Talk:Montgomery Clift/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Deleted this sentence, as I have never heard this and there is no citation to back this up:

"Along with Marlon Brando and James Dean, Clift was considered one of the most influential actors of his generation. Clift was also famous for his good looks and intense, penetrating eyes."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.229.234 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The text of the article refers to Clift's homosexuality, but the category is "bisexual actors." What evidence is there for either categorization?--Bhuck 07:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew Monty and his family and while he had affairs with both sexes he was primarily a homosexual. It would be my opinion that either category could be considered correct... Doc 14:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe that evidence is good enough for the en:wikipedia, but people on the de:wikipedia get upset when things aren't properly documented--it would be better if two tenured professors had published a statement to the effect that he were one way or the other. And unless we include some statement of his homosexuality in the text, we can't list him on our Portal:Homosexuality as being gay. If he were bisexual, on the other hand, he would just get put into a list of bisexual people we aren't sure what to do with. (If you're fluent in German, come over and have a look; you'll see that what sounds absurd is true.)--Bhuck 21:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Patricia Bosworth's biography of Montgomery Clift (called, in fact, Montgomery Clift states that he had relationships with both sexes. I quote: "Before the accident Monty had drifted into countless affairs with men and women. It suited his personality to have sex with a variety of partners...After the accident and his drug addiction became more serious, Monty was often impotent, and sex became less important to him. His deepest commitments were emotional rather than sexual anyway, and reserved for old friends; he was unflinchingly loyal to men like Bill Le Massena and women like Elizabeth Taylor, Libby Holman and Ann Lincoln." The book goes into detail about his relationships with Libby Holman and Ann Lincoln, both of which were sexual, and she goes into some detail about the sexual relationship between Clift and Libby Holman.

I am fairly new to wikipedia so I don't want to add it; perhaps someone who has been working on the page all along would like to do so.Chandler75 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's so sad that great men get ruined by homosexers. 71.81.54.220 05:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Onefortyone 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have this fight on EVERY GODDAMN PAGE that lists someone as being either gay or bisexual? Even the pages for porn stars (male of course) end up with infighting and controversy. It seems to me that all this "It doesn't matter" talk is nothing but veiled homophobia and an attempt to erase any mention of someone's sexuality unless it's "good clean heterosexuality." Saying that someone is gay or bisexual isn't an insult! I've yet to see anyone making demands for PROOF that someone is heterosexual, so why do you all set such a high bar for alternative sexualities? I bet if this were a WOMAN, a lot of you guys would be watering at the mouth for the slightest hint that she had sex with other women, right? Grow up, people!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.172.104 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that last comment! I'm so tired of people having these long drawn-out debates on the pages of actors/famous people (ALWAYS male) who were probably gay just because they don't want to think of them as gay. It's ridiculous and offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.141.153 (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not always homophobia, its people ignoring wikipedia rules, like having reliable sources. For instance, Doc's claims about knowing him, might be true, but we are not allowed to take that as a source, and infact, because Doc knows him, he should not even work on this article. And then it gets over blown because people think its a big deal that he was gay, or that there are rumours that he was gay (perhaps not the case with Clift here, but many non-gay people have such rumours spread about them, and have for centuries). 174.112.18.193 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the worst biographies I have ever read. THe grammar is bad and the content is myopically adulatory.  Can't someone rewrite this to at least a second-rate version?Millriv (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There's practically no work, book or press article either on Clift or on Hollywood 1950s that doesn't contain both of these statements. Do you want a source for the information that Clift existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.41.159 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Birth Year

Mr. Clift's death certificate states he was born in 1921, but on his gravestone, it says 1920. I personally believe the death certificate. Maybe his family put 1920 per his wishes? The same can be said about Bing Crosby, born May 3/1903, believed he was born May 2/1904 and therefore the gravestone says 1904.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwine8 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Crosby knew he was born in 1903, as a 1948 book revealed. For some reason he continued to give the 1904 date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.105 (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go with the death certificate until a birth record could be located that backs up the 1920 birth year. If any evidence can be found that he often used the 1920 birth year, say to make himself older in a particular situation, instead of the 1921 birth year, then I would include that. Ladydayelle 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Patricia Bosworth's biography, his mother was responsible for arranging his gravestone. As his mother, presumably she would know his year of birth. Bosworth says he was born on 1920-10-17. Peter 2006-08-10.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.92.192.247 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

His birth certificate says 1920. 17 October. 2:30am. Athbhreith (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Substance Abuse

The article states in the Trivia section, as if it were fact, that Clift abused substances. There evidence here is ambiguous. He certainly took a lot of pain-killers and prescription medications, but that was because he spent a lot of his adult life in great pain (from colitis and IBS, among other illnesses before his accident, and from his side-effects of the accident afterwards). I do not think it is at all justified to say be abused pain-killers. He also drank a great deal, no doubt because of the pain, and because of the loss of his self-esteem following his accident. As his pain increased, so did his medications, and some of these had a negative impact on his memory, rather important for an actor. That may have added to his reasons for drinking. When on set, however, he is generally said to have taken his job very seriously, and was almost always completely sober. So, again, I think it unfair to accuse him of alcohol abuse. There seems to be no firm evidence that he regularly took any drugs, other than pain-killers and alcohol, so I do not agree that it is correct to accuse him of substance abuse. It is also worth stating for the record that attitudes to alcohol have changed markedly over the last 50 years, and US society in the 1950s was much more tolerant of drinking than it is now. One only has to read the novels of the period to see this. Peter 2006-11-19.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.92.214.136 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article itself

I can't believe someone of the magnitude of Montgomery Clift has this kind of article. Ok he's not as famous as James Dean but the sections of this article are very focused on one thing only. There is very little written about his actual career! We have a whole section about his accident, and a couple of others about other quibs but the actual article on him does not exist. I have read the biography done before Bosworth's and it was really breathtaking and none of the important factors are included here. Examples: his collaboration with Lunt and Fontanne on the stage, the mere mention of From Here To Eternity, his addiction to painkillers etc from an early age also due to his digestive system being bonkers, his last movie and how he was going to costar again with Elizabeth Taylor in Reflections In A Golden Eye, and that noone wanted to insure him etc. No mention of friends who knew him best like Nancy Walker or Steve McCarthy, or the older woman he was romantically linked to for years and apparent reason he declined the role in Sunset Boulevard... This article is all about the gossip. It's a shame. Dollvalley 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Clift is far less remembered than either Dean or Brando. (DaveyJones1968 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

The fact that a biography happens to fall within the purview of the LGBT project doesn't mean it should become a homosexual/bisexual gabfest at the expense of the facts or the achievements of the individual that made him or her famous. In this case, as Dollvalley points out above, the author(s) of this piece skim over the career of this very distinguished performer. Only a handful of actors in film history have been nominated for four Oscars for acting and earned a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, especially in a life as brief as Monty's, and yet in this article his acting career is treated as if it were an incidental curiosity in the somehow more important study of his homosexual or bisexual (whichever it was) behavior. When Monty acquired his fame it was for lighting up the silver screen, and those of us who enjoyed his movies had no idea of his sexual preferences nor would many of us have cared. He was one of the magical troupe of first year students of the Actors Studio under co-founders Lee Strasberg and Robert Lewis -- along with Marlon Brando, Eli Wallach, Maureen Stapleton, Karl Malden, E.G. Marshall and others -- and he was arguably one of the world's three greatest practitioners of "Method" acting behind fellow Actors Studio progenies Brando and Dean. (Lewis, by the way, is the one who coined the phrase about Monty's death being the "longest suicide in history".)

Moreover, there are numerous innacuracies and omissions here. The most obvious is the statement that Wild River (1960) was Clift's first film after the 1957 car accident -- as if "Suddenly Last Summer" with Hepburn and Taylor had happened suddenly some other summer than 1959, not to mention "Lonelyhearts" (1958) and "The Young Lions" (1958). Now, I am the first to agree that "Suddenly" portrayed gays in a horribly distorted light, and I can't blame most gays for wishing the film had never seen the light of day. But I think it's amazingly Freudian that in this distorted account of Clift's life IT DIDN'T.

There is also a reference in the first paragraph that has no business being in this article. Who Monty's brother fathered and how that son felt about Brooks is of no concern for this biography. Just more gossipy gab. Also, I can think of at least THREE songs that clearly refer to Monty's life and I'm not the most musically literate person on earth, so it is far too presumptuous to claim there are only two as if it were a statement of well researched fact.

In addition to finding some writers who actually read some of the authoritative biographies of Clift, and who can get thier facts straight, it would help to show some fairly close up photographs of Clift before and after the accident. The disfigurement caused by the accident, even though the face was reconstructed with great care and didn't affect most viewers' perception of Monty's looks, affected Monty already precarious mental health and helped lead to his tragic end.

--Odysseusatm 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)OdysseusATM 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) + 68.231.80.98 (talk · contribs) - 04:18, 14 June 2007

In addition to finding some writers who have actually read some of the authoritative biographies of Clift, and who can get thier facts straight, another great help would be some fairly close up photographs of Clift before and after the accident. Monty's face was reconstructed with great care for that day and age. While the disfigurement could be seen when one looked carefully, it wasn't all that noticeable to many moviegoers. Still, the mirror is a harsher critic than a camera, and combined with the chronic physical pain, the accident placed Monty's already delicate mental condition under a burden it wasn't ready to bear. EladOdysseus 04:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is a mess and a disgrace. I've posted a help note on this page [1]. It's more like a tabloid piece than an encyclopedia article, with outlandish wording and lots left out. It does not cover his career as it ought to. DHCpepper (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality section

I don't think the current "sexuality" section is very encyclopedic. This is not People, where you speculate about who's impotent and who isn't, who's more into sex or emotions etc. There is a degree of intimacy here that Wikipedia, in my opinion, simply need not inform about for a person who's not famous because of his sex life.

Second, has Montgomery Clift even ever come out as gay or bisexual? I freely admit I'm not familiar enough how the English Wikipedia handles these things, but if he hasn't come out, I'd think it comes close to infringing his post-mortem privacy rights to make much fuss about the comments of one sole author. (At least the article never talks about whether his homosexuality and/or bisexuality were actually established or just claimed by one author... and the Wikipedian above could even be identical to the author even though I'd guess he isn't...) Well, I'm sure the English Wikipedia has already discussed this and found some general solution for people 1) whose sexual orientation has been disclosed post-mortem although they never chose to make it public during their life times and 2) whose sexual orientation has not been claimed to play a notable role for their career, art, personal development, etc. ("relevance").

In short, I think "sexuality" can just become one paragraph as many others about Montgomery's personal life. At least so far, there is no reason to assume that his sexuality was something particularly noteworthy about him, justifying an entire section. Else I would suggest someone adds "Sexuality" sections in the remaining articles in category:people. --Ibn Battuta 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Clift was predominantly gay, not bisexual. (172.209.8.246 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Anyway Clift was predominently gay, not bisexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.0.66 (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

True Clift was predominently gay, but that doesn't remove him from the bisexual category either as he did have relationships with both sexes. With regard to the earlier remarks, it is just as pertinent as a marriage of a heterosexual subject and sexuality does not need to be of particular note to be included. Articles here at Wikipedia are on the whole person regardless of what part of that person makes them a person of note. Doc ♬ talk 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clift was gay, not bisexual. The only reason he had a few affairs with women in his youth was because he was born in 1920. (92.12.76.4 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I second 92.12.76.4. People need to consider the psychological factors at play; and that there can be a difference between a person's sexual behavior and their sexual orientation (e.g. all the gay men who married women in their lives). If the world vehemently insists you're heterosexual (especially when it implies it is a necessary for a successful career) it is not uncommon for people to try several times to have heterosexual relationships in order to try to live up to the expectation. As Monty grew older, he stopped trying to live up to these expectations (in more ways that one). I would say he stopped the "charade" by the mid-50s. Athbhreith (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

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

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life. 2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255—Preceding unsigned comment added by IP4240207xx (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Twins

article states: Clift had a twin sister, Roberta, and a brother William Brooks, born eighteen months earlier. Clift was always treated as the baby of the family, although he was only minutes younger than his twin. (emphasis added) -Ben ^T/_C 10:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben the twin was his sister, not his brother. They were fraternal twins, not identical. Wjhonson (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Bosworth, the twin sister was born some twelve hours earlier. As a matter of fact, when she died last December her obituary gave her birth date as October, 16: a rather unusual case of twins not sharing the same birth date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.239.246.127 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Princess Tiny Meat???

I believe MC was known in gay circles as 'Princess Tiny Meat', on account of his unimpressive trouser equipment, but I can't find any corroborating evidence. Does anyone know for sure? Tsuguya (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

it's untrue or at least unconfirmed by any source. It is believed that this is a myth was made by some tabloid with no evidence TravisPm19 (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues

the Article is OVERFLOWING with unsourced POV opinions "brooding sensitive" "achieved success" "it is commonly believed" . These POV issues have been returned to the article by Wildhartlivie without supplying appropriate sources who has also repeated removed the POV tag without addressing the issues. 4.158.231.3 (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this IP editor removed 5337 kb of content, over 25% of the article. Much of this content was salvagable. In fact, the wording "achieved success" is sourcable, it is not POV. In fact, dude, rather than cut, slash, template and move on, I would suggest that you stop wasting valuable editing time and address problems you see. FIND sources, repair wording. Don't be pointy, which you are doing. Take a minute to read WP:TAGGING regarding your ad hoc claim that the entire article is a mess and your tendency to plaster maintenance tags on each section you have an issue with. Make an effort to actually source things and repair, not just cut, as perusal of your contributions would indicate you prefer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The multiple section tags that you keep complaining about me adding had been there since Feburary 2009! Please be more careful about claims that you are making regarding other people's work. While, there is no specific deadline, there is certainly no reason to blindly return content that has been tagged for that long, and discussed as being appropriate for much longer the article was in essentially the same condition as today, only today it has more unsourced references to popular culture MM 4.158.231.3 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think the tags are inappropriate, Wildhartlivie, it is hardly conductive to productive collaboration for you to revert them without bothering to leave so much as an edit summary in the process, especially when you're edit warring. WP:TAGGING is just an essay, and one which doesn't to my knowledge have significant community buy-in. It is certainly not appropriate to refer to it as if it were a blessing. For what it's worth, the "in popular culture" section is completely unsourced and does nothing to establish how the actor impacted popular culture: it's just an I-Spy list of appearances in other works. Removing it entirely would be a good idea. In fact, this whole string of edits contributed significantly to the quality of the article by removing unsourced speculation, contentious biographical material (much of which was of the kind which would be removed on sight if this were a BLP) and the aforementioned trivia. I don't think that 4.158.231.3's resorting to sticking a {{NPOV}} tag on the article was appropriate, but I do think the edits that led to it were justified. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the IP said quite clearly on his talk page that he couldn't be bothered to do productive work on this article, including bothering to find sourcing, that his "WORK" lay elsewhere and that he would "choose which type of WORK" that he intended to do. He then posted a demand to my talk page for an estimate on when I would fix the problems. So there was no spirit of collaboration available. That he put fact tags on various sections of the article, then over the entire article plus numerous other pointy tags led me to cite WP:TAGGING. I wasn't using it as a blessing, I was using it to make the same point that everyone does when they remove excessive tagging, or as people do when they cite WP:DTTR, also not a policy or guideline, but something that is trotted out when it is convenient. And in case anyone missed it, some references have already been added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The "demand" that you keep referencing was in fact an assumption of good faith that an established editor would not be mass returning unsourced content to an article with no plans to return to the article to provide appropriate sourcing. MM207.69.137.40 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but if you are related to the 4.158 IP that posted here, I would suggest you register a user account here so that you aren't mistaken for a sock by posting from different locations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that editors register in order to contribute. Being "mistaken for a sock" requires that the IPs be used for abuse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Argh"? At what point did I say that anyone *had* to register or that there is a requirement? I suggested that if a person edits from multiple IPs, it raises questions. Is there some reason of which I'm unaware that every comment I make is getting jumped on here? A single editor posting from multiple IPs can raise issues and questions. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be REVERSE sock puppetry- editors from multiple IP addresses claiming to be the same person. Earthlink has dynamic IP addressing overwhich I have no control. MM207.69.137.43 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thus why I suggested registering an account. If one IP number edits in support of another one, some people would make sock accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If our guidelines on consensus are followed properly then it doesn't matter how many separate IPs agree with something, because weight of numbers isn't how we make decisions round here. Right now, the opposite situation is occurring (one editor using multiple IPs bu still leaving a distinct signature on each one), so we don't need to worry about that anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it being made to sound as if a suggestion to register an account is a bad thing here, anyway? No one is forcing the issue, it was a suggestion, as has been said multiple times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with over-tagging an article as retaliation for being reverted, nor particularly with editors making demands of each other, but the underlying issue here is one of article quality. It is not better for articles to contain contentious material indefinitely while it waits for a tag. While some of the lesser issues (such as peacock prose) have been corrected and referenced, the current diff of the trimmed version to the current edit still shows multiple paragraphs of completely unsourced and strongly contentious material on the right hand side. 4.158.231.3 has chipped in with some references; let's see where the article goes from here. I would still agree that the pop culture section should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I just got a book from interlibrary loan via my outreach worker and I plan on reading it over the weekend, so issues on this article can be addressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mothers obsession with establishing her membership of a distinguished patrician family from the south

Isn't there too much about this at the start of the article - the article loses focus . Mention her obsession, its implications for Clifts upbringing with such a mother, then move on.Sayerslle (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

other stuff

I read that the R.E.M song "Monty Got a Raw Deal" is about this guy. Perhaps that should be included somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.164.237 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Judgment at Nuremburg

The opening paragraph states Clift portrayed a "concentration camp victim" in Judgment at Nuremberg. However, the film merely indicates he was sterilized by the Nazis. I don't recall it ever mentioning a stint in a concentration camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the quotation is wrong about the facts, but of course exact words of quotations should not be changed. I altered it as per comment above, but have now revetrted and added a bracketed "sic" as I had not noticed that it was part of a quotation. Paul B (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

However, quotations may be paraphrased & referenced. Manytexts (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "sic"; it doesn't make sense without some explanation. "Victim" is quite appropriate for those who survived and were badly damaged. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the concentration camp part that's in question, not the victim part.108.82.45.53 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Given the citation of his bisexual activity, wouldn't it be appropriate to put him in either the bisexual actors or LGBT actors category?108.82.45.53 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hearsay. Span (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Car accident

Currently watching the documentary Elizabeth Taylor: England's Other Elizabeth on BBC 4. During an interview Liz has just stated that she removed two of Clift's teeth that had pierced his tongue and prevented him from speaking; I had previously understood two teeth were involved - contrary to the article - but she made no mention of choking/breathing difficulty: contrary to my expectation. Kmitch87 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Misfits

Just curious how it could have been on TV in 1966. I thought in that era movies had to be 10 years old before they were shown on tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.34.161 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You thought that based on what exactly? (Sellpink (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC))

This article is still a mess

Editors have noted how poorly written this article was, and it still is. People simply add stuff to the article like it's a gossip section among teenagers in a treehouse. For example, the whole section on his car crash has no citation, although there must be some kind of reliable source somewhere. The article relies heavily on a book by Patricia Bosworth, yet the nine citations have no page numbers. The claim that Clift was involved with Jerome Robbins is based on an article that doesn't mention Clift at all. This article needs to be trimmed to make it less tabloid and more journalism.Chagallophile (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I took out a lot of the article, but it was all gossip and BS without any citations.Chagallophile (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

ancestry

Clift had Scottish ancestry, hence the Presbyterian funeral. I am not aware of any Irish ancestry and unlikely he had any since he would have been a catholic if he'd been Irish to any significant degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.168.29 (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Presbyterian Church has a significant Irish population. Presbyterian_Church_in_Ireland Collect (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

He should not be using this page for baseless speculation. (Sellpink (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC))

cousins with Eliz Taylor::

likely :? neither ever knew this but fairly close cousins. 04:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)~/s chief willie bob of e Cherokee nation, q.v. q.u.o.d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.189.159 (talk)

films and commentary in lead

Were added by [2]

"He is best remembered for roles as a social climber in George Stevens's A Place in the Sun (1951), the anguished Catholic priest in Alfred Hitchcock's I Confess (1952), the doomed soldier in Fred Zinnemann's From Here to Eternity (1953), the would-be deserted soldier in Edward Dmytryk's The Young Lions (1958) and a war crime defendant in Stanley Kramer's Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)."

compare to source [3]

" He invariably played outsiders in conflict with his surroundings, often victim-heroes like the starry-eyed social climber in George Stevens's A Place in the Sun (1951), the first of three films with his close friend, Elizabeth Taylor; the anguished Catholic priest trapped into hearing a murderer's confession in Hitchcock's hugely undervalued I Confess (1953); the doomed regular soldier Robert E Lee Prewitt in Zinnemann's From Here to Eternity (1953); the Jewish GI bullied by antisemites in Dmytryk's The Young Lions (1958). His seismographically delicate face and eyes conveyed his inner struggles and torment."

The original addition, by the way, was

"He invariably played outsiders, "often victim-heroes," - examples include the social climber in George Stevens's A Place in the Sun, the anguished Catholic priest in Hitchcock's I Confess, the doomed regular soldier Robert E Lee Prewitt in Fred Zinnemann's From Here to Eternity, and the Jewish GI bullied by antisemites in Edward Dmytryk's The Young Lions. Later, as a result of heavy consumption of drink and presecription drugs, and after a disfiguring car crash in 1957, he became erratic. Nevertheless important roles still remained to him, including " the reckless, alcoholic, mother-fixated rodeo performer " in Huston's The Misfits, the title role in Huston's Freud, and the concentration camp victim in Stanley Kramer's Judgment at Nuremberg. "

Showing a very clear copyright violation from 2011 using a Guardian source from 2010 - which is why I removed the fluff. Unless it is fully reworded (not paraphrased inartfully), the violation remains. Thank you. Collect (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Collect. The list of films that he is "best known for", as well as the terms used to describe those roles, consists of the (verbatim) opinion and analysis of Mr. French at Guardian. In context, that list is where Clift portrayed "victim-heroes" as per Guardian (though that term has now been removed from this article), so it is debatable whether those are his Best Known roles. I would argue that his role in The Misfits should be right up there. In any case, the text as it appears is problematic to me for copyright concerns. Facts are not copyightable of course, but creative elements of presentation, which do include word choice and order, and indeed deciding which films to cherry-pick as memorable, are.
• A test that Moonriddengirl told me a while ago seems relevant here: When using the elements from Guardian, are those words, and only those words, capable of conveying the desired message to the reader? I would answer that as "no" in this case. Crow^Caw 19:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The adjectives are now gone - but the same group of four films is still there. Is removal of adjectives an actual cure for what had been plagiarized content? Collect (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is OK now from a copyvio/plag perspective, though since the list started as a list of his notable "victim-hero" roles, calling those his overall most-memorable may be a tad misleading. It seems to me in general that any "most notable" type of listing comes across as unsourced opinion. Crow^Caw 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There's five films in there, not four, and those are his most notable roles, The Guardian can't claim copyright on his best known roles LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The article history shows the source clearly was The Guardian, and that source should therefore be cited. Collect (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) "Best known for" is generally a matter of opinion. A source could report that x films were most popular due to box office sales and the like, and we could probably report that with attribution, but to just declare something is Best, or Most Popular, or whatnot really should have a source. Besides which, the Guardian never said they were his best known roles, just that He invariably played outsiders in conflict with his surroundings, often victim-heroes like... so even citing the Guardian as a source would not be an accurate representation of the source. Crow^Caw 19:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References