossrs (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see #First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording below. Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording

• "First, it's inappropriate to be changing the wording at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to support your argument here." That's weird. The wording at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images has not been changed to support my argument on this talk page. What gave the mistaken impression otherwise?
• "You make some valid comments about the composition of the article" Thank you. I would rather that this discussion focus on improving the article. It can certainly use improvements.
• "Nobody is going to dispute that the image is of Garbo, or that she was an actress, or that she was female." I don't see why not. The same sort of hypothetical contrarian who would argue that Garbo was not beautiful could also say something like "You call her an actress??? She wasn't an actress. She was just a cut-out figure they put up on the screen." In theory one can always dispute claims, no matter how straightforward and obvious. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not say that one must cite every claim in Wikipedia; that way lies madness. All it says is that material "likely to be challenged" must be cited. It is not likely that the claim "Garbo was beautiful" will be challenged, any more than it is likely that the claim that she was an actress will be challenged.
• "Beauty is a different concept" No, it's not a different concept. "The sky is blue." is an opinion. "Garbo was beautiful" is also an opinion. Both opinions are obvious and common-sense, and neither require sourcing (at least, not when the reader can see an image of a blue sky, or that strikingly beautiful image of Garbo).
• "although it is acceptable to mention her beauty, even in the lead, simply adding it without balancing the whole article, is not going to help." This makes it sound like you'd oppose a simple edit that would add to the lead the claim that Garbo was strikingly and extraordinarily beautiful (properly sourced, of course). Surely that was not your intent.
• "The intention is not to convey any more than a general impression of what is contained in the image, and for it to work for the broadest number of people, it needs to be descriptive and neutral." Yes, absolutely. We completely agree here.
• "The word "beautiful" means a multitude of different things" So does the word "blue". And the word "woman". And the word "hand". All of these words mean quite different things to different people. But that does not mean that alt text cannot use common words in their ordinary meanings.
• "How does it [the word "beautiful"] relate specifically to Garbo?" Because Garbo was beautiful. It's obvious from the image. It's one of the first words that would occur to any sighted reader who sees the image and is trying to describe it to a visually impaired person. There's no good reason to declare a common word, with a generally agreed upon meaning that clearly applies here, off limits.
• "The word "beautiful" has been used to describe Greta Garbo but it has also been used to describe a vast number of women" The same is true of the word "woman"; that does not mean we can't use the word "woman" in the alt text. More generally, there is no requirement that alt text uniquely identify the image. Such a requirement would be impossible for most images.
• "the word "beautiful" has very little usefulness" It's the best word that has been proposed so far to describe the most striking aspect of File:Greta Garbo 1925 by Genthe-retouched.jpg. You are welcome to propose better wording. But let's not omit all discussion of the gist of the image; that does no service to the visually impaired reader.
• "It [the word "beautiful"] could be added to hundreds of thousands of images in hundreds of thousands of articles." I agree that the word "beautiful" shouldn't be overused. But here a central aspect of the image is female beauty, and omitting that from the alt text is a disservice to the visually impaired reader.
• "Alt text is not intended to take the place of someone's eyes, or to attempt to convey the image through someone else's eyes". No, actually, that's a pretty good way to describe alt text. It is an alternative to the image, i.e., an attempt to substitute for the image, for readers who can't see the image. It certainly is an attempt to convey the image to someone who cannot see it, by someone who can see it.
• "it [alt text] is not intended to convey an opinion no matter how widely held." I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is full of opinions. Wikipedia articles are mostly opinions, and its alt text is almost all opinion. But there's nothing wrong with opinion, even uncited opinion, as long as it is not likely to be challenged.
• "The alt text should be 'the face of a serious young woman, with dark wavy hair, gazing to her left' etc." I don't see how this is any better: it is just as vulnerable to an attack by an unreasonably contrarian reader. That proposed alt text contains several opinions: that Garbo is "serious", that she is "young", that her hair is "dark", that it is "wavy", that she is "gazing". All of those claims are just as controversial as the claim that she is "beautiful". (Which is to say, of course, that they're not controversial at all.)
• "Garbo's article needs a lot of work" Agreed. I suggest more focus on that, rather than on this amazingly picky discussion. With the amount of time we have wasted on this we could have produced a pretty good article.

Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're bordering on insulting here

(outdent) You're bordering on insulting here, Eubulides, and your bias for Garbo is showing. The fact that some people may not agree with your particular point of view, as an editor of an encyclopedia, is a fundamental reason for only including verifiable and supportable facts. Your citation examples are all things that are verifiable, your opinion about beauty is not. Regarding the photo itself, the page for the image contains all that is needed to know to support anything about the actual photo. It indicates its source, who took it, when it was taken, the subject. Directly from the US Library of Congress, from where the image comes. Birthdates and places, death dates and places, career statistics, occupation are all verifiable. A reference exists for her birthdate, her films themselves are sources for her career length and work, facts that aren't cited can be cited. Beauty is not a fact, beauty is a construct, both personal and social. It comes back to policy and guidelines, including WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK. Your opinion that the most important fact about Greta Garbo is that she was beautiful has absolutely nothing to do with what made her notable. Her acting career made her notable. I have posted a request for other comments at WT:ACTOR regarding your contention about the ALT text. And while you're online, please read WP:LEAD. Mentioning that Eubulides thinks the most important thing regarding Garbo is her beauty isn't something for the lead sentence. It's not encyclopedic, and all of your hyperbole and outrageous claims about direct facts being more doubtful than an opinion about her beauty have little meaning in the face of verifiability. This is about what is verifiable from a neutral point of view. Your point of view is not neutral, and thus your stress on describing a photo as "breathtakingly beautiful" is not neutral either. There are images of scores of beautiful women, and handsome men, on Wikipedia but aren't described as such in neutral, balanced descriptions of images. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "You're bordering on insulting here, Eubulides," I'm sorry if any insults were conveyed; such was certainly not my intent. If you can specifically identify the words that were insulting I'll happily strike them.
• "your bias for Garbo is showing" I don't detect any signs of bias for Garbo in my comments or in my edits to the article. Rather than make accusations of bias, let's keep the topic focused on the article, shall we?
• "Your citation examples are all things that are verifiable ... facts that aren't cited can be cited" I don't agree that the citations examples are facts; some of them are clearly opinions as well. But in the mean time these facts (or opinions) are not verified, and this obviously runs afoul of a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Why not fix the obvious violations and cite the claims?
• "the page for the image contains all that is needed to know to support anything about the actual photo." I'm not talking about the photo; I'm talking about the text in the photo's caption. It's common practice to cite any claim in a caption that is likely to be challenged, even if there's some other page in Wikipedia that could support the claim. Articles are supposed to be self-contained with respect to citations; they shouldn't rely on citations in some other page.
• "A reference exists for her birthdate" True. Does this mean that it's OK to include a claim in the infobox if there's a reference somewhere else in the article that supports the claim? If so, then why doesn't this principle apply to Garbo's beauty? The article already has a citation supporting the claim that she was extremely beautiful, somewhere else in the text.
• "her films themselves are sources for her career length" No they're not. Without seeing reliable sources, it's quite possible that her career extended longer than her films' publication dates (and that she acted in, say, films that were not released, or on stage, or whatever), or that a later film was released after her acting career was over. Certainly her career length is far more challengeable than her beauty, even if the article listed all her films (which it does not, nor does it claim to).
• "beauty is a construct, both personal and social" So is acting. So is being female. They are all social constructs; but this does not mean that they cannot be mentioned in alt text.
• "your stress on describing a photo as 'breathtakingly beautiful'" To repeat: those weren't my words. I just imported them here from WP:ALT, where they were made by a different editor. I am perfectly willing to rephrase the words. But it seems pretty weeeird to have an article about Garbo that downplays her beauty, which is what we have now.
• "Mentioning that Eubulides thinks the most important thing regarding Garbo is her beauty isn't something for the lead sentence." It's entirely appropriate to advocate changes to the lead in the talk page. It is inappropriate to personalize the discussion. Please try to keep the topic focused on improving the article.

Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently had an image I added to this article - of Greta Garbo's Place in Stockholm, Sweden - removed because there is no mention of any such thing in the article. I had to concede, when I thought about it, that that was indeed an appropriate edit. Eubulides! Some people actually do sincerely think Garbo was ugly. Beautiful really is not an encyclopedic word. You won't find it in any encyclopedia about anyone except referred to as an opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's let the pictures speak for themselves and let each beholder behold whatever he or she can get when beholding them. Your point will thus be made and you can relax about this one. Keep up all that good work you do here! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Some people actually do sincerely think Garbo was ugly." Really? I'm sincerely skeptical. Who thinks the image in question is of an ugly woman?
• "You won't find it in any encyclopedia about anyone except referred to as an opinion." Sure you will. A Britannica entry for Mary Astor calls her "an extraordinarily beautiful and versatile actress", for example. This was with a quick web search; I'm sure we can find more examples. Broadening the search a bit, a Compton's entry for Garbo begins 'Her haunting beauty and need for privacy (“I want to be let alone”) made a legend of the enigmatic Garbo' which is a far better lead sentence than what's in the Greta Garbo article right now. One more: Britannica's main entry for Garbo begins "one of the most glamorous and popular motion-picture stars of the 1920s and ’30s who is best known for her portrayals of strong-willed heroines, most of them as compellingly enigmatic as Garbo herself"; this also is a much better lead than ours. "Glamorous" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "beautiful", as is "allure", "luminous", and other similar phrases in Britannica (none of these are attributed as opinion there).
• "Let's let the pictures speak for themselves" But the whole point of this thread is pictures cannot speak for themselves to a blind person. The alt text is a substitute for the picture that a blind reader can hear (by using a screen reader). If the picture "speaks for itself" to sighted readers, that "speech" needs to be transcribed into alt text for the benefit of visually impaired readers.

Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. Using words like "beautiful" to describe someone in ALT text is point of view and extraneous. I fail to see how it can be common sense since, as SergeWoodzing notes, the concept of beauty varies from one person to another. Personally, I don't find Garbo all that beautiful and I would challenge the idea that no one thinks otherwise. She's pretty enough, but that's true of most actresses. The image in question could also be described as appearing staged for effect, one could describe her neck as exceedingly and oddly long. There is a huge difference between describing someone as a woman, a word that has a specific definition, and describing someone as a beautiful woman, because there is no single definition that is agreed upon on a global basis. This is really one of the most pointless debates I've ever seen - you cannot verify the claim that is being made that no one would dispute Garbo's beauty. You're simply wrong when you say that most aspects about - factual ones like birthplace, death, the number of films she made, etc., - can be disputed. That is precisely what reliable sources are for - to support statements of fact. WP:FILM has said multiple times that the film products are sources themselves, and there are hundreds of sources to support them. I'm mystified that one person finds this debatable, when everyone else agrees. To keep debating this when five or more people have all agreed is completely time wasting for everyone involved. LaVidaLoca (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Eubulides: No one who would ever dare publish that opinion, but several people I know who have watched all her films many many times and may be very jaded - they do not think she was beautiful overall, though many of her photographs undoubtedly would be called nothing else by most everyone - even breathtaking and drop-dead... for sure! One of her close friends, who wrote a book about her and whom I knew, did not think she was particularly beautiful either. The blind seem to have what they need to know about her beauty in the text (or am I wrong?). As far as the word being encyclopedic, I apologize for erring about the existence of such entries, but will not give up my opinion that it is not for any encyclopedia to say who is beautiful or not beautiful. Pictures and sourced opinions must suffice in that regard. And glamorous and beautiful are not synonymous, I think. Glamor is quite often repulsive, beauty is quite often void of glamor. I am starting to hurt for you, because you obviously mean well with all this. Can't you take a break from this now? Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Eubulides, but I have to agree with others here. Describing Garbo as beautiful in the alt text is not in keeping with the spirit of alt and seems to fail several points of the guideline: it is not verifiable by anyone looking only at the image (as beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and yes, I would dare published the opinion that I do not believe she is "breathtakingly beautiful" or even beautiful, mearly pretty), and alt clearly notes "use neutral wording when describing people's appearance." Beautiful, pretty, etc are not neutral words, but words of praise. Following the guidelines of alt, the wording given "Head and shoulders profile of a young woman with a "haunted" expression, one hand raised to just touch the base of her throat" seems like the best choice, and if desired a sourced statement that she is beautiful can be added to the caption of a non-infobox image. But it should not be in any of the alt text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks all for contributing to the discussion. The consensus is clear here, even if I don't agree with it, so I added advice to WP:ALT to avoid peacock terms such as "beautiful" in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I thought Garbo was interesting, but I never would call her "breathtakingly beautiful." I think all adjectives should be excluded from alt descriptions, because 99.9% of the time adjectives are based on POV. "She is looking to the right" is fine. "She is looking to the right with a demure (or seductive or overjoyed or lusty, etc.) expression" isn't. MovieMadness (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia or relevant?

This was removed from the article as "trivia" today:

• In addition to numerous biographies, both popular and scholarly, the life and legend of Greta Garbo has endured through numerous plays, films, musical works and staged performances based on her life. These include:

• "Garbo Talks," a 1984 film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Anne Bancroft, Ron Silver and Carrie Fisher wherein a son 9silver) tries to fulfill his dying mother's request by arranging for her to meet Great Garbo.

• "Chez Garbo: The Musical," a work that featured Brenda Bush as Young Garbo, Greg Purnhagen as Mauritz Stiller and Reet Roos Varnik as the mature Greta Garbo. It was written and directed by Michelangelo Alasa.

• It premiered in 1998 at the DUO theater in New York.

• On September 18, 2005, on Garbo's centennial, the musical was re-released under the name "Garbo...returns."

• "Garbo - the Musical" This original musical was presented for the first time in Stockholm, 2002. with music by Jim Steinman. It played at the Oscarstetern in Stockholm with Gunilla Backman in the role of Garbo. Following Garbo’s life from when she was a young girl, living in poverty after her father's death, to her initial discovery by Stiller and later by Louis B. Mayer and Hollywood. Her relationships with John Gilbert, Mercedes de Acosta and others are part of the narrative.

• Van Morrison, "Just Like Greta Garbo," (2005), A song on his 2005 album "Magic Time" is titled, "Just Like Greta." It was inspired by Garbo's seclusion.

• "I Was Greta Garbo: Hanging on a White Line," a one-woman show written and performed by Ottiliana Rolandsson in 2005-2006. A revised and expanded version of this show will be previewed in 2010. This work delves into aspects of both Garbo's life and afterlife as she struggles to reconcile the journey of her soul with her fame, passions and, ultimately, a transcendental awareness that draws her back to the stage for a final performance.

Question: Is all this trivia or is some of it relevant, interesting and useful information that could be added somehow - in some format or article where it would be a good idea to have it? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted by more than one person, this is precisely the sort of content that is defined as trivia. It is a mixed bag of content, some of which is about Garbo, some of which is about a film that only uses her name, some of which is about non-notable shows. The content about a song is sourced to another Wikipedia page, which is never acceptable. WP:TRIV states that content such as this is discouraged. It is never acceptable to start trivia sections where none exist and in fact, one of the goals is to remove trivia sections. That's the issue, and that is how this has been determined to be handled. It doesn't belong on the page for her biography - none of this occurred during her lifetime nor included her participation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing drew my attention to this discussion; I don't believe that his doing so constitutes canvassing, as I don't think he had any reason to believe that I would take one side or another on this. I certainly agree that lists of random facts do not belong in articles, and agree with Wildhartlivie's removal of this material. That said, I think some of that probably could be incorporated into the article in a form other than "list of random facts". That events occurred outside of a subject's lifetime does not make them inherently inappropriate for that subject's biography; if Greta Garbo has become a cultural icon, then a paragraph to that effect (sourced to reliable secondary sources), possibly including some of the information above, seems like a good idea. Steve Smith (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to Spanish Catalan WWII double-agent Joan Pujol Garcia who was given the code name GARBO for his acting skill, creating characters to mislead the Nazis. It happened during her lifetime, and directly indicates the esteem Greta Garbo was held in. K8 fan (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As requested, I have added a second reference that specifically refers to Greta Garbo. Hopefully this information can be integrated into the body of the article. Pujol's identity was not revealed until 1985 when he published his autobiography, and not confirmed by MI5 until they de-classified his case file in 1999. So it is doubtful if Ms. Garbo knew of her Nazi-fooling male counterpart. I would hope the star of Mati Hari would have been delighted. K8 fan (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would call that trivial information. It's a nice little tidbit, but doesn't need to be included in an encyclopedic entry. I believe this page has some regular editors: what do you guys think? --Lobo512 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but valid trivia from the era. His MI5 handlers chose Pujol's code name when they started him as a double-agent in 1942, specifically because of his acting skill. He and his handler Tomás Harris created a completely fictitious network of 27 agents and sub-agents, all being paid by the Nazis. One "died" and Pujol managed to convince them to pay a pension to his "widow". The Security Service could have chosen any name, and I believe the fact that they chose "Garbo" speaks directly to her impact at the time, as well as her legacy. K8 fan (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way on this. My first reaction is that both this anecdote and the Falco song are unencyclopedic trivia. And to support inclusion, I'd prefer a better source for the reasoning behind the choice of name than a third-grade children's book. Some secondary source on MI5 that shows they didn't just have a list of Hollywood names to assign – "OK, you're 'Gable'; you're assigned to Morocco, so we'll call you 'Bogie'..." And I think the medals are irrelevant to (Greta) Garbo. But if several others think it's interesting enough to keep – and I can see that it might be – I won't fight too hard for exclusion. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added a new reference from a more serious work on the subject. Pujol was originally assigned the name BOVRIL after the English drink concentrate, but it was changed to GARBO after he was interviewed and his imagination and skill at creating characters became apparent. So yes, his code name was specifically about Greta Garbo. It might be worth noting that Pujol was the subject of the recent documentary Garbo: The Spy, which would seem relevant to the portion of the article about the lasting legacy of the actress. K8 fan (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the "tid bits," while interesting (especially the the note about Pujol) are fundamentially trivial in the context of an encyclopedia. This discussion was already held in 2009 in this section. The writer at the top gives a list of similar examples and makes a strong case that they are trivial. I say we nix them. Her legacy should consist of substantive contributions she made to the cinema and to culture. This is a weak section in the page and should be bolstered with weightier material. Which leads me to another trivia-related matter in the legacy section. I finally got rid of the list of cartoons in which she's featured. As I say in the edit box, all the big stars were caricatured in animations in the 30s and 40s and they do not, I think, constitute part of their cinematic legacies (as I define it above). I find no such list in any of the WP pages of top stars of this period. In a way, they degrade the page a little. Your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Classicfilm buff (hi, I'm a classic film buff too!) Trivial details like cartoons and songs almost end up making her legacy seem less impressive, because you could think "Is that all there is to it?" Someone with a real impact shouldn't need to cover these things. I don't actually know all that much about Garbo, but many actors considered her the greatest screen actress of all time. There must be a lot of substantial stuff out there about her? When I was doing the Kate Hepburn legacy section, I found using obituraries very useful. See if you can find any Garbo ones. Also see if she is included in any "Influential women" books, etc. This is the truly meaty stuff. --Lobo512 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Great ideas, fellow classic film buff. Indeed there is a lot of substantial stuff which I've encountered in my readings. I'll try to get to work on your ideas. But time constraints. Any other takers? How about you!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Oh gosh no, I already have far too many designs on wikipedia and nowhere near enough time to do them all in! I'm still trying to polish one article, finish writing another, and then have two more in mind that I want to overhaul. Garbo isn't one of my personal favourites so this isn't an article I'm especially interested in working on (it's already in pretty good shape anyway, compared to most classic actor bios). But I'm happy to read over any developments and offer suggestions/opinions. :) --Lobo512 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In defense of the portion about Joan Pujol Garcia, the 2011 theatrical release of the film Garbo: The Spy not only firmly established his MI5 handlers naming him after the actress, but included scenes from Greta Garbo's film Mata Hari, as noted in this review of the film. I understand the desire to keep articles to a manageable length, but the link between these two significant figures of the 20th century is clear and noteworthy. That long-time contributors to this article were surprised to learn the connection is fairly plain evidence that it sound be included. K8 fan (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, possibly the fact that long-time contributors to this article – having read and studied biographies and other reliable sources on Greta Garbo – were surprised to learn the connection could be seen as fairly plain evidence that this connection is not widely viewed as relevant to her, her reputation, or her legacy. Saying that he was named after her because of his acting skills bolsters his reputation, not hers. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, his code name "GARBO" was chosen for his acting skill, as the reference provided "after the greatest actor in the world". His existence was not known outside of a few members of the intelligence community until 1985 and not confirmed by the MI5 until 1990. I know that search engine results are not a cite, but a Google search of the word "Garbo" produced Roger Ebert's review of the film Garbo: The Spy in the #8 position. Again, not my article, but given the recent theatrical distribution of that movie, some mention of Ms. Garbo's WWII namesake would not be amiss. K8 fan (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of this page is now written by me and I have to say I agree with Fat&Happy's argument. Therefore, I think it should be ommitted. I also think, still, that it's pretty obscure and that most readers will have no idea what's being said. But I don't have really strong feelings about it. So if you want to put it back in, go for it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

K8 fan, I'm wondering why is it you're so keen to see this tidbit included on the Garbo page? Is it because you genuinely think it says a lot about Garbo's talents, or because you want to promote this man? I see from your "contribs" history that you've made quite a few edits to his page (the spy's), so I can't help but be a bit suspicious here... --Lobo512 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "suspicious" about it. I have done quite a bit of work on GARBO the spy's page, and I hope to take it to Featured Article status. And the fact that a film called "Garbo: The Spy" has been released to theaters in the US this year is relevant. I have no connection to the film or the filmmakers, and if you look through my history, I think I have made some fairly substiantial contributions to a number of Wikipedia articles, mostly by adding reference material. I have not been re-adding the material, instead I have been making the case for including it. But I see that there is a protective coterie here, and it is not worth my time to have another fight a battle. Feel free to include it or not, but I believe that other people will re-add it in the future as Pujol's contribution becomes better known.K8 fan (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you have a commercial interest in him, but your comments confirm that you are nevertheless very interested in this guy, and want to see him better known. So it seems quite obvious that that's the reason you want him mentioned on this page. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Lobo512 makes an valuable point. It's fundamentally not about Garbo's contributions to culture and the cinema. It's about this one man's personal opinion of her and the use of her name to advance his interests. Note that the other elements in the section speak directly about her contribution to a wider public, and its ongoing fascination with her because of her stature, talents, and magnetism in pictures. So in the end, I think, contrary to what I said earlier, it should be left out. Still the conversation has been interesting as we unpack the criteria for trivia.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate references

• GarboForever.com
• Home.hiwaay.net
• Goldensilents.com
• filmreference.com

All these are, afaik, personal sites so they need to be removed (according to WP's policy on self-published sources).--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo contest?

It seems like this article is part of a secret photo contest to see how many poor, insignificant, and unattractive photos can be found and added. A simple image search of Google will show hundreds of images, none of which are as bad as the ones in the article, and most of which are probably PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rosicrucianism

I have added Garbo to the Rosicrucians category on the basis of the following qoaution;

Garbo sought out mediums, spiritualists and devil worshippers - all to help her understand death... it was at this time she became an initiate of the Christian mystical assosication AMORC, which she retained membership in until her death.

(pp. 36) Gronowicz, Antoni. Garbo. 1990. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd

Please offer contrary information before removing her from this category in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.186 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to show that she self-identified as a Rosicrucian. You need to add that fact to the article along with a citation to that effect. You cannot just add a category without supporting text and reference in the article. I will continue to remove the category until you provide a reference to her self-identification as a Rosicrucian. Yworo (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The actual policy on this can be found here: "Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic. The requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories are strictly enforced. For a dead person, there must be a verified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."

Yworo (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Gronowicz has been completely discredited by every Garbo biographer. In his biography, 1994, Barry Paris devotes an entire appendix to listing his false assertions and analyses. So, do NOT use this fraud as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Swedish acrtess in Hollywood's golden age

I edited this sentence

• Greta Garbo (18 September 1905 – 15 April 1990) was a Swedish actress during Hollywood's silent film period and part of its Golden Age.

in the lede of the article, with the edit summary comment

• sentence no longer made sense after all the edits lately.

My new version was:

• Greta Garbo (18 September 1905 – 15 April 1990) was a Swedish actress who gained fame in the United States during Hollywood's silent film period and part of its Golden Age.

This was reversed with another editor's edit summary comment:

• it made perfect sense.

We do not agree about the use of the adjective perfect in this case, not even about the use of the noun sense. Why should the article begin wiith a confusing statement that makes it look like this woman could have been active only in Sweden during Hollywood's silent film period and part of its Golden Age? Not everyone knows her story. Since the fact that she was a Swedish-American (a U.S. citizen since 1950, when she had to give up her Swedish citizenship as per Swedish law) keeps getting removed, I maintain that the sentence as it reads now makes no sense as an introduction to her life story. The fact that she originally was Swedish and did a small bit of work in Sweden is of minor importance and interest in comparison to her work in America, which is her major claim to fame and should be clear from the outset in this article. I am reversing this and ask cordially for a bit more care here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what part of it don't you understand? She was a Swedish actress, which contrary to your assertion, was quite a notable thing in regards to Garbo, she worked during Hollywood's Silent and Golden era. The rest of the article goes on to clarify where she worked and in what. "Who gained fame" is a peacock term that does not clarify anything and only serves to puff her up without any elaboration whatsoever. The lead itself is inadequate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why be so condescending in your reply? I found the sentence unclear. Have now done my best to clarify it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious vandalism

Someone from an IP put a lot of time and effort and work into vandalizing this article extensively yesterday. I made the mistake of reading through it all when it was reveresed here and almost died laughing. At least the vandal in question, though he/she should not be encouraged, had a great sense of humor this time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the same vanadalism has continued, now through a registered user. Sincerely hope what I wrote here did not inspire that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm...I like the reference to "the prestigious Royal Dramatic Community College in Stockton." 69.198.205.2 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Burial details

The paragraph about her burial was edited this way today:

She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were finally interred on June 16, 1999, at the Skogskyrkogården Cemetery in her native Stockholm. On that summer day in 1999, Bishop Caroline Krook presided over the services, along with Gray Reisfield, niece and sole heir of Greta Garbo, follow bagpipe players in kilts to the grave of Greta Garbo. Gray's son Derek Reisfield (Garbo great-nephew) was chosen to lower the urn containing the ashes of Greta Garbo, into the open grave during her ceremony. She left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece, Gray Reisfield of New Jersey.

I went to revise it, (removing fluff, fixing Swenglish etc.) to this:

She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were interred on June 16, 1999, at Skogskyrkogården Cemetery just south of her native Stockholm. Bishop Caroline Krook presided along with Gray Reisfield of New Jersey, Garbo's niece and only heir. They followed bagpipers in kilts to the grave into which Reisfeld's son Derek Reisfield had been chosen to lower the urn with her ashes. Garbo left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece.

The additional info is unsourced here however (though known to me as fact) and needs a ref. I have none today. If one is found, I suggest my wording is used. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

copy editor's comments

To whomever reverted the text to the original on August 4 I must say I'm shocked. I spent hours revising and updating it, making corrections, and adding information I think is relevant. I kept much, if not most, of what you wrote. But I also reorganize sections for coherence, and improved prose. I removed few sources and every significant edit I made cited, contrary to what you said. I am a PhD and this has been a significant research project. It is extraordinary that you would delete the [entire page I edited with out any recognition of my achievements in any section whatsoever. I will copy my version back on the site. Please re-read it and edit only what you think will truly improve the entry. Thank you, classicfilmbuff

his article came up in the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog, so I've gone through and fixed English, grammar, punctuation, and some organizational problems. I've also expanded the lead to reflect the content of the article. I've removed some irrelevant content (i.e., the niece's name--the niece is also entitled to some privacy). I have left the chart alone.

I suggest for further work: this article needs many many more citations, and better referencing, especially relating to the questions about her love-life and her various psychological issues. If the article refers to the major depressive diagnosis, but there is no actual diagnosis, then that whole sentence should probably be removed--it's speculative. I've left it in there for now, because I can see there is some active work here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the great work you have done on this article! Only on one point do I disagree with you. This should not have been removed:

• She left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece, Gray Reisfield of New Jersey.

The identity of Garbo's niece has been so well publicized that it would seem ridiculous for WP only to censure her name. I could agree that of New Jersey is unnecessary. Would you please put the niece's name back in so that WP will not be unique in missing it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I added it back, but I still don't think it's necessary, and considering how much else this article needs..... When someone begins working on the sources, don't forget to add the city of a newspaper's publication (for example, Post Gazette should have (Pittsburgh, PA) after it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Early life */ - mother

The sentence "She stated in the book Garbo On Garbo (p. 33) that her relationship with her mother was not strained" (citing a book not mentioned in the Bibliography), in the short section Early Life, appears to me to be standing quite alone and out of context, as nothing else about Garbo's mother is mentioned in the article (although they both look happy on a photo further down in the article). Is it a denial of an alleged strained relationship? Is it reasonable to ask for either more information on the subject or to delete the sentence as less than relevant for the article? MarB4 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LGBT stuff

Is there any particular reason why the article expounds at some lengths about her lesbian affairs but she is included in none of the LGBT categories (Category:Bisexual actors or Category:LGBT people from Sweden, for instance)? I would have just added them myself but I suspect there I might be something else behind this and so thought I had better bring it here for discussion first. Keresaspa (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, isn't it kind of revealing that she often referred to herself as "he" or "the old gentleman" (or whatever that phrase was she used)? Plus the fact that she basically dressed in male drag in her personal life? I mean, what would we think of a bachelor star in dresses who constantly referred to himself as "she" and "the little miss"? Seriously. Codenamemary (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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 and what's "kind of revealing" in the opinion of outsiders should not be included. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. It was just an observation. I was more implying that the ground is certainly fertile for searching out quotes in that area. I don't think I've ever read modern sources that don't comment on this aspect of her life. Codenamemary (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned at the bias in this article. The section dealing with her relationships as men takes it all as established fact. But the section dealing with women is peppered with "allegedly", "speculated" etc. This seems to be double standard. Either have all her relationships as speculation or take away the language around women that suggests it's all a nasty rumour. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I assure you there's no bias in this section, which I wrote. The reason I state her relationships with men "as fact" (whereas with women I say "speculate" and "allege," etc.,) is because they were well-documented during her life and after. The one person of either sex who actually said he had a sexual relationship with her of any duration was a man--Cecil Beaton, who wrote about their affair in his memoirs. This is why I have to describe her relationships with men "friendships or romances." Although her relationship with Mercedes de Acosta is assumed by her recent biographers there is no definitive proof of it. This aspect of her life is complex and has been very difficult for her biographers to document. I just don't think it's appropriate write about all the vagaries of her romantic relationships in more than I have. If you're interested in this, you can read her recent biographies by Barry Paris (1994), Karen Swensen (1997), and Mark Vieira (2005) (Also Hugo Vickers) and if you can think of a better way to characterize her sexuality, go for it! I think the "bias" and "objectivity" ratings will go back and forth between 3.0 and 5.0 because of this one damn paragraph! Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well put. Facts that can be reliably sourced and notable speculation (of general interest to readers) that can be reliably sourced = WP material. Nothing else, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

After mulling this over, I think I can be more specific about the 4 men in her life whom I mention. The trick is to be short and concise. This thing cannot be any longer than it is because in the end, her sexuality is not important--its her extraordinary cultural and cinematic impact in the 1930s and on. Anon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lenox (1931)

A minor edit war seems to be in motion over the date for the image at the top of the article; the year above is the one IMDb, and other sources give for the movie. While I can find several uses of the photograph linking it to the film, I can find none which do not or suggest the correct date might be 1926 which are unconnected with Wikipedia or are probably mirror sites. (Exploring all avenues it seemed the image file title ought to be checked.) Incidentally, the image does not come up on Google under the other name IMDb gives for the film (The Rise of Helga), but I will assume this is a fluke. Philip Cross (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No background for decision to stop acting?

This article is seriously lacking for not addressing reasons why Garbo decided to stop acting. Obviously, there were interviews/books from herself and her friends which have quotes about this matter. Why none of this is the article? 95.25.222.70 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You make a very good point. I've been editing this article since 7/28/11 and there are several reasons for this omission. First, there were many reasons no clear answer. Second, the article is incomplete! Other areas need elaboration but I have limited time. But since you brought it up, I'll get to it as soon as I can! by the way, what does this mean: 95.25.222.70 Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that the text in my last question didn't "print"; what I'm curious about is, "Special: Contributions." What does that refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

After skimming the bios, I see there are no clear reasons why she retired. Although G herself didn't intend to retire after the failure of Two-Faced Woman, she was also ambivalent (her age, exhaustion, among other things). One reason was that the war destroyed the foreign market on which her movies depended so MGM didn't make a strong effort to create a vehicle for her. Then, the problem is that many people with whom she worked and others in the business cited different, often contradictory, reasons. All speculation. In any case, it won't be simple to sift through this stuff and concisely orginize it--unless I say what I've just written, which is probably enough. As I say, I'll get to it as soon as I can.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Any thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, the reason was very simple: she was fed up with her celebrity status and wanted privacy - wanted a life where "nobody looks at me on the streets" as she is quoted explaining in Sven Broman's 296-page interview book with her (ISBN:91-46-15939-8) on page 170. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, really more complex. As I say, she had no intention of retiring after TFW. Just thought she'd wait till the war ended. All the recent biographies cite the complexity of her "reasons" as I tred to explain. As K Swenson says, did the movies leave her or did she leave the movies? She may have said something quite different to Broman in her later life, but the research about her feelings after TFW shows her ambivalence. This is what I try to convey. But throughout her career, she said/did a lot of contradictory things about it. A continuing problem for her throughout her life was her indecisiveness about everything! She also said other crazy things later in her life about her "former job". For example, she continuously said she hated Hollywood and wanted to retire, but she kept on working. I think the failure of the 1948 Wanger project (to which she was fully committed) led to her final decision. So, I stand by what I say, all cited. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC) But if you want to, go ahead and add the Broman quote as representing her thoughts later in life--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

Wikipedia claims that Greta Garbo learned Transcendental Meditation, yet this fact is not noted in this article. As a practitioner myself, I find this of interest. I would like to know when she learned. If any reader knows this, and can find a citation in a reliable source, please add it to the article, thanks. David Spector (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I seem to recall reading that she tried TM for a while (she was always searching for cures for her real and imagined ailments) but that it did nothing for her. I might be able to find a source but I don't think the experimemt is important enough to include in the article. It would be a good example of trivia. Now, if it was important to her, and she was was committed to its practice for a long time, it would be different. But this is not the case. Best wishes,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Just went through my 4 GG bios and TM doesn't make it into the index--a sure sign that it is not considered to be important. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Garbo images

(Discussion moved from User_talk:Wikiwatcher1)

Hello there, I'm flummoxed about why you put the AK pic at the top of the page. In it, GG looks morose and cold and it captures none of her dazzling magnetism, mystique, and beauty. Personally, in fact, I think it's a bad picture. I wish that you had discussed this on the talk p. without making a unilateral decision. Also don't understand why you'd put a the Susan Lennox pic where it creates a huge space between the sections. The other problem is that it's a glamour pic where as the other pics in the article are, rightly I think, publicity stills. The only other glamour pic is in the Legacy section, on the right, where it arguably belongs. I'm going to revert to previous p. Then, perhaps you might show/discuss the pics on the talk p.? If we see a consensus for your ideas, we'll return them. I hope you're ok with this. Respectfully,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one other thing. The website you put in there is not, I learned, a legitimate source as per WP protocol. Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The AK image is a more recognizable image, IMO, as the film is also more well-known.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings again, I can say from my endless work on GG, that the AK pic is not better known. In any case, don't see how this is a valid criterion; It seems the quality of the photo, and what it expresses about the actress, is what matters. As I say, the SL image is stunning. There is an excellent AK pic of her in the photo gallery. Perhaps you might want to exchange, or add?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I obviously like both photos, since I added them both. I just felt most casual readers would recognize the AK image more. Anna Karenina is more well-known than Susan Lenox, and is part of her "DVD Collection," where Susan Lenox isn't even on DVD yet, and harder to find. A consensus might be reasonable. The AK image is shown at right: --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to add that Wikiwatcher would like to exchange the current pic from Susan Lennox (at the very top of the GG p.) to the pic from AK, to the right of this p. If it matters to anyone, My research shows the SL pic to be better known (you can check online photos). Also, Susan Lennox is now sold as a DVD. Thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Ww, what do you think of the AK in the photo gallery at the bottom of the gg p? It's at least a much better AK photo--much more spirit, life, electric. But I don't think, because of the gap, that we should put the SL pick where you put it for the reasons I mentioned. I spent days with another user setting up the images for the page and I think it's very effective now. Another user and I recently adjusted images to conform to WP protocol (no pics to the left under new section; no "sandwiching" from opposing pics. Also, eliminated one pic because p. was "overcrowded." But I wouldn't mind switching the AK from the Gallery to the top, and putting SL in the gallery. I just really don't think your AK is a good or representative photo! Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I like the new AK photo more - prefer seeing both eyes and less hat. The SL photo is OK anywhere. Also noticed that the Ninotchka photo I uploaded was in the gallery.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, well would you be happy just exchanging the two AK photos in the Gallery? Yeah, I figured out same thing with Ninotch photo--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm shaking your hand! I don't know how to make the switch, so I defer to you. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Garbo changes

Hello WW,

You've added and rewritten some stuff that I'm very uncomfortable with: In 1925, Stiller and Garbo, who was then age twenty and unable to speak any English, arrived in New York where they remained for over six months without any word from MGM.

I explain very clearly the two versions of how she caught Mayer's attention in previous section. So clearly, it's not right to just add another reason that is unrelated to the ones I give (clearly cited) In everything I've read about GG, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that he was impressed by photographs. He saw Gosta Berling in Berlin and immediately wrote up a contract for her, which she signed.

She was on the verge of returning Sweden, and wrote to her boyfriend back home

She had no boyfriend at the time. I assume you're referring to Lars Saxon, who was just a platonic friend. Second, your quote does not specifically indicate a desire to come home then. She talked about wanting to go back to Sweden from the very beginning to the end.

A Swedish friend (who?) thought he would help her by contacting MGM producer Irving Thalberg (citation?), who then agreed to give her a screen test.

This is simply false. She was given a test because she had to because she was on contract!

According to author Frederick Sands, "the result of the test was electrifying. Thalberg was impressed and began grooming the new starlet the following day.

Not exactly. Thalberg had to be pushed to give her a part. (Paris and Vieira) She was not a starlet until after her first picture, which was a hit.

You're using Sands, who's biography is 33 years old and has been revised and corrected by Vieira, Swenson, and Paris (whom I see you've also read.)I'm very concerned that you are planning to go through the entire article and just change things willy-nilly. I have spent months researching and writing this article with extraordinary care and in great detail. It is an excellent page as it now stands. Well researched, organized, and written. I'm a scholar. I welcome additions, of course, but will be disturbed if you remove text that is accurate and carefully crafted. I don't know what your plans are, but please show me the respect to talk with me on my talk page before changing things so drastically as you have done today. I will revert to the previous version and then feel free to add, of course, you are an editor too. but if you want to change anything I hope you'll talk to me before making the change. Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Couple more things. You write, During her later rise to stardom.... Why would you write something about her "later rise" during the the early discussion of her silent work?

Miss Garbo at first didn't like playing the exotic, the sophisticated, the woman of the world. She used to complain: "Mr. Thalberg, I am just a young gur-rl!" Irving tossed it off with a laugh. With those elegant pictures he was creating the Garbo image.[34]:70

You cite Vieira, without a p. number. Everything I read states that she disliked playing vamps. Not exotic women, which she specialized in over her entire career and which the public liked.

I also want to say that I spent an incredible time working on the prose, over and over again, improving it, perfecting it. This should be respected. Much of your prose needs revision.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this an article topic, I copied this material here from my talk page, as I did with your previous photo topic. To discuss this in personal talk pages could imply a co-ownership attitude, and leave others out. I'll comment here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello WW, oh dear, I think we've begun an editing war and I'm not familiar enough with WP protocol to know how to resolve it. But I'll start by commenting on elements of this message from you

You mentioned a lot of details and opinions, but it seems that most of them as described above are your personal opinions, not sources. As a result, you have deleted cited quotations and context from reliable sources, including Norma Shearer and Garbo herself, because you personally do not agree.

I can assure you that none of the statements are personal opinions. Virtually everything I’ve written is cited. Now to say, "Garbo was the best actress in the silent era," well that's an opinion. But what I provided was information, derived from facts that are backed up by multiple sources. I don't see what in this paragraph even resembles an opinion. Note that in this relatively short entry there are 183 citations. Moreover, why would I have an opinion about the vagaries of Garbo's early work? It doesn't seem to me that it's something one has an opinion about. It is what it is. I've done what scholars/researchers do: Gathered all the evidence, selected that which seems to be most representative, and important, and articulated it as concisely as possible within the limitations of, in this case, an encyclopedic entry. Since my assertions are based on substantiated evidence (vs., say, allegations or speculations), there's nothing to agree or disagree with.

You are of course right that I deleted the NS and G quotes. But not because they don't fit some opinion I might have (again, in what way would I "not agree" with what somebody said?) But keeping with my point, I don't think they add substantively to the section, as it stands, which, as I say, can be verified by multiple sources. What's moste important here is that, as I see it, they break up a unified, coherent paragraph, a unified narrative, into fragments, changing the cohesiveness, and essence, of the section. (One could argue, in fact, that it is you who chose this information based on "what you agree with." But that is not the issue at all and I would not make that charge.) If you added these quotes in order to embellish what is written, then it’s great. But if you delete things I wrote--and cited--and also make erroneous statements, then of course I will be distressed.

It would seem that some contradiction in details of events 90 years ago, written by current authors, is common. So I'm concerned why you would unilaterally choose to remove a source, such as Vieira's (2010), Univ. of Calif. Press, without a more justified reason.

Again, Vieira, 2005, is a reliable source which I regularly cite in the article. As I see it, I didn’t’ make unilateral choices any more than you did, for you deleted stuff I wrote and added things that didn’t cohere with what I have written. I reverted to the previous page. That's all. My biggest concern is the coherence of the section, focusing on getting to the core, the essential elements, of this part of her career.

So 1/3 of my criticism is about content, 1/3 is about organization, and 1/3 is about your prose. I do not mean at all to insult you, but the prose reads as a rough draft--which is a stage in ALL writing. I cannot tell you the amount of time I and other editors put in perfecting the prose. So it pains me to see it when it's not up to par. Again, I do not mean to impugn your character or your writing. I spent 8 months turning a terrible page into a worthy one and it pains me to see mistakes (I made plenty and corrected them all in time) and writing that’s not up to par (in my view).

Personally, I don't care either way about such fine details regarding Garbo's early discovery, it doesn't seem all that critical.

Well now you see that's in the eye of the beholder. Garbo's "discovery is absolutely unique and unprecedented," which makes it important. So I'm happy you did not delete it.

Nor was I planning on going through "your" article "willy-nilly" and rewriting anything. I just happened to notice some missing transition details about her early career in the U.S. and had the sources to fill it in a bit.

I agree with your intention entirely and I apologize for accusing you of other intentions.

As for showing "respect," I give the most to the subject of a biography, to make sure it's clear and complete. I'm more interested in upping the biography quality than one-upping any editors. BTW, "respect" is a two-way street.

In no way was I suggesting that you disrespected me. I used the term to denote respect the work of someone. In other words, it seems disrespectful to make a major revision without consulting the major writer of the page. As for “upping,” well, that’s simply an unfair and baseless attack. Of course I’m only interested in the article. There’s no praise or ego involved in something like writing a WP article! I only care about writing the best article possible.

I applaud the addition of new material that enhances what is already an excellent page. (I don't mean to sound conceited, I just think, having read a zillion WP pages, that it is). I’ve always wanted someone to add more information, to make it more complete, as you say. And I apologize for referring to your work as "willy-nilly." That was out of line, an overreaction. What upsets me is if an editor changes material that moves a good section into another direction.

I mean no disrespect to you. I hope you can understand why I take exception to some of your choices.

OK, so now what do we do? Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we shake hands again and take a break. "Tomorrow is another day." (And if you can name the scene for that line in 2 seconds, you truly are a classic film buff.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comes from what Hollywood called in 1939, Wind! I've shaken your hand. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But what scene? My first flashback was to the last scene before the intermission, but on reflection I'm wavering over to the end, after "give a damn".

To the actual point(s) of dispute, isn't the usual Wikipedia procedure to reflect both versions when reliable sources differ on events? Though there are the issues of wider acceptance and newer vs. possibly outdated scholarship. Perhaps a request for a third opinion to start, or maybe a discussion of the sources at the Actors and Filmmakers project. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Clue--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, in context... Fat&Happy (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting quotes

Per your first sentence above about the additions, you wrote you were "very uncomfortable" with them. But I honestly don't see much of an issue here, and Fat&Happy's comment that an article can "reflect both versions" with proper context, seems logical. The added text (see diff), was simply to fill in missing details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. You kept in the 6-month waiting period as a fact, but deleted her personal feelings and some other quotes which helped personalize this transitional period and discovery by the U.S. audience.

This might have been done erroneously, not intentionally. For instance, you thought I was quoting the 2005 Vieira book about Garbo, but the book cite deleted was actually his 2010 bio about Thalberg. You mention the minor point that whoever she wrote to was not a "boyfriend." Fine, call him "friend" if you wish. But you stated above that she talked about wanting to return to Sweden, so why remove her letter?

If she was under contract, that's not a contradiction to her difficulty in getting screen tested. You could simply rephrase any ambiguity, rather than proclaiming a phrase as "simply false" and deleting it. As for her producer having to be "pushed" to give her a part, that's a different subject, since the text I added referred only to her first screen test. Maybe that was a mistake in your reading. I used the material from the Sands book because he included her actual letters and details not included in the article, and the "discovery" period, before the new material, only included this description:

. . . the two set sail for America on the last day of June 1925. (new section) Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925. Although she expected to work with Stiller on her first film,[33] she was cast in Torrent (1926).

That sort of jump in time from getting off the boat and soon acting in her first role left a lot to be desired, and was misleading. Especially since you wrote above: Garbo's "discovery is absolutely unique and unprecedented" . I sort of agree, and felt some more accuracy about this transition and her own feelings were valuable. Considering that her famous movie line, "I want to be alone," is referred to eight times in the article, even though the words were not hers, but the screenwriter's, why then remove her actual quoted words from two new sources? She did have a mind of her own, did she not?

You also mentioned a few other problems, that page numbers were missing from the quotes. However, everything I added did have page numbers, so check again. You also focused on a few trivial details rather than simply rephrasing, such as terms "new starlet" and "later rise." An article doesn't need to be written like a timeline diary, and referring to something in the future isn't automatically wrong. As for the name of the "Swedish friend," you could have asked on the talk page rather than delete the whole quote. I'm not comfortable with comments such as these:

I don't know what your plans are, but please show me the respect to talk with me on my talk page before changing things so drastically as you have done today.

As explained, there was nothing drastic about the added citations which you summarily removed, and still consider your deletions unexplainable. You could have easily rephrased for context or discussed first.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WW, I thought you said shake hands and take a break? I can't respond to everything you say and I honestly don't understand why you care so much about what you seem to think are not major changes. I've stated my points in great detail and I stand by all of them despite your efforts to correct my thinking. I'm certainly not going to get into an endless discussion about each detail of 1 or 2 paragraphs. I also feel strongly that we move this discussion to one of our talk pages as it is between you and me. I doubt that WP sanctions an editing "war" on a subject's talk page. Fat & happy entered the conversation because I asked him to. He has worked extensively with me in the total overhaul of this p. There's no way that readers of the talk page are going to pay attention to an endless conversation about quibbles between you and me.

I'm happy to have a 3d party review both versions although I'm not familiar with the WP process for doing this. Perhaps Fat&happy, if your listening out there, can explain how to do thise. But what I think we should do is get both versions on one of our talk p. and try to resolve our differences amicably in the interests of the article. Perhaps F&H can pitch in his opinion.

You are correct. The "tomorrow" line in Wind is the last line in act 1. Greetings, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, my original feeling was wrong; as shown by the links above, the revised one (end of film) was the correct one. But it does seem like something she would have said during the "I'll never be hungry again" monologue. Oh, well...

I don't agree that the discussion about article content should be moved back to an individual talk page. Resolving such differences of opinion is a primary use of the article talk pages, and this venue is better suited to Wikipedia community participation and development of consensus than a more hidden user page. I've never initiated an official request for dispute resolution, but the link above to "third opinion" gives instructions on how to create and format a request. If that doesn't help, you might also look at "requests for comment", which is a bit more formal and more likely to get several editors involved. You will notice I have refrained from offering any opinion on the specific points of disagreement; I'm more of a technician than a subject-matter expert – the latter is needed here. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, got it F&H. The talk page it is. Why don't we do this: Ww, cut and paste your version into the GG talk p. Then anyone who's interested can see both (mine's in the article now). I'll identify problems I see with your version and you can do the same with mine. At this point, we will hopefully have some consensus about the matter (either in the community or between us). I think we can get this straightened out without going to Wp editing court, which I suggest be the last resort. But please know that, as I earlier said, 1/3 of my concerns have to do with content, including veracity and up-to-date scholarship. (Much of what the recent biographers--Swenson, Paris, Vieira--have done is update information and correct long-standing errors and myths about GG's life. This, in fact, was my initial interest in contributing to the page. I'm equally concerned with writing, in partiuclar, changing a well-crafted paragraph that is internally unified. My final related disagreement has to do with the content that you've added that I personally don't think should be included since, because it has nothing to do with the essence of the paragraph. For this reason, it disrupts and slows down the narrative. This is all scholarly stuff. Later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The added text which you took out is here. It was only added to fill in missing or incorrect details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. and the quotes are included to give some color and depth to her personal feelings. A typical example of an incorrect detail is mentioned earlier, stating that she "set sail for America on the last day of June 1925," followed by "Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Debate about changes to the article

Hello readers. My critique of the most recent additions and changes to the article, which I undid prematurely, follow. "Comment by the editor" refers to a message from him or her to me. Quoted material is that written by him or her. The indented comments compise my critique, as follows.

To begin, most of the editor's information comes, I think, from the Sands/Broman biography which was written in 1979. I have not found a biography by Sands alone so please enlighten. In any case, the Sands/Broman material is old and has been significantly updated by Barry Paris, 1994, Karen Swenson, 1997, and Mark Vieira, 2005.

Comment by the editor: "The added text which you took out was only added to fill in missing or incorrect details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. and the quotes are included to give some color and depth to her personal feelings."

Comment by the editor: "A typical example of an incorrect detail is mentioned earlier, stating that she "set sail for America on the last day of June 1925," followed by "Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing? Incorrect? Typical? I’ve read 4 biographies, seen 4 feature documentaries, and listened to three feature commentaries (2 film historians and one biographer, Barry Parris) in her videos and consequently consider myself to be something of secondary GG expert at this point. I think that any mistakes I've made in the article are minor.

Next, how long does it take to sail from Sweden to NY? More than a week? Less than a day? Sources for the information about the length of the trip are available if I haven't already cited them. Am I missing something? I’m seriously asking this question.

"In 1925, Stiller and Garbo, who was then age twenty and unable to speak any English, was brought over from Sweden at the request of MGM head Louis B. Mayer, as he liked her appearance from seeing her photos."

I go into depth in the previous paragraph about the two most recent explanations of the events leading to Mayer’s contract. So 1) it goes without saying that a different assertion contradicts what’s already been said; and 2) none of the research reveals that Mayer’s intense interest in her has anything to do with liking photos of her. For one thing, it’s highly unlikely and I would speculate unprecedented that a movie mogul would sign a 5 year contract on the basis of photos alone. The explanations of Mayor’s interest have been updated from several earlier versions, including Katz’s encyclopedia and dozens of half-baked bios one finds on the net. Please see the discussion of this matter in the article.

"However, they remained in New York for over six months without any word from MGM. She and Stiller then went to Los Angeles on their own, but another five weeks passed with no contacts from the studio."

I thought I left this in but if I didn’t, good addition.

"She was on the verge of returning Sweden, and wrote to her boyfriend back home [as I said, she had no boyfriend; I think you're referring to Saxon with whom she had a platonic friendship] quote|You're quite right when you think I don't feel at home here. . . Oh you lovely little Sweden, I promise that when I return to you my sad face will smile as never before."}}"

I understand your reasoning. But first, G had deep feelings, to put it very mildly, from the beginning to the end of her career in Hollywood and was, the biographers report, very unhappy—even miserable—the entire time. So I think if this subject is introduced, it needs to be elaborated on throughout the article. Otherwise the sentence tacitly suggests she may only have been unhappy at the beginning of her career and, more importantly, trivializes her unhappiness. Second, there is a problem with writing here, I think. The inclusion doesn’t fit into the function of the section and so is fundamentally a narrative non sequitur which is verboten in scholarly writing, even for general readers. But this stuff is indeed important and is currently lacking in the article. The answer is, I think, is to create a new section on her Personal Life in which an editor really delves deeply into her emotional life and state of mind throughout her career. I talk succinctly about her fragile emotional make-up in the Retirement section but a separate section would be an outstanding contribution. So why don’t you consider researching and writing this since you seem to be very interested in the details of GG’s life and career?

"A Swedish friend thought he would help her by contacting MGM producer Irving Thalberg, who then agreed to give her a screen test. According to author Frederick Sands, "the result of the test was electrifying." Thalberg was impressed and began grooming the new starlet the following day:"

First, recent scholarship reveals no evidence of the aid of "a Swedish friend" trying to help her." Are you talking about Stiller? Second, as I have said, she had a contract with the studio which necessitated screen tests, of which she had two or three.

"The studio arranged to fix her teeth, made sure she lost weight, and gave her an English tutor."

I kept the weight and teeth in. But once again, I believe the recent scholarship makes it pretty clear that she refused to have an tutor to teach her English. This can be cited.

"During her later rise to stardom,"

need dates for specificity. 2 years? 5? Remember, she became a star after her first film and a superstar after her 3d.

"According to film historian Mark Vieira, "Thalberg decreed that henceforth Garbo would play a young but worldly-wise woman . . . " However, according to Norma Shearer, Thalberg's wife, Garbo did not necessarily agree with his ideas:

Miss Garbo at first didn't like playing the exotic, the sophisticated, the woman of the world. She used to complain: "Mr. Thalberg, I am just a young gur-rl!" Irving tossed it off with a laugh. With those elegant pictures he was creating the Garbo image."

I have not read Vieira’s 2010 bio of Thalberg and thought you were referring to his 2005 GG bio. Therefore, I thought you had made a mistake but you’ve explained it and it’s legit. However, she was arguably even more opposed to playing vamps. Pls see the recent bios. Several of the documentaries (they are identified in the Legacy section) mention this as well so it must be included.

So there you have my defense. I'm ready for other positions. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you're curious, the name of the Swedish friend who helped her was Victor Sjöström, per Sands/Broman (p. 72):

"Sjöström played the role of interpreter, and if the half-hour encounter [with Thalberg] ended cordially and with promises of early action, it was thanks to his quickness in changing Stiller's often pompous utterances into congenial-sounding and reasonable conversation. The meeting ended with Thalberg agreeing to giving Garbo a new screen test under Stiller's personal direction and supervision. . . . . The result of the test was electrifying. It impressed Mayer, Thalberg, and every executive who saw it. It was rerun eight times in succession, as the news spread. Immediately the studio went into action. Scenario department heads stayed the night combing their files for a suitable story. The next day Garbo herself started being remolded."

My phrasing was just to simplify the key details. I'm never concerned with having my additions improved with better prose or context. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Victor Sjöström, popular Swedish director with Mayer but didn't stay in Hollywood long (went back to Sweden). Very close to Stiller and an important figure in GG’s life. He directed her in one of her films, The Divine woman, of which only a 9 minute reel exists. So this piece just needs, I think, more specificity and elaboration.

OK, now I understand the S/B version and it makes sense to me. The problem is that the word "new" test from the quote needs to be added and again, the earlier tests should precede this. Later sources can be checked and if they offer diff stories, they should be succinctly included.

Perhaps the problem is with the use of the word "sail" to the U.S. If it's confusing, it can easily be changed to traveled by steamship or something. Maybe that’s what you were thinking.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add this link to Wikiwatcher1's changes to the new section so readers can easily refer to them. is here.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just read Swenson's, Paris's, and Vieira's (2005 and perhaps 2010?) accounts of the events that occurred starting with the initiation of screen tests to her 1st role. They all differ significantly from the S/B version (and in a couple of details contradict each other's). So I think the piece should be left out. Personnally, I don't think this matter is important enough to discuss each separately and of course S,'s, P's, nd V's are more recent. Btw, they all say that GG and Stiller remained in NY for only 3 months. But, Ww, you will be interested to know that Swenson (alone) states the steamship's journey to the U.S. took close to two weeks. So I will adjust this in the text.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There's much about her private life included in this Life magazine article, followed by two more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful article! Thanks for link. A previous editor refers often to Bainbridge's biography. Later GG biographies and articles confirm most of it, and add new information. Although I've peppered the article with bits of information that speak to her ecccentricities, lifestyle, and emotional problems, I personally think another section devoted to all of this stuff, including the prosaic, would enrich the page. Bainbridge's Life articles and bio would have to be cross-referenced with later GG books and there's the rub--someone will have to come along who wants to spend time going through everything, choosing the most representative of endless examples, and then writing a concise paragraph. I can't do it because it's time for me to move on since this damn page has dominated my life for 8 months. But these articles would provide an excellent framework within which to build a section.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Garbo image

WW, why didn't you either talk to me (since you know I and another made the first choice) or raise as a discussion point first about making this big change? The whole point of the other image is to show her laughing! This was the big tag-line and it was her first and only 1 of 2 comedies. It's very important to the article because it shows her range. Can you explain why you made this change? So with due respect, I'm going to revert again and unless you can persuade on discussion page, we really should keep the choice Fat&Happy and I made several weeks ago. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something. I simply added another image - nothing was removed. She is still laughing, but I'm still confused at the problem. Hope you can clarify. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Userbox Greta Garbo

For me, Greta Garbo is... divine.

If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--Tangopaso (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New images now available

Two images, both iconic, have been added to the Commons. The first of these is so classic that it might be worth considering as a lead image.

. . .

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not say that either of these images is iconic. Good pics, but not in the group of iconic gg pics at all. I think the pics on the p. now are well chosen to show her range throughout her career and think we should leave them as they are. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Visconti's attempt to bring GG back to screen

I have updated the Visconti story in retirement section to speculation (not fact, as it had earlier been described. My most recent edit: "In 1969, Italian motion picture director Luchino Visconti allegedly attempted to bring Garbo back to the screen with a small part, Maria Sophia, Queen of Naples, in his adaptation of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. He exclaimed: "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".[114] Claims that Garbo was interested in the part, however, cannot be substantiated.[115][114]

Do you think this story is worth being included in page, or is it trivia?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)