Talk:Katharine Hepburn/Archive 2

This archive includes threads from Katharine Hepburn from January 1st, 2008 until TBD.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV "best film"

I came here to express some misgivings about language in this article stating unsourced opinions as facts, for example that one of Hepburn's "best" performance was in African Queen. I notice that this was addressed in an archived peer review almost 3 years ago, but no corrective work appears to have taken place since then. I come here with neither opinion nor expertise on this topic. If there are multiple noted cinematic experts who can be quoted as saying her performance in this film was one of her best, I think that would be much better. Such research might turn up some dissenting expert opinions as well, which would only add value to the article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed the "personal life" section title to "Death"

There's nothing about her personal life in that section other than an after-death autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.32.27 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the "personal and family life" section. I added her affair and engagement to Howard Hughes. It is documented by History Channel's biography on "Howard Hughes: Aviator". I do not know how to add references. (I am learning) This was BEFORE Spencer Tracy (she left Hughes for Tracy) and Hughes bought all photographs and negatives and squashed the story about Hepburn and Tracy by giving the media who reported these things 10% shares in his airline, TWA. They both have been described as the love of each others lives but they (according to Hepburn herself) were too much alike and the marriage to Howard Hughes wouldn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.169.194 (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism in family section?

The last paragraph, consisting of a couple of sentences joined together without punctuation, says that Hepburn has a grandchild. I have never, ever come across this and I think it is vandalism. Delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin M (talk • contribs) 23:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have a citation and I've never heard of it before. It would be all over the news and something about it just reeks of someone looking for his fifteen minutes. Delete, delete, delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.105.185 (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Unsourced. Lhw1 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2008 (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) 06:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

John Ford

It's curious that John Ford's page on Wiki says he had a multi-year affair with her but he is not even mentioned in her entry. Preceding comment added by I.Katie (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Women Always A Threat

She was Wonderful and A Heroine!

Not arrogant, just not a Doormat (and many still want women to be blond doormats...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.193.41 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No health section?

No health section? Denial of Parkinson's vs. the belief by many that she had Parkinson's should be included somewhere. Granted, she had unimpeded speech, the head shaking is definitely a neurological glitch of some sort. Just because some fan boys don't like something, does not make it accurate to with hold that information, even if it is debatable. There should be a health section with her own denials of having Parkinson's and the belief by many that she had it. I do not see how anyone on Earth could have missed something as obvious as a shaky head [granted, it is not relevant to her career, it is relevant to her life and therefore relevant to an encyclopedia]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.162.176 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I read a while ago that she had Myasthenia gravis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.160.130 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Private life

How come the part about her sexual orientation is gone again ? Yet every affair she had with a man is mentioned, sometimes even twice. I'm not saying there should be a whole section about it, but she shouldn't be portrayed as a straight woman either, as it is incorrect. There is, after all, a whole biography that explores that angle, it is certainly more revealing than Berg's book, and the existence of it and her life-long close friendship with Laura Harding should at least be mentioned.

http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid39545.asp

Badu36 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the main difficulty is that most published information about her sexuality amounts to speculation, and the advocate.com article reads as more of the same. I suppose what's notable is not so much her sexuality, but the discussion of it. Having said that, a good number of dead celebrities have been posthumously outed and I don't believe they were all gay, and discussion of their sexuality is not in itself notable. Is Hepburn's situation different to most? I don't know. I think it would be unwise to add speculation without describing it as such, and the same could be said of the references to the men she supposedly had affairs with - this is not well done in the article. If Laura Harding is to be mentioned, that's fine, as long as it's not given WP:UNDUE weight and as long as it's placed within context. I think more could be written about Hepburn's style and manner (her assertiveness, her use of traditionally male clothing, maybe even the gender ambiguities in some of her roles), which could provide a framework to discuss the discussion of her personal life. I don't know if this is the answer, because an appropriate balance will be difficult to achieve. In a nutshell, I think there's a big difference in Wikipedia talking about Hepburn, and Wikipedia giving a neutral and brief reference to the comments that have taken place about Hepburn. We should aim for the latter, if at all. Rossrs (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's always impressive to see how much information is needed in order to prove that someone has had a same-sex affair in comparison to an affair with someone of the opposite sex. I do not know which other celebrities you are talking about, when saying that outing them might have been a mistake, but I can assure you that it is important to have a balanced biography of everyone. The main reason for it being that most important figures in history are just presumed straight and in a lot of cases, when same-sex affairs surface, they're being dimissed as unimportant. In this case, it is just as biaised to not mention the fact that there is a whole book that indicates that she was at least bisexual, as it is to label her as 100% gay. We can't know for sure, but -and I agree with you on that - the doubts should be briefly mentioned, not discussed, meaning all information should be available to the Wikipedia reader without being interpreted either way. And as long as we're talking about doubts, we don't know for sure who her true love was, and the 'liaisons' should really be referenced. Badu36 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't know that it's really any of our business or that we have a right to know about the things a person chose to keep private during their lifetime, but assuming that the relationship was important and is relevant, a same sex relationship should not be treated with any more or less care or emphasis than an opposite sex relationship. I don't think we should be any less stringent in referencing straight relationships as we do gay relationships. I think it should be balanced, and the referencing standard should be equal. I think one problem is that to comply with WP:RS we are dealing with situations that were deliberately kept private at the time, ie same sex relationships, while the opposite sex relationships weren't kept so private. There's a lot of second and third hand reports of various stars - for example - of the 1920s and beyond, who have been subjected to scrutiny after their deaths, and a lot of the information amounts to hearsay, and anecdotes that have been relayed by someone else, who is also conveniently dead. You say that "all information should be available to the Wikipedia reader without being interpreted either way" and again I agree with you. What I've seen though over a long period of time, is various articles that are written in such a way as to convey a particular interpretation, rather than a neutral reporting/attributing of comments. I have no disagreement with any inclusions to the article, although my opinion is that it should be done correctly or not at all. I would never, for example, dismiss Laura Harding as being unimportant. Rather I would hope that whatever is said about her, doesn't attempt to draw conclusions, and presents the information in a neutral manner, which is basically what you have also said. I also think that you make an important distinction between "mentioned" and "discussed".

Regarding dead celebrities who have been outed - Boze Hadleigh has "outed" a range of women from Agnes Moorehead to Marjorie Main, all of whom were very happy to confide the details of the sexuality to him shortly before they died. It stretches credibility that he could so easily win the confidence of not one, but several closeted women. Another author, Darwin Porter, has done the same with numerous male performers including Clark Gable, Tyrone Power, Joel McCrea, George Raft, Spencer Tracy and quite a few others. Porter for example has written an entire book about Humphrey Bogart's sexuality and the book includes some same sex episodes. My point is that the fact that it's been published doesn't make it reliable. I'm not saying that the Hepburn book is in the same category. I'm just naturally cautious about revelations being made about people after they're dead and can't reply. As for Wikipedia - at different times I've seen same sex relationships introduced into the articles of Tyrone Power, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Laurence Olivier, James Stewart and Henry Fonda among others, and there have been issues with undue weight, sourcing and POV. So, that is just to clarify and explain the reasons for my cautious approach. Yes, I do agree with you. Rossrs (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

atheist- jesus christ?

The article states that she thought highly of jesus christ. That was not his name, and only is his title if you believe that he was the messiah, so why not edit the article to either say only jesus, or jesus of Nazareth? 124.170.184.83 (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Nina

Because that is not what she said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Children?

Someone put a reference to an a child she gave up for adoption, and a subsequent grandson named Chris Hepburn. I have never heard of this claim. Even after doing a bit of research, the only thing I found was the ranting in this webpage [1]. Any other supporting sources? --Charleenmerced ^Talk 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is something the person connected to that website tries to insert from time to time. There has never been any verification of the person's claim. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for theinformation. I found it highly doubtful since nothing else on the subject can be found. Further, the content of that website is highly questionable. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn Center is open

{{editsemiprotected}}The Katharine Hepburn Center is active in Old Saybrook, CT: the text should be changed from "will open" to "opened" in the Legacy section of this page.

 Done   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  220° 14' 30" NET   14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

KH and Oscar appearances

In this clip (Youtube) Hepburn makes the curious comment "I am the living proof that a person can wait 41 years to be unselfish" in regard to attending the Oscar ceremony. Given her status as a 4 oscar winner, does anyone know the story of why KH never (other than the above case) attended the Oscars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.106.2 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Katharine Hepburn is one of the most notable actresses of the U.S.A. The article needs devotees. In the "Stage" section, even the warning tag is incorrect: what the section needs is references cited. It sounds like it came from a textual source and needs to be properly referenced pronto. Or be deleted.If it's referenced, a few "according to (reference)" inserts would preserve the text.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than complain about it, how about adding references? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Did Katharine Hepburn have Parkison's Disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.49.252 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disease

It's settled; the disease she had was Essential tremor. The symptoms of it are often mistaken for those of Parkinson's Disease, hence the Parkinson's speculation on this talk page (although it's possible for people to have both). I found this out after listening to an interview on NPR with a woman who claimed to have the same disability as Katharine Hepburn and Senator Robert Byrd, but she didn't name the condition. Googling "Katharine Hepburn Robert Byrd" answered the question for me, as it brought up several lists of people with essential tremor. [2] Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons also has it. [3] Stonemason89 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

LGBT template

I removed the LGBT template from this talk page, since there is currently nothing in the article that would indicate it should be there. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Two white and three colored"

Some of what has made Hepburn greatly beloved today—her unconventional, straightforward, anti-Hollywood attitude—at the time began to turn audiences sour. Outspoken and intellectual with an acerbic tongue, she defied the era's conventions, preferring to wear pantsuits and disdaining makeup. She also had a famously difficult relationship with the press, turning down most interviews, which did not help her image with the public. On her first outing with the Hollywood press corps after the success of A Bill of Divorcement, Hepburn talked with reporters who had invaded her and her husband's cabin aboard the ship City of Paris. A reporter asked if they were really married; Hepburn responded, "I don't remember." Following up, another reporter asked if they had any children; Hepburn's answer: "Two white and three colored". Hepburn's aversion to media attention did not thaw until 1973, when she appeared on The Dick Cavett Show for an extended two-day interview.

Was this a racially-charged joke on Hepburn's part? Vandalism added to the article by somebody (after all, there's no source for it)? Or was she telling the truth? Some context would be helpful (as well as a source, of course). Stonemason89 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

what is so dumb about the mention of Tracy being Catholic

to say that he could not divorce his wife in the same article that talks about his adulterous affair with Hepburn makes me laugh. He couldn't get a divorce because he was Catholic, but somehow his Catholicism didn't prevent him from having a piece on the side? Maybe the article should read "Tracy was married, but refused to divorce his wife"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.55 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You really should read all the talk page before raising "new" issues. This issue was raised two years ago, but nothing was done to the article as a result of it.71.200.134.47 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Katharine Hepburn%27s Four Oscars.jpg Deleted

An image used in this article, File:Katharine Hepburn%27s Four Oscars.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Trycatch for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katharine Hepburn's Four Oscars.jpg

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Total mess of an article (multi-tagged)

There are so many problems with this article, I scarcely know where to begin. I'll just go in order of the tags.

1. {{cleanup-reorganize}} While it does have sections, the sections are confusing. A good biography has a good flow and doesn't jump around in time. For example, Family and Personal life comes after death?
2. {{More footnotes}} Many claims made lack inline citations. Some long sections only have one reference. For example Early Years has one reference only and it is specifically related to her college degree.
3. {{Weasel}} Weasel words are prevalent throughout the article. There are just so many it is nearly impossible to tag them all.

There are many other problems with the article, but these are the seriously pressing issues. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 12:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It needs a rewrite. I've got William J. Mann's "Kate", it flows from there really. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Gareth, please don't use Mann's biography - it has been largely discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.121.60 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tracy's "Roman Catholicism"

I do not deny that Tracy was nominally a Roman Catholic, but if it needs to be mentioned in connection with his adulterous affair with Katharine Hepburn, it should be pointed out that he was not a good one. His Roman Catholicism is not what prevented him from divorcing his wife. Back then, a person needed grounds to obtain a divorce. While Mrs. Tracy certainly had grounds, and could have divorced him if she wished, she did not. Tracy had no grounds upon which to obtain a divorce. Thus to that extent his religious background had no relevance to the question. John Paul Parks (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a valid point. As written, it makes Tracy out to be a monstrous hypocrite. Catholics are not "allowed" to commit adultery either, yet this didn't stop him from conducting a 25-year affair with Hepburn while still married.

A cursory review of the facts (not all of which are presented in this article) reveals that his wife was not Catholic (she was Episcopalian) and would not have been restricted by the Catholic rule regarding divorce, and their wedding was a civil ceremony and not recognized by the Catholic Church. Other sources claim it was out of his "great respect" for Louise that he did not divorce her, yet this also flies in the face of believability. He apparently began philandering barely a year after they were married, and the press fallout following his alleged carrying-on with Loretta Young was immediately followed by his legal separation from his wife. Surely if he had any respect for Louise at all, divorce would have been the most logical course, rather than serial adulteries for over three decades.

Bill Davidson, Spencer Tracy: Tragic Idol, E.P. Dutton: New York, NY (1987), page 165, contains an anecdote by director Edward Dmytryk, whose wife once asked Tracy point-blank whether his Catholicism was the real reason he never divorced Louise:

“ '"Hell, no," he said. "When we first started going together, Katie wanted to get married. But my son, John, still was living at home and I felt that until he grew up and could take care of himself, I couldn't do it. Later, when all that cleared up, I wanted to marry Katie, but by that time she didn't want to marry me." ”

This sounds more like the proverbial "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality: he'd been cheating on Louise so long and had nothing to gain by divorcing her, so why make the effort?

The passage should be rewritten with additional sourcing and proper references to illustrate that his religion was a public excuse, a myth possibly created by his publicity flacks, and that the facts were quite otherwise (either inertia or lack of legal grounds). 71.200.134.47 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3