Talk:Elizabeth Taylor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Header

I see no links to another "Elizabeth Taylor", i.e. the British writer. Disambiguation page? Chris Quirke 10:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is 8 times married correct? I remember hearing about 9? -- JeLuF

I checked her entry at IMDB and she had seven husbands and eight marriages (twice to Burton). -- Zoe

---

changed the "biography" header to "marriages and children" because the article begins with other biographical information. Vicki Rosenzweig

NPOV / encyclopedic?

Somebody seriously needs to trim down and clean up the section on her marriages. It's written like a weirdly judgemental gossip column, not an encylopedia article.

Totally agreed. I've taken the liberty of clearing it out and pasting the removed information here -- there are SOME relevant facts to be gleaned from all the garbage (with appropriate cites). Perhaps someone else can take on that task. For now, it needed to go. Removed information is below between the horizontal bars. Air.dance 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

----------

Taylor has been married eight times to seven husbands:

Hotel heir Conrad "Nicky" Hilton (May 6, 1950 - January 29, 1951) (divorced)

Taylor was guilty of poor judgment in picking a totally incompatible partner in her first marriage. The short-liason was violent and abusive with Hilton showing himself to be a debauched character capable of considerable mental cruelty.

Michael Wilding (February 21, 1952 - January 26, 1957) (divorced)

Though Taylor and Wilding remained friends, their marriage failed for several reasons. Wilding was considerably older than Taylor and beginning to be more inclined to the quiet life while she was a keen socialiser. His career was also on a downward trajectory, having never successfully made the transition from Britain to Hollywood, while hers was starting to skyrocket. Also, at 20 years older, it is reported that over time their relationship became almost father-daughter. Taylor was also starting to show a dangerous hunger for drama which, J. Randy Taraborrelli ascribes in his biography Elizabeth to years of being taught that she was special and that the world revolved around her. She openly flirted with then left Wilding for Mike Todd whom she married within a few days of her divorce from Wilding coming through.

Producer Michael Todd (February 2, 1957 - March 22, 1958) (widowed)

Todd treated Taylor to a whirlwind life of private planes, yachts and expensive cars. Every Saturday he bought her jewels to celebrate the weekly anniversary of their first meeting. However the attraction of a man described as 'a force of nature crafted from chutzpah if not pure, unadulterated hi-test testosterone' was more than monetary. His scathing sense of humour appealed to a woman more used to sycophants. At one dinner party he introduced her to people by the made-up name of Tondelayo Shwarzkopf, he also used to slap her on the rump and joke 'See that, I told you you were getting fat.' There was an occasion in Chicago when instead of escaping the paparazzi by car Todd suggested they make a run for it, Taylor squeeled with delight as, with her high heels in her hand, she ran barefoot through the city streets. This subversive sense of fun was something which had been absent in Taylor's life before and helped her deal with the pressure of fame.

This fun came to an abrupt end after just over a year of marriage when Todd was killed in a plane crash. At his funeral in Chicago, crowds of fans packed picnic lunches and laid their tablecloths out among the tombstones, Taylor remembered seeing crisp packets and Coca-Cola bottles littering the grounds. As she made her way back to the waiting cortege the crowd began ripping at her clothes and rocking the car back and forth until she began to scream inside.

Eddie Fisher (May 12, 1959 - March 6, 1964) (divorced)

After Todd's death, Taylor was comforted by his best friend Eddie Fisher who in happier times had formed a foursome with Taylor and Todd with his wife Debbie Reynolds. Reynolds even offered to look after Taylor's children in Los Angeles while Fisher accompanied Taylor to the funeral. That she callously stole her husband is something which is perhaps unsurprising in a lady used to getting what she wanted. As for the seemingly straightforward transfer of affections, that is something biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli explains by recourse to a story from childhood. At the lonely MGM film studio her only friend was a pet chipmunk called Nibbles. When he died she was distraught for a while but then got another chipmunk which she also named Nibbles, writing in her journal 'Not Nibbles the Second but just Nibbles, my favourite chipmunk.'

For a woman who once said 'I've never been alone my entire life yet I've always felt lonely,' there was also an attraction to taking up with a man she knew so well they could finish each others sentences. The resulting bad publicity harmed Fisher's career but actually increased the amount of money offered to Taylor for films. And she pointed out to the press that although Fisher and Reynolds had two young children, their marriage was in trouble and Reynolds had already sued him for divorce twice. Taylor justified the decision to herself by saying that she was doing Reynolds a favour by giving her a chance to meet a man who'd make her happier than Fisher had. However Fisher never really made Taylor happy - the paradox of her life was that she always wanted a strong man but also wanted to be able to control and dominate him. It took her only a few months to realise she had made a mistake with Fisher and to become abusive, trying to elicit an angry response that would, in her eyes, prove his manliness. However he was more likely to retire to bed and draw the sheets over his head at which she would shout 'Wimp' in an echo of her character in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.

Before shooting the movie, Cleopatra, Taylor received considerable criticism from the public. She stopped to attend a Chicago premiere of Scent of Mystery when people would start to yell, "homewrecker" and "husband-stealer" and "why did you steal Debbie's husband?" She did not show much emotion but later wrote, "Faced with crowds, I want to run pell-mell through all those people with their little cameras and the flashbulbs they shoot off two feet from your eyes. But you make yourself walk and you find a point to focus your eyes on and keep going toward it."

Early in the production of Cleopatra, Taylor confessed to Fisher that she was having an affair with Burton. This situation was not helped by Burton turning up drunk at a houseparty the couple were holding at their villa in Rome. Fisher shouted at Burton, who was at the time married to Sybil, 'Why don't you go home to your own wife?' to which Burton spat back 'Guess what? They're both my women.' He then turned to Taylor and demanded 'Are you my woman? Well if so then come over here and stick your tongue down my throat and prove it.' Taylor stood motionless for a moment then began to move towards him, holding a glass of champagne and with all eyes on them, they locked lips. By this time even the pianist had stopped playing and Fisher stepped past the kissing couple and walked outside the house. Finally releasing her Burton too walked out and passing Fisher said, almost politely, 'Keep her warm for me, won't you?'

During her marriage to Fisher, Taylor converted to Reform Judaism (having been born into the Christian Science religion.) She remains Jewish to this day, having referred to herself as such several times. In her book Elizabeth Takes Off, Taylor writes, "It [conversion to Judaism] had absolutely nothing to do with my past marriage to Mike [Todd] or my upcoming marriage to Eddie Fisher, both of whom were Jewish. It was something I had wanted to do for a long time." [2]

Richard Burton (March 15, 1964 - June 26, 1974) (divorced)

and

Richard Burton (2nd marriage) (October 10, 1975 - July 29, 1976) (divorced)

In a romantic entanglement that had tongues wagging on every continent, Taylor would trade in husband Eddie Fisher for Burton not long after Fisher had unceremoniously ditched wife Debbie Reynolds for Taylor. Years later, Burton would slyly refer to the whole mess as "la scandale." The episode cemented Taylor's reputation as a dark, hypnotic femme fatale (who was condemned by the Vatican), boosted Reynolds' career as a blonde, all-American sweetheart, and elevated Burton to the front ranks of film stars. Only Fisher did not really profit from the cascade of free publicity.

Though Burton had boasted to friends that he would bed Taylor within two days of filming commencing on Cleopatra he actually had to wait five days before turning up on set and announcing 'Last night I screwed Miss Elizabeth Taylor in the back seat of my Cadillac'. What had endeared him to her initially was his turning up on set so hungover she had to hold a cup of coffee up to his lips. 'He was so vulnerable and sweet and shaky and terribly giggly that with my heart I hugged him.' This was a vulnerability which Burton combined with a temparament every bit as fiery as Taylor's. However in self-destruction Taylor outdid her new husband. Early in the relationship, despite their open pursuit of it, Burton wavered telling Taylor the affair had to end. Having been told by her mother that failure was not an option, she crumbled and took an overdose, with scant regard for her two children. Even Burton was bemused as to the extent of her action, having known him for only six weeks. She repeated the overdose action a few months later when she felt unsure of his affections. However despite these incidents, they also revelled in each other's company. At a dinner part Taylor put her head on Burton's shoulder and said 'I wonder if this man will one day be my husband.' Burton replied 'If we don't kill each other first' to which Taylor responded 'But what a way to go, darling. What a way to go.'

Ultimately the marriage would see them both enter a physical and creative decline and the cause is much easier to divine - drink. In Burton Taylor found the alcholic she had known in her father as a child. During a visit to London in 1962 they spent the entire time in pubs, starting the morning with Bloody Marys, continuing with a few bottles of champage and then large brandies - and by that time it was only noon. The good-natured joking between them, Taylor referred to Burton as a 'shit-faced bastard', in time turned to arguments where things were said in a lot less good-natured vein. These festered and the physical side was eventually reciprocated when Burton began to hit Taylor back.

The couple divorced in 1974 but were remarried a year later, Taylor so attached to both Burton and the melodrama of their relationship that she was blinded to how unrealistic any chances of second-time around success were. And so it proved to be, Burton cheating on her within months with a 27 year old blonde divorcee from England named Suzy Hunt. She tried to make him jealous by having her own fling, with a 37 year old Maltese advertising executive named Peter Darmanin whom she picked up at a disco near her and Burton's chalet in Switzerland. Darmanin lived with Taylor for the next seven weeks, during which time he recalled her consantly crying to Burton on the phone. Finally Burton invited her to join him in New York, where he was starring in a Broadway revival of Equus. She jumped on a plane and never saw Darmanin again.

With the help of Hunt, Burton had begun to seriously curtail his drinking. Taylor meanwhile, who used to stand in the wings holding a glass of champagne for him to sip between scenes, wanted a return to their inebriated ways and was unimpressed with his new moderation screaming 'What the hell has happened to you? You are no fun anymore, Richard.' The next day, with Suzy Hunt present, Burton told Taylor he wanted another divorce and less than ten months later it was over for good.

To the press, Taylor put a brave-face on, saying 'I love Richard with every fibre of my soul. But we can't be together, we're too mutually self-destructive.'

Senator John Warner (December 4, 1976 - November 7, 1982) (divorced)

Just two months after finalising her divorce from Burton, she accepted a proposal from Warner, six years her senior and one of the most eligible bachelors in Washington. 'I am so happy to be John's wife she said. I finally feel that I have a home. My search for roots is finally over.' That home was in Virginia and what had at first seemed an idyllic antidote to the turbulent 14 years with Burton quickly became a 'domestic Siberia.' Coping with her chronic back pain - a legacy of a childhood riding accident when making National Velvet - she spent her days watching soap operas, drinking, taking painkillers and excessive eating. There is a story about Taylor accompanying Warner on a campaign trail and almost choking to death when she gobbled down a piece of chicken that turned out to contain a bone two-and-a-half inches long. As soon as she recovered she continued eating, the kaftans grew ever bigger and comedians started to joke about how fat she had become. With Warner away in Washington a lot they began to lead separate lives and divorced in 1982.

Teamster construction-equipment operator Larry Fortensky (October 6, 1991 - October 31, 1996) (divorced)

When Taylor checked into the Betty Ford Centre in 1991, it was not first time and came at a difficult time in her life. The past few years had seen her make personal and physical progress only to repeatedly relapse. She developed the crippling bone disease osteoporosis, which was worsened by the stress she suffered as a result of Richard Burton's death from a brain haemorrhage in 1984 and further strain was placed by her constant campaigning for AIDS research and endless personal appearences for a perfume to which she had lent her name. Eventually, she was left in a wheelchair for much of the time, becoming addicted to prescription drugs.

The story goes that when Fortensky, who was there trying to conquer his heavy drinking, met her at the Betty Ford Centre, he didn't know the woman he was talking to was Elizabeth Taylor. She had recently dated men such as Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi who had his own stable of Arabian stallions at his ten-bedroom home in Marbella and an opulent £13 million apartment in Manhattan, not to mention £16 million of artwork. Fortensky meanwhile, a labourer, had a two-bedroom flat and moderate means. The two fell for each other while Fortensky pushed her around the grounds of the centre in her wheelchair and they opened their hearts to each other. 'You get to know someone real fast when you are in group therapy in a recovery programme. All the bulls**t is stripped away. He knew I could see through him and I knew he could see through me.'

Her spells at the centre had finally convinced her that she could finally find the happiness which she felt the psychological impact of her childhood had denied her and in Fortensky she thought she had found a kindred spirit. They were married amidst a media circus at Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch where at one point an interloping parachutist almost landed on Gregory Peck. The couple presented Jackson with a 30-ton elephant to say thank-you for the day.

Initially, despite her worldwide celebrity, they would go out together to cheap hamburger joints with Taylor astounding fellow diners by arriving in biking leathers. Perhaps surprisingly, despite being ensconced in Taylor's palatial home with no financial imperative, Fortensky returned to working on the building site. Taylor would awaken at four each morning to have breakfast with him before he left for the day, sometimes she would even visit him at work bringing doughnuts and coffee and making a point of sitting with his colleagues and trying to get to know them.

Taylor however, a long-time connoisseur of expensive jewels, appeared to regard Fortensky as something of a diamond in the rough who could be polished to perfection. In this she aped the behaviour of her mother and father. However, unlike her placid father, Fortensky rebelled against these attempts at enlightening him to social etiquette. He would strike back in small acts of vengeance like smoking in the bedroom despite Taylor's recent severe pneumonia, eating in bed and leaving crumbs, which she hated, and watching tv all night though she was a light sleeper. However this escalated to rages so severe that though Taylor had seen worse in former husbands, she had to gather her staff and shut them in her bedroom for safety.

There was even an incident when Taylor had left her beloved collie Nellie, descended from the legendary Lassie with whom she had once starred, in the care of Fortensky while she was out of town on AIDS business. He forgot to walk her and when Nellie relieved herself all over his bedroom he locked her in an undersized travel container with no food or water. The dog whimpered for hours before one of the staff rescued her. Taylor found this very hard to forgive.

There was also the issue of Taylor's illnesses as she underwent a series of hip operations. Her rehabilitation seemed endless and Fortensky felt that she didn't really want to get better and thrived on her illnesses. The final straw was when Taylor underwent more surgery in 1995 and was, as she said at the time 'a cripple.' Fortensky initially demanded £2.6 million in a divorce settlement to keep him in the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed - one of servants and chauffered cars to work. However, with Taylor staring him down at the meeting, he crumbled and fled from the room, eventually settling for around £500,000. Still depressed about the death of her mother the year before and with this failure of what looks likely to be her last marriage, Taylor slumped into depression and became agoraphobic, barely leaving the house for a time.

---

Richard Burton's real name

Richard Burton's name was not Richard Jones - it was Richard Walter Jenkins, Jr.

---

I removed this:

She was knighted on 12/31/1999, though, as an American citizen, she is not called Dame Elizabeth; foreign titles cannot legally be borne by citizens of the United States.

It's wrong in so many ways. She is not simply an American citizen, she is also a British citizen, and carries a British passport. And it's not true that foreign titles can't be borne by US citizens: the only restriction on titles in the US is that holders of foreign titles can't hold a position in the Federal government without the permission of Congress. -- Someone else 01:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whut the hell are you talkin'about?Edison 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

I stumbled over the one-sentence-paragraph about her husbands and found it unreadable, thus proposed to organize it as follows using the same information:

She has been married eight times to seven husbands:

• Hotel heir Nicky Hilton (married May 6, 1950-divorced January 29, 1951)
• Actor Michael Wilding (married February 21, 1952-divorced January 26, 1957)
• Producer Mike Todd (married February 2, 1957-his death March 22, 1958)
• Singer Eddie Fisher (married May 12, 1959-divorced March 6, 1964)
• Actor Richard Burton (married March 15, 1964-divorced June 26, 1974)
• Actor Richard Burton (2nd Marriage) (married October 10, 1975-divorced July 29, 1976)
• Senator John Warner (married December 4, 1976-divorced November 7, 1982)
• Teamster construction-equipment operator Larry Fortensky (married October 6, 1991-divorced October 31, 1996).

To me this is preferable, particularly in an encyclopedia. Ekem 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship

I have to question the article's statement that Ms. Taylor is not a US citizen. In 2001, she was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Clinton. One of the requirements to receive that award is that the recipient must be a US citizen. She is also a British citizen, and holds the title of Dame of the British Empire. Steggall 01:27, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Then this needs to be sorted out pronto. We also state: "After marrying Richard Burton, Taylor relinquished her American citizenship, and is now a "permanent resident" of the U.S. After marrying Republican Senator John Warner, of Virginia, she received a "green card" and keeps her British passport." If she received a green card, this means she could not have been a US citizen because US citizens don't need any approval to work in their own country. But if you're right and she had to be a US citizen to receive the Presidential Citizens Medal, then obviously something is wrong somewhere. JackofOz 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any further information about her citizenship yet? JackofOz 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, now we have a bit of a mess.

• Brcreel says: "never had British citizenship, left London at an early age, and both parents American"
• the lead paragraph says: "Dame Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, DBE ... is an ... English-American actress."
• a later para says: "Taylor was born with American citizenship. Her American parents were both originally from Arkansas City, Kansas."
• a further para says: "After marrying Richard Burton, Taylor relinquished her American citizenship, and is now a "permanent resident" of the U.S. After marrying Republican Senator John Warner, of Virginia, she received a "green card" and keeps her British passport"

Clearly, these cannot all be correct. Nobody seems to doubt that she was born an American citizen, but the things about which there are conflicting statements are:

• whether she ever relinquished her American citizenship, and
• whether she was also born with British citizenship. She could only have become "Dame Taylor Elizabeth DBE" if she were a British citizen. Otherwise, the award would be honorary and she would be simply "Elizabeth Taylor, DBE". We now have a denial that she was ever British, but no change to her title as Dame.

We need some documentary evidence to back up or refute these statements. JackofOz 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

She definitely did receive British nationality when she was born. At that time, anyone born in the UK automatically received nationality. There may have been some confusion because since 1983, a person born in the UK only receives British nationality when at least one parent is either British or is "settled" in the UK. Settled means living there with no time limit on their stay. But the 1983 law only applies to person born in 1983 or later. So, the fact that her parents were American and/or the fact that she left Britain when she was young would have no bearing on whether she is British. She was born there, that would have made her British under British law at that time.

She was also born a US citizen, due to the fact that her parents were US citizens. In other words, she had dual citizenship.

It would appear that she still holds both citizenships today since she would not have been conferred the title "Dame" if she had solely been a US citizen, nor would she have been able to receive the "Presidential Citizens Medal" if she had not been a US citizen. If she did really relinquish her US citizenship earlier in her life then it would appear that it must have been reinstated. Steggall 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Steggall, I think that what you say is probably the closest thing we have to the truth. Unfortunately, everything we "know" about her citizenship is supposition or deduction. Some published evidence is what we really need. JackofOz 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And now we have an editor who says she was born with American citizenship and only later acquired British. Everyone seems to have a different opinion about her history - yet nobody seems to have any proof. JackofOz 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor is a British, not an American actress, having relinquished her U.S.A. citz., so please DESIST from referring to her as an American actress. Lynn Fontanne never took out U.S. citizenship but received a Kennedy Center Award. Taylor's damehood (DBE) is substantive, not honorary!. HOT L Baltimore 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please. Regardless of the legal standards--which are apparently none too clear, as the above postings indicate--Elizabeth Taylor all through her life has been American. She has lived in the United States, she has made her films here, she has married here, and has identified and been identified as American. British? Please. She was born in Britain, but she has all her life been American, regardless of legal issues. 66.108.4.183 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that she also has an American accent. User:Andrew Steller 3 May, 2007.

I have checked British nationality law, this is a very complex issue. She was cleary a British subject (which is not the same as a British citizen) when she was born, since at that time all children born on British soil (with very minor exceptions) were British subjects. Beyond that I would not like to say without clear sources, although "English-American" is a legitimate description of her general background. Contrary to popular belief, there is no law against US citizens using foreign titles, but there is a strong social convention against it, so we should not describe her as "Dame" unless we have reliable sources that she has used the title. PatGallacher 10:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning that a British Subject is not the same as a British Citizen, although technically correct, is misleading, because the status of British Citizen didn't exist until January 1, 1983. On that date people who had been British Subjects due to being born in the UK, suddenly found that they were now British Citizens, not Subjects. The definition of British Subject was also changed then to a different meaning. That's why they're not the same thing. But at the time Elizabeth Taylor was born, there was no such thing as a British Citizen.

People born in the UK when Elizabeth Taylor was born, were British Subjects, so that is what she was at birth and in 1983, her status would have changed to British Citizen, unless she had given up her British nationality prior to that date, which seems unlikely since her knighthood is not an honorary one. User:Steggall 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the term "honorary knighthood" a clearly defined one? Does it have any meaning other than a person with a knighthood who chooses not to use, or is legally constrained from using, the title Sir or Dame? She probably has dual nationality, but we could be straying into original research. Unless someone can produce evidence that she uses the title Dame, a biography of a US citizen should not suggest that they do not respect well-established US social conventions. PatGallacher 13:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly defined. And it doesn't have the meaning you suggest. It's near universal WP practice to use such titles, so unless you can provide evidence that she has renounced the use of the honorific or some such I'm going to revert your removal of it. Proteus (Talk) 16:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this term is clearly defined can you show me anywhere where this clear definition exists? Can you also show me the Wikipedia guideline where it says it is practice to use these titles? We do have a Wikipedia guideline which says we should be careful about what we say in biographies of living people. We do not describe the Duchess of Cornwall as Princess of Wales, even though she is. As she is a US citizen and resident there should be a presumption that she has followed the US convention on these matters in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If we cannot resolve this I may raise a Request for Comment. PatGallacher 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should the convention of one country over rule the legality of another. Simple - it doesn't. This is not a US website, its a worldwide website and legality trumps any form of social convention. See the link Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes, point 4. All knights and dames should have title at start of article, except if they are honourary, which Taylor's is not. --UpDown 09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted as nobody has replied to this in around 23 hours. If this is further reverted without clear sources I may raise my concerns at the "biographies of living persons" notice board. PatGallacher 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, by describing her as "Dame" we are implying that she is not entitled to stand for federal office in the US, under article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution. PatGallacher 08:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say in Wikipedia guidelines that legality trumps convention? Wikipedia is indeed a worldwide encyclopedia, but like most people we should normally respect the conventions of a country where someone is ordinarily resident. Also, I am not aware of any law obliging anyone to use a title. PatGallacher 09:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious. You are using your POV, saying convention is right. It is not, legality is. The link I said before is correct. If you revert again I shall have to report you for ignoring Wiki guidelines because of your POV. You are being greatly biased, ignoring British law because of US convention. That is POV and grossly unacceptable. And what part of "All knights and dames should have title at start of article, except if they are honourary, which Taylor's is not.", based on the MoS is not clear. --UpDown 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you ignore the very, very clear MoS guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 5). You are vandalising by totally ignoring this. She is often known as Dame Elizabeth Taylor, especially in Britian, and she is entitled to it. I'm afraid if you revert again I will report this, because the MoS is very clear. --UpDown 14:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you produce evidence that she is often known as Dame Elizabeth Taylor? If so, we are in a different situation. PatGallacher 15:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with evidence. It the clear MoS (located here - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes, point 4 - not the link above, that was wrong) that is important. Why should this be ignored. It isn't for anyone else's. The fact she hold US citizenship is irrelevant, she is a British citizen, and a DBE so under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes, point 4, putting Dame in article title is totally correct. --UpDown 15:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't even about whether or not she actually uses the title. Laurence Olivier was knighted, and later raised to the peerage, but he insisted on being called Larry by all and sundry, and he did not allow his film credits to refer to him as "Sir Laurence Olivier" or "Lord Olivier". Nevertheless, he was undeniably British and only British, and he was entitled to use these titles if he wanted to, and it was always correct to refer to him as, firstly, Sir Laurence Olivier, and later Lord Olivier. Liz Taylor was given a substantive damehood, not an honorary one, because she holds British citizenship (whether or not she also holds US or Martian citizenship is beside the point). She may not personally use the title "Dame", but it's correct for us to refer to her as "Dame Elizabeth Taylor". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

She uses "DameElizabeth" on her own Twitter account ([1].--SparkleCents (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth 'Liz' Taylor Retired?

I just want to know since it looks like she hadn't done any films(including TV movies)since 2001.So i like to knew if she had retired from acting or just taking a 'long' break.Thanks.

I don't really think Miss Taylor is so interested in acting any more, from what interviews I have heard.Gareth E Kegg 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet she is stunning beyond belief. Look at any of her films from the 1950's.Edison 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is she going to die [soon]?

I have heard many people saying she looks extremly unhealthy, and I have read many articles against her claims on Larry King (four months ago) that she was perfectly healthy. On Larry King she looked like she was sick at that time. If you have seen recent pictures of her she is extremly pale and she looks almost like she is going to die. Anyone feel to rip at these claims? -24.92.46.16 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We are ALL going to die, DUMBSHIT! All that matters is with how much class.Edison 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that Larry King looks unhealther than any of his guests, its quite a strech to compare them. ( with the exception of Keith Richards. He looks like he's been dead for years ). 173.8.65.213 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)--

Little angry there, bub? Air.dance 07:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Her Mom lived to 99, she could be around a lot longer.

Everyone is going to die- the mortality rate of being born is 100% ;) Naysie 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

i thought a few biblical guys didn't die, like elijah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.146.160 (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They have been sayting she is going to die soon since the early 1990s and she is still alive, but she is becoming a little senile and looks extremely pale. Elizabeth could live another 20 years or another 20 minutes, it doesn't matter because everybody dies. People should appreciate her while while she is still around because she is one of America's greatest actresses and she is still alive unlike most of the other great actresses of her time. User:Andrew Steller 3 May, 2007.

To Put This Matter In Perspective:

Taylor has Congestive Heart Failure. This is progressive and does not abate until the death of the person. Medicines can slow down this progression thus enabling the person to live longer. Congestive Heart Failure manifests itself in various ways: edema in the lungs; in body tissue; or, particularly, in the lower extremities...the ankles and feet.

What causes Congestive Heart Failure? Heart desease; occluded arterties, alcoholism, multiple infections, including sepsis, and multiple, and prolonged use of medications, drugs, ect., ect.

Taylor now uses a wheelchair because she is fatigued and walking is difficult because the heart cannot pump sufficient amounts of blood to her legs, and particularly, to her her feet. Her legs and feet fill up with fluid and their swelling can move upwards the heart. Her lungs can fill up thus making it difficult for her to take in oxygen and expell carbon dioxide. This is a type of suffication.

Therefore, Taylor is dying but slowly as her ailments are, collectively, progressive, and shall abate only by her death. She does exhibit senility, at times, and does shake.

[--Above posted by I have no idea who, just to make it clear it is not my addition, my note is the one sentence below.]

It is perfectly possible to get congestive heart failure as one ages simply from genetic predisposition, without any of the causes listed above.

Trudyjh (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Does anyone object to some picture changes? The National Velvet picture could easily be replaced by the cover of the movie, and one of the pictures really ought to be later. She was famous in the early 50s, but most of her fame was in the early 60s. I'd like to add a picture from Cat On A Hot Tin Roof or Cleopatra.67.169.111.72 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Could that lead image be anymore squashed? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we please get a better infobox image? The current one from Cleopatra is not of a high quality of any kind and does nothing but distract the reader from the article with its "squished" appearance.

--71.119.29.143 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Carnyfoke

It's an free PD image though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what that means.

--Carnyfoke 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Money out of Hilton?

What did she get in the divorce? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.44 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

general remarks

I'm disputing the neutrality: difficult considering she's an icon and one of the last living actresses of a golden age. I also tagged the Relationships With Parents section for lack of citation. I also wish to point out that the talk pages in wiki are about the article, not the subject. If you want to know what she got from a divorce then look it up somewhere else. Naysie 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Three children or four children?

Quoting the article: In 1964, she and Fisher started adoption proceedings for a daughter, whom Burton later adopted, Maria Burton (b. August 1, 1961). Shouldn't Maria be added under the names of her natural children in the box? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenont (talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Back accidents

I see no reference (in the main article page) to her accidents, falling from the horse while shooting The National Velvet, and then the collapse of the set in Cleopatra...

CielProfond 2007-09-16, 22:40UT —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Rebekah Bailey?

It says in the reference to Cleopatra that ET looks like her.

Albalb 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)ALB

I also wonder this. It seems out of place in the paragraph, and if this person were notable surely there would be a wikipedia article? I suspect that it's a vanity-prank of some sort and think we should remove it unless anyone knows that it is valid. LaPrecieuse 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I googled Rebekah Bailey and it came up with an interior design website. I have deleted the sentence because it is irrelevant to the article.

Ujm90 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Taylor's nationality

Regarding this diff, is being American defined by holding American citizenship only? To me the facts that she spent most of her life and did her work in US (and having been born to American parents) is at least as relevant as the passport she holds. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is maddening. I can find ample sources for either, though I like the paragraph directly after her birth. Let's call her Anglo-American Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of getting involved where I don't really want to be... she does appear to hold citizenship for both countries. British via jus soli and American via jus sanguinis: that is virtue of location of birth and virtue of citizenship by blood. It appears that she renounced citizenship, but regained it when married to Sen. Warner. You may want to stick with Anglo-American ;) CMacMillan (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree. As she was appointed DBE, we can safely assume she has some links to Blighty. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Purple Eyes?

It seems that the search "purple eyes" redirects to this page. What does Taylor have to do with purple eyes? DY (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The central aspect of her famed beauty is her unusual purple (most often referred to as violet) eyes. I'd almost wager a bet that she's more famous for her eyes than her acting, even. However, it obviously shouldn't redirect here, I dunno what's up with that -- it should redirect to eye color. I'll see about fixing it. Air.dance (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny you mention that, I've known this for years, but i came here searching more info on them, since having these violet eyes are very rare, yet no mention of them on the entire article. Now I ask, whats up with that? There should be at least a sentence about this, but since I have little real info on this I'd like to request someone with the knowledge to add a little bit on her eyes please.--Gakhandal (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article not make mention of her violet eyes? Should it be mentioned in the section before the Content...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTomahawk (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Italic text== 30 Rock == I will be happy to tell you about Elizabeth Taylors eyes.When I was 5-6 years (about 1957) old I was lucky enough to meet her at a fair in Peoria Il.My mother was terminally ill at a hospiatal there.Myself and some other children were taken to meet her and i got to sit on her lap.I looked up at her face and I have never forgotten "those eyes" not only the color but the shape.Big almond shaped and perfectly accented with those dark eyebrows.69.76.239.25 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody might want to mention Rachel Dratch's portrayal of Elizabeth Taylor in the episode Jack meets Dennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.135.26 (talk) 03:05, 9 January 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) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead?

Can someone confirm this, I can't locate anything on it online at the moment. If it's not true, please change the first line cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There are rumors on PerezHilton.com and i think they are basing the "death" on that. If there is no reliable source, please change it.

I was about to ask about this "death" too, as I've semi-protected the page to answer a request at requests for page protection; yet when I looked on the popular new sites, there was nothing. I've removed the mentions of death too, as it hasn't been sourced. Acalamari 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently PerezHilton got the information that she had died from Wikipedia. Either way, there is no confirmation of her death, and I sincerely doubt its truth. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true either: nothing has been reported. I'm going to leave the protection up for a few days, as it'll take about that long for any confusion or disruption to calm down. Acalamari 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfumes

Hi, I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Taylor has made more than 3 perfumes....at least, I know that there is a "Gardenia" perfume that's not mentioned here (I own it). So maybe someone could fix that and figure out just how many perfumes she produced. Jli08 (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Jli08

Beauty

was not Taylor regarded as the most beautiful woman in the world throughout the late forties-mid sixties? why is their nothing written about that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriages

I'm surprised how trimmed down the marriages section is, now merely a list of names and dates. The complete lack of details makes little sense for a woman famous for her numerous marriages and the many scandals/controversies surrounding most, if not, all of them. They are integral part of her fame and need some explaination.OwenSaunders (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, definitely redo it and include all the info germaine to an encyclopedic article. I have no idea why this article seems so whitewashed at present. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing information

The article lacks so much information relevant to her life that it fails to meet the neutral point of view criteria, which is very important, and necessary, to Wikipedia. Most of the huge number of her health problems and medical operations are not mentioned, nor is her heavy drinking. Many media sources state she attempted suicide in the early 1960s. The article should cover the problems she had in her various marriages - it is rare, even for a celebrity, to divorce so many times. Her many marriages and multiple major health issues have gained a huge amount of media coverage, so much so that she is known as much for her personal life as she is for her acting. To delete large amounts of true and relevant info about her means that the reader is not sufficiently informed by the article, which is currently too short for someone who has been a world-famous and successful celebrity for many decades. F W Nietzsche (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Article was referenced in a WP:COIN incident because User:Guttmanpr (a PR agency) has made edits which violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Please check for related issues. -- samj _in^out 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image changes & other edits

Why would anyone come in and arbitrarily change the images on the page to ones with little to no context in the sections? The section "Transition into adult roles: 1949–1954" begins with discussion about her first box office success in an adult role, accompanied by a very good screenshot from that film. Instead, that image was changed to one from the very last film in the section, with her name plastered across it, which is described as "only slightly better than her previous pictures" and only "somewhat successful at the box office."

In the section "Superstardom: 1955–1970", an image from one of the biggest films of that time period, Cleopatra, was exchanged for one from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and the Cleopatra stuck in a place that causes the image to straddle two sections. Finally, each time that editor changes something on this page, some of the dates are changed from the display used in Britain (dmy) to US (mdy) in violation of WP:ENGVAR. There is no consensus for these changes, which have been reverted by three different editors. At what point does this become tenditious editing on the part of that editor? Now? Last revert? The one before that? I also note that the editor has never once posted on this talk page. There are very big issues with conduct like this. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Icon" ???

I'm sorry but the heading "Icon: 1970-present" is simply ridiculous. Sure it was not her prime, but I don't think its right to list paragraphs upon paragraphs that sum up on a few years in each of the above section, then sum up the last 40 years of her career as "icon". this needs to be broken up.Excuseme99 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

default image

Several users, such as WildHartLive, have pushed for more recent photos on other pages. So why is her default picture 53 years old when there are plenty of more recent photos available on wiki commons?Excuseme99 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme, do not single me out as some point in trying to construct a rationale argument. You make no rationale argument whatsoever. You came in, arbitrarily moved around a bunch of images, despite the fact that three other editors have reverted your changes and gave reasons for having done so. There was no consideration to why the images you changed were placed where they were, nor a solid reason given for your changes. Secondly, either learn to write my username properly or do not write it. Thirdly, I render opinions on a case by case basis. I have never solely advocated for a more recent photo anywhere. Finally, this is an inappropriate way to attempt to discuss something - you're just complaining with no foundation other than "it happened here". The first time you made those changes [2], you left no rationale. After I reverted it, you actually had the nerve to complain that I didn't leave an edit summary and reverted it wholesale to the previous version [3]. Each time you've done this, despite more than one editor disagreeing, you've just reverted to the same version you first edited [4] [5] [6], and yet, you find a different reason to argue for the same changes in your edit summaries. Some of them contain personal attacks, some argue something unrelated and some are illogical. And yet, you have never made a post to this page until today. This narrowminded view that your changes are the consensus is wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Icon" ???

I'm sorry but the heading "Icon: 1970-present" is simply ridiculous. Sure it was not her prime, but I don't think its right to list paragraphs upon paragraphs that sum up on a few years in each of the above section, then sum up the last 40 years of her career as "icon". this needs to be broken up.Excuseme99 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

default image

Several users, such as WildHartLive, have pushed for more recent photos on other pages. So why is her default picture 53 years old when there are plenty of more recent photos available on wiki commons?Excuseme99 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme, do not single me out as some point in trying to construct a rationale argument. You make no rationale argument whatsoever. You came in, arbitrarily moved around a bunch of images, despite the fact that three other editors have reverted your changes and gave reasons for having done so. There was no consideration to why the images you changed were placed where they were, nor a solid reason given for your changes. Secondly, either learn to write my username properly or do not write it. Thirdly, I render opinions on a case by case basis. I have never solely advocated for a more recent photo anywhere. Finally, this is an inappropriate way to attempt to discuss something - you're just complaining with no foundation other than "it happened here". The first time you made those changes [7], you left no rationale. After I reverted it, you actually had the nerve to complain that I didn't leave an edit summary and reverted it wholesale to the previous version [8]. Each time you've done this, despite more than one editor disagreeing, you've just reverted to the same version you first edited [9] [10] [11], and yet, you find a different reason to argue for the same changes in your edit summaries. Some of them contain personal attacks, some argue something unrelated and some are illogical. And yet, you have never made a post to this page until today. This narrowminded view that your changes are the consensus is wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the European date format used?

Yes, she was born in Europe, but she was raised in America and most likely used the mm/dd/yyyy format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NKS22 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How ironic that, for date posted, your entry reads: 07:06, 28 June 2009

Good.

Guv2006 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Retired?

Is Dame Liz Taylor in Retirement or does she just do things periodically? I read she may be coming back on the small screen to do sitcoms...Is this true? She is amazing Jdcrackers (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New marriage

US Weekly informed on Friday April 9th that she is planning on getting married to his long time companion Jason Winters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.199.71.26 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If she marries Jason Winters it will be her eighth husband and her ninth marriage. Please correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.228.224 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lung cancer

The article should mention her battle with lung cancer in 1975. (92.13.213.218 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Only if there is some proof. Jim Michael (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anglo

?

Did Taylor have her DNA tested to confirm she is part of this Angle tribe who 'invaded' Britain?

No?

Should she not then be classed as born in England rather than 'Anglo-American', in regards her surname being of 'Norman' (Norse) origin rather than 'British' or 'Anglo' ?

A change of nationality is not a change of origin! (according to the BNP)

Anglo-American is a the term usually applied to someone (or something) that is of both United States of America and the United Kingdom origins. For example in diplomacy, Anglo-American relations. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Anglo-American) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.91.116 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

She was born in England, but that does not make her English in view of the fact her parents were living there at the time. When she was born British nationality would have been her right on grounds of birth however. Americans might like to know that those of us who are British but not English (ie Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish) do not like the term "Anglo" to refer to things that are British! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.181.148 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Heart surgery

Miss Elizabeth Taylor announced on her twitter page today she is going in for heart surgery. Should this be noted? I think considering her age and past health battles - I think it should be. I don't know, maybe I'm just a very worried fan :) Chriskardashian 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection / surname of character

• 22:48, 25 June 2008 Acalamari protected Elizabeth Taylor ‎ (Likely target due to event [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I protected this article over a year ago due to when someone mentioned that she had died. Tony Sidaway has said on my talk page that he reckons this should be unprotected, as it's been over a year now. I don't mind if this is unprotected or not. What do others think? Acalamari 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm in favor of reviewing semiprotection. Like Acalamari I would like to hear comments from regular editors before doing anything. --TS 05:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is still protected, would someone please edit an error? In the section in re Tayler's early roles, she is stated as playing "Helen Burrowes" in "Jane Eyre". The character's name is "Helen Burns". Tredzwater (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet, you spell Taylor as "Tayler". What possible credence could we place in a post like that? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? the fact that the OP misspelled a word on a talk page is more important to you than the fact that the article has a mistake? You could have, I don't know...maybe checked the veracity of his suggestion instead of getting petty. here, let me google that for you: [12] [13] --Uzetaab (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, the part of Jane Eyre's friend Helen Burns is played in the 1944 version of the film by the actress Elizabeth Taylor. Helen's surname is Burns NOT Burrows, as stated in Elizabeth Taylor's Wikipedia entry. 86.151.98.148 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC) It is even listed as Helen Burns in the Wikipedia entry for the film. Seriously, children, even if Tredzwater *did* commit a typo, the character of Helen Burns is well-known enough that having her name wrong in this biography undermines it. If you find IMDB sufficient "verification", you can find Taylor's credit as Helen Burns here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036969/fullcredits#cast.

Additionally, although Wjhonson removed the grossly plagiarized paragraphs from Heymann's biography of Taylor as detailed below, the resulting edited paragraph now makes reference to "Hopper" without an antecedent reference to columnist Hedda Hopper. 65.96.173.41 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The main picture

Looks colorized. Somebody oughta look into that. There are plenty of genuine color photos of Liz, why would someone upload a colorized one? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Taylor converted to Judaism? http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/Elizabeth_Taylor.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.239.146 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This site lists several WP:RS on her reasons for converting and surely more can be found for a couple sentence paragraph. (I'm watching her play a Jewish girl in movie Ivanhoe right now.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Large sections of the "Early Years" are plagiarized almost word-for-word, here without the use of quotes and without naming the source, which is C. David Heymann's biography of her. I just happen to be reading that biography on her now, and immediately recognized the exact same statements here. When I get a few minutes, I'll have to go through and strike out or enquote those sections.Wjhonson (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph which is plagiarized almost word-for-word from a print biography of Taylor:

The Taylors climbed the proverbial social ladder with far greater ease in Hollywood than they had in London. Among some of Francis Taylor's earliest clientele in his Beverly Hills Hotel art gallery were some of Hollywood's leading stars, among them Howard Duff, Vincent Price, James Mason, Alan Ladd and Greta Garbo. Another high visibility client was Hollywood gossip columnist Hedda Hopper. Hopper's initial interest in visiting the gallery stemmed from a longstanding friendship she enjoyed with Thelma Cazalet-Keir. Cazalet-Keir who hosted Hopper whenever the latter visited London, wrote to her and asked if she wouldn't mind boosting the new gallery in her widely read newspaper column. In her column she not only plugged the gallery as a new must-see in the Los Angeles art world she also drew attention to Sara Taylor's ill-fated stage career as well as to her "beautiful eight-year-old daughter, Elizabeth." The columnist noted that producer David O. Selznick had not yet cast all the minor roles in his new picture Gone With The Wind, the most talked about motion picture epic in pre-production at that time. According to Hopper, although Taylor had never acted professionally, she seemed an excellent choice to play Bonnie Blue, the daughter of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler. The idea was straight away squelched by Francis Taylor who had no interest in letting his seven-year-old daughter pursue an acting career.

Wjhonson (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sindifizer, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} This link is dead

In October 2008, Taylor and Winters took a trip overseas to England. They spent time visiting friends, family and shopping.

Sindifizer (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Removed. -Atmoz (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Early years

The fourth paragraph begins with, "Through Hopper", even though there is no reference to a Hopper except of Jane Alexander playing the role of "Hedda Hopper" in the section headed 1980-2003.173.19.216.213 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding to that, there's no full identity for Vaccani either. 110.33.232.78 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth is retired from acting

Yes, Elizabeth Taylor is retired from acting. Although she still is very active in her fight against AIDS thru The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and AMFAR. As well as creator and designer for the House of Taylor - a fragrances and jewlery company a.k.a. The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company 201.29.204.135 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe because of her numerous health problems Elizabeth Taylor cannot be insured to work in films. 195.93.21.99 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, death is a serious impediment towards her acting career. Also, terrible use of quotation marks in 'Early Years' that I can't edit away due to her recent passing and my laziness to get an account. One of you wiki slaves should get to it and fix it (hint - single quotation marks are used for quotes within quotes, see the bit about her renouncing US citizenship.) 128.255.203.23 (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done It's been corrected. The "mis-quote" effect was caused by improper use of nested templates. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad one of us "wiki-slaves" (otherwise known as an "editor") was able to fix the quotation marks/nested template issue (which can be quite tricky) but I'd also like to point out to the IP editor making the comment above that the post they were partially responding to was almost 5 years old. Shearonink (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship

I don't know if what is claimed in the article about Taylor holding dual UK/US citizenship is accurate. I believe she renounced her U.S. citizenship when she married Richard Burton, and now, although long resident in the U.S., holds a "green card" via her marriage to Senator Warner. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually this confirms it, but I would like a consensus of some sort before changing the article on this point. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The link at MentalFloss does NOT confirm it. It states that she failed to perform the renunciation correctly, despite her intention to renounce. Besides, she still resides in the USA, yes? Hardly the action of one who wishes to seriously renounce citizenship. 14.200.32.78 (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Safe to say that she held dual citizenship at birth, because both of her parents were American and she was born in England. According to "The Elizabeth Taylor Archives", at various times in her life she gave up and renewed both her British and American citizenships, and they claim she held both passports. Not the best source for us, but does answer this question - better sourcing would be a good idea. Tvoz/talk 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See the Talk Page archives. This issue was covered and resolved earlier.  —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ValleyPoet, 23 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Through Hopper" to "Through Hedda Hopper" ValleyPoet (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ValleyPoet (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.234.145.178, 23 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

It would be great to mention that she was surrounded by her children at the time of her death - same footnote citation used for her death.

216.234.145.178 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Jjron. — Bility (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 32.97.152.254, 23 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please clarify what you mean by adopted under Taylor's children...Maria Burton (born August 1, 1961; adopted 1964)

32.97.152.254 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor adopted her in 1964, what is your question? Also, please don't use the {{edit semi-protected}} to ask a question; the template is used to notify other editors that you want to make an edit to the article. The reference desk may be able to shed some more light on your inquiry. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Smoking

I believe the article should mention the fact that Elizabeth Taylor was a heavy smoker from at least the age of eighteen, since this was almost certainly the cause of her congestive heart failure that eventually resulted in her death. (HantersSpade (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

If it's a fact she was a heavy smoker, that might rate a mention. But do you have a citation for the link between her smoking and her heart failure? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Smoking is the main cause of heart problems. Elizabeth Taylor admitted smoking at least twenty cigarettes a day. This, combined with her many years of excessive drinking, is what caused her congestive heart failure. (HantersSpade (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

You still need a citation for the link between her smoking and her heart failure, otherwise it's WP:OR. --John KB (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Look up congestive heart failre on this site - cigarette smoking is the primary cause. (HantersSpade (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

You still don't get it . Read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:SYNTH. It's not about what you believe, it's about what you can verify. --John KB (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Burton's article mentions that smoking caused his death. (HantersSpade (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Let me explain it to you. Yes, it is true that, in general terms, smoking brings with it a risk of heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema etc. That's undisputed. But we cannot say, in a particular case, that their smoking DID cause their heart disease, unless we have a citation from some medical authority who actually examined the person concerned and made that specific finding. Without that, we do not know that smoking was the precise cause of Liz Taylor's heart disease. It may have been, it may not have been. Only the medical people know. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For all you speculators weighing in on this matter, individuals who are non-smokers can succumb to congestive heart failure. Although one of my relatives liked to puff on a cigarette a day — but did not inhale and was considered a non-smoker for medical purposes — he nonetheless died of congestive heart failure. As far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, stick to the documented facts. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Burton played Cesar not Mark Antony

Richard Burton played Cesar in Cleopatra not Mark Antony as noted in this article. Patmillar (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rex Harrison played Julius Caesar in the film. (HantersSpade (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Mark Antony was a contemporary, Caesar was a few years older. 92.7.212.136 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea what that comment means. Burton played Marc Antony, Harrison played Julius Caesar. Tvoz/talk 01:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Last husband

This article makes no reference to Elizabeth Taylor's current husband Jason Winters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.164.227 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

She never married him. Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth

According to Ancestry.co.uk Liz Taylor was born in Hendon, not Hampstead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.54.171 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

She and her brother's births were registered in Hendon. Were births in Hampstead at that time registered in Hendon? Jim Michael (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Ancestry.com is really not what we consider a reliable source - according to the Walker biography, Elizabeth: The Life of Elizabeth Taylor, her parents lived in London's Golders Green, not Hampstead, at her birth, and she was registered in Hendon, which may be what Ancestry.com is referring to. So in fact I'm taking out the Hampstead reference, unless a better source is found to support it, and leaving it as London. Tvoz/talk 01:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Color infobox photo

I restored the screencap image of Taylor from the film "Giant" in the header. It's an iconic image of her from a notable film, and is far superior to the b&w images that appeared earlier. The woman was most famous for her violet-colored eyes, so how could you use a b&w photo where they're not even visible? Also if you trace the history of the photo, you'll see that it's also been used by over 100 places on various Wikipedia/Wikimedia. My guess is because it captures Taylor so well. Any thoughts anyone? Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can locate something better...the screen cap is fairly and visibly of low resolution...is there any other alternatives already existing? Connormah (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly better than the B&W one. --John KB (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked over at Commons, and there was surprisingly little to choose from. But from what was available, this was a pretty easy choice for the header, even with the low res. If there is a better res, more current color photo that we can access and conveys the same spirit, I'd be pefectly willing to support it. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

British or American date style?

I think we should use the America date style (MONTH-DAY-YYYY) because Elizabeth has long lived in the United States. Thoughts?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with it. If there are any objections, please voice them here. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, you go ahead with the birdbrained American date style.--2.99.241.156 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spoken like a genuine idiot. I'd call you a birdbrain but I don't want to insult birds.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.21.156 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would like the "American" date style to be deprecated system wide. The majority of the world either uses ascending sequence (today being 23 March 2011) or descending sequence (2011-03-23). I don't see this is a regional issue, given that there are plenty of us that use one of the standards even in the US where, admittedly, a large number of civilians use the mixed sequence. Vanhorn (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Filmography article

The filmography page (separate article) should be divided into Films and television (and others if necessary) and tv shows and others, right now they are all together with no mention of what's what. Dollvalley (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. I've moved it from the abortion of a title it previously had. Lugnuts (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

sorry to see you go.

why can't I add stuff, there's a grammatical error. Kewlarticle (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, it's because I'm a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlarticle (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the error? Jim Michael (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

Should the first line include "Liz"? Or maybe that should be in quotation marks twice. Reading her obituaries in various publications today it was almost unanimous that she hated that name and that anyone who was on good terms with her always called her Elizabeth. I'm sure there were plenty of media references to "Liz Taylor", and it's appropriate to list it under "Other names", but it seems wrong to include it in the primary reference at the start of the page. Vanhorn (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. But just because someone might dislike their nickname doesn't instantly negate the likelihood that they might still be well-known by that nickname. Perhaps you can include some of your sources in the article or just link them here for discussion first? It might make an interesting factoid. X4n6 (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanhorn is right that sources say she hated the nickname - see the NYT obit, for example. Since she didn't call herself thusly, I think we'd be better off following the example of John F. Kennedy, Jr. regarding "John-John" - I'm going to try it that way and see how it flies. But while we're at it, I'm not too sure about the linked "Dame" in the first line. Tvoz/talk 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Between Friends (1983 film)

I found the article on Elizabeth Taylor to be perfect -- informative, concise, everything an article should be. I just wanted to mention one more movie that Elizabeth Taylor starred in, I believe in the mid-80s -- "Between Friends", with Carol Burnett. It's a sleeper, maybe for women of a particular age only, and I loved it - Liz was, as usual, wonderful in it! Thanks for listening - 184.10.96.230 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC) (Kathy Wilson)

It doesn't have an article. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.194.69.177, 24 March 2011 - Dame Elizabeth Taylor was born in Hampstead, north-west London, 1932.

{{edit semi-protected}}

87.194.69.177 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Under marriages, the second mentioning of Richard Burton is not linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk1007 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done--this is Wikipedia style: first time it's mentioned we link, and sometimes again if there's a lot of text in between two mentions and the second is significant. Not the case here - the link is directly above. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Tvoz/talk 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

2003-2011

The forth and fifth paragraphs repeat themselves in subsection 1.6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.236.224 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish

Ive noticed here that few say she was a jewish actress.That adjective isnt used as it is infact used in wikipedia to describe groucho marx,jack benny,milton bearle and even steven speilberg, alot of walmart type guys.Now it doesnt seem right to use it on liz taylor maybe because she was Glamorous and more of a Bloomingdales type.That doesnt quite fit a jew many think..to be glamorous.However id like to be the first to say that it does infact fit very well on jews and specifically on loren becall as well as on liz taylor.raquel samper.murcia spain.Glamorous jews arent pretending to be nonjews.They are being what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a very odd comment, and not pertinent to the improvement of the article. Please don't use this space as a forum. (And we do say she was a convert to Judaism.) Tvoz/talk 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says she converted to Judaism. Did she remain Jewish for the rest of her life? Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. She said it was a spiritual decision, done for her beliefs, and in 2001, many years after her conversion, she said she was Jewish (Larry King interview). Why would you think she didn't remain so for the rest of her life? Tvoz/talk 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have been done for marriage for instance. Successful Jews, unlike other American groups when they become successful, become more Jew. They reverse assimilate. If you look at every other ethnic group the more they assimilate the more they become American and shed their original "skin.". The opposite with Jews. The more successful the more proud of Jew and outright loyalty to Israel they become. Plus, it is odd that you convert for purely spiritual reasons. To be a Jew means to be part of a people. You cannot separate the two. Ask your Jew friends. Additional questions are raised by such a successful gentile converting in a Jew dominated industry. You even see it now with the likes of Madonna and other very successful entertainment goyim. Why? These are very interesting questions and so should be asked.99.38.147.123 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not here they shouldn't. Try reading the box at the top.. This is not a forum for general discussion of Elizabeth Taylor.. Nor Jews nor anything else other than the article itself. Take your off-topic rantings elsewhere. Any further comments of this type will be removed. -- œ^™ 13:54, 24 March 2011

Excuse me?? If this whole line of discussion was odd from the beginning, which I would agree with, then you should have nipped in the bud this subsection. Instead, I am not "ranting" but engaging in a dialog that started well before me. Aren't there some Wiki rules such as treating people with respect?? Please treat me with respect. The issue of her conversion is glossed over or has very little follow up information. That is the core issue here as I see it. So instead of insulting me and spreading hate and negative emotion, being the "super" Wikipedian that you are, perhaps you can do your duty and contribute more to her "Conversion" Question. Thanks you. But deleting my posts, which I restored is not the way to handle the situation.99.38.147.123 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the disrespectful 'rantings' comment and struck it out. To any all posters, let's try to keep discussion focused on article improvement please. Thanks. -- œ^™ 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.175.128.49, 25 March 2011

Y Please change "was considered" to "is considered" in the sentence below because although being deceased, Liz Taylor's reputation would be mentioned in the present tense. Taylor, a two-time winner of the Academy Award for Best Actress, was considered one of the great screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age. The sentence above should read: Taylor, a two-time winner of the Academy Award for Best Actress, is considered one of the great screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age. 173.175.128.49 (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)  Done Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 08:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maria Burton

Is there really any need for Maria Burton to be listed as "addopted" in the children section of the side bar? I'm sure that it is mentioned that she is addopted in the biographical text but labeling her "addopted" has nothing to do with weather she is Elizabeth's daughter or not and i don't see other children being labelled that way on for example Richard Burton's page. --Duphin (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you and removed it from the infobox - she was adopted as a small child, and we correctly and appropriately indicate her year of birth and year of adoption in the "children" section. But if we're not showing birth years in the infobox for any of the children, I see no reason for "adopted" there. Tvoz/talk 23:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange omission

Her appeal stems from not only her professional career but also her personal life; they are inseparable. It is very odd (and very artificial) that they are not intertwined in this article. Angry bee (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean, specifically. Tvoz/talk 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Previously this article was markly inferior to the New York Time's obituary which I had read prior to Wikipedia's. Angry bee (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hampstead?

{{edit semi-protected}} Elizabeth Taylor, actress. Birthdate: February 27th 1932 (not 1942 as stated elsewhere) Birthplace: Hampstead, north-west London, England Deathdate: March 23nd 2011. Deathplace: Cedars Sinai Medical Centre, Los Angelas, California. 87.194.69.177 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done unless you have a reliable source that states she was born in Hampstead. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Multiple reliable sources confirm it. Thanks for pointing it out 87.194.69.177. X4n6 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See above -at least one biography specifically makes a point about her parents living in Golders Green, not Hampstead. (See pages 4 and 10 of Elizabeth: The Life of Elizabeth Taylor by Alexander Walker - I think a preview may be available on Google books.) But it is true that lots of reliable sources say Hampstead - my preference here therefore would be to just say "London" which no one disagrees with, as both Golders Green and Hampstead are sections of that city, and that specific detail is not so significant. Thoughts? Tvoz/talk 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Was she born at home or in hospital? If the latter, it is not unlikely that she was born a mile or two from where her parents lived at the time. It is also likely that her birth was registered a mile or two from where she was born. Hampstead, Hampstead Garden Suburb, Hendon and Golders Green are all within a couple of miles of each other in north-west London. Jim Michael (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Her parents may have lived elsewhere at some point either before or after her birth, but multiple sources already used in the article even list the address of the house she was born in - in Hampstead Garden Suburb, which is neither Golders Green nor Hampstead but another London suburb. Clearly London alone is vague. That's like saying New York, without specifying which borough. Or saying Los Angeles when you mean Santa Monica, Burbank or Malibu. It does make a difference. Seems to me that if we are not specific, we're just inviting endless debate from editors who will want that specificity. We have the correct info now. Best to just use it and leave it. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for the address that she was born at, and they say she was born at home, then those details should be stated in the Early years section. Jim Michael (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The home address and the info that she was born at home were both referenced in reliable sources aleady contained in the article. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also added the home's name - Heathwood. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Early years

This paragraph seems odd and out of place...Maybe add to Personal life/Religion?

Biographer Alexander Walker suggests that Elizabeth's conversion to Judaism at the age of 27 and her life-long support for Israel, may have been influenced by views she heard at home. Walker notes that Cazalet actively campaigned for a Jewish homeland, and her mother also worked in various charities, which included sponsoring fundraisers for Zionism. Her mother recalls the influence that Cazalet had on Elizabeth: Victor sat on the bed and held Elizabeth in his arms and talked to her about God. Her great dark eyes searched his face, drinking in every word, believing and understanding.[9]:14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedtwo (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave

WP:ELNEVER - Could all keep an eye on Find a grave link inclusion here -- i have removed it Elizabeth Taylor - Find a Grave because it links to a copyvio image from time life magazine see here image was done in 1971 thus is still copyrighted --> Copyrights, Trademarks and Other Proprietary Rights..Moxy (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the image isn't even on wikipedia but find a grave does it really matter? --Duphin (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

pls see WP:ELNEVER for an essay on the topic see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites were there is ongoing talks about find a grave on the talk pages. Moxy (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, can you summarize those talk discussions about Find-a-grave or at least tell us what the current prevailing wisdom is? Far too much to wade through. Thanks Tvoz/talk 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• As an external link: * Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves. However never link to copyright violations on Wikipedia.
• As a reliable source: N Almost never. It should never by cited if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia (WP:FORK and WP:CIRCULAR).
• Common issues:

1. Some editors consider it a type of fansite that is not written by a recognized expert (ELNO #11).
2. Some pages contain copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK). Find a Grave requests that copyright violations be reported to info@findagrave.com with a link to the relevant page or image. Never link to copyright violations on Wikipedia.
3. Some editors say it should generally be avoided as an External link because it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article (ELNO #1).
4. Some editors believe that if reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include.
5. Find-a-Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by volunteers is not vetted (WP:QS).
6. Find-A-Grave contains dates of birth, death and place of burial, material which is frequently not cited by other sources in an article (even though it is in theory available from other sources). Since it's not a reliable source, it should not be cited as a source, but having an external link allows others to find where information comes from. Such material is rarely controversial (WP:CHALLENGE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

Thank you, Moxy, for that summary - it is essentially what my reaction to seeing find-a-grave cited has long been, so I'm glad to see this. So for this article, it seems to me we do not need Find-a-grave as either a citation or an external link - we already have ample reliable sourcing for anything that F-a-g has. Am I missing anything? Tvoz/talk 21:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You got it - this may not apply to all the find a grave links but it does in this case.Moxy (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Am wondering if it might help to say "Converted to Judaism" for the infobox. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - she was Jewish for most of her life, strongly identified as Jewish, and we don't usually indicate conversion in the infobox. See Sammy Davis, Jr., for example. Tvoz/talk 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Christian Science (1932-1959); Judaism (1959-2011) would be better. Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would endorse your idea, Jim Michael. I think it's succinct and factually accurate. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no precedent for this on other pages for converts, so I'd like to understand what the impetus for it on this one is. She self-identified as Jewish for most of her life, and we usually go with self-identification for ethnicity, etc., as long as reliable sources support it. So what makes this biography different? I don't have a strenuous objection to it, but also don't get why it's being suggested. What is it we need to "help" (per Wikiwatcher1 above)? Tvoz/talk 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A change of religion, especially when taken by someone who at the time is famous, is a major change that I think it relevant enough to include in the infobox. The wording I suggested above makes it clear that she converted. Jim Michael (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have a horse in this race either. I would simply offer that if a religious conversion is "notable" - perhaps we should note it. As for the Sammy Davis conversion, since it was mentioned it earlier, I took a look. Honestly, that article needs work, so I would find any precedent based on it problematic. But I can certainly live with whatever you folks decide. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that a change of religion is at least as momentous, if not more so, than a change of spouse, all of whom are listed. Something like "Christian Science; Judaism after 1959," for example, could work. It's included in the main body, so having both in the Infobox could help the bio. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My wording makes it clear that she was a Christian Science adherant for the first 27 years of her life, then converted to Judaism, which she remained for the rest of her life. Jim Michael (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok - as I said, I have no strenuous objections. By the way, I didn't read the Sammy Davis piece, just looked at the infobox. I don't doubt it needs work - all too often these bios get the most attention when their subjects are in the news, usually because they've died. But then, that's when the traffic here soars, so better late than never. Have you looked at our article numbers in the last few days, as compared to before she died? 186,000 views in January 2011, 440,000 views in February 2011, over 4 million views from March 23-26. Extraordinary. Tvoz/talk 04:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"She self-identified as Jewish for most of her life, and we usually go with self-identification for ethnicity, etc., as long as reliable sources support it." I think religion should be treated more like nationality, which can change over a person's life, instead of ethnicity (which comes from your parents and can't be changed). Banaticus (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF

I thought anyone could edit this encyclopedia. That's not entirely true! IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can, the difference is that not everyone should. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And what am I supposed to get from that? IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That not everyone should edit this article. If you want to, edit ten times and wait 4 days. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but those examples don't mean that was my intention. IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you can add a {{editsemiprotected}} to this talkpage for the change(s) you want to perform meanwhile you are able to edit this Taylor's page. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} It is a small change that I wish to add. I want to be a small part of her story as a form of respect. Where the sentence says: "One of their closest friends in England, Colonel Victor Cazalet, had an important influence on the family." I propose starting with the preposition making the sentence read: "Of their closest friends in England, Colonel Victor Cazalet, had an important influence on the family." Again I just wish to be part of her story. So tell me, could I do that? IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have done this edit for me. I am sad that my username does not get attribution for the edit. Essentially I haven't added my small respect by showing an edit in my name. So I will wait until such a time when I can. Unless an administrator wants to show good faith and confirm my account now. It Couldn't hurt to ask. Thanks IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is an improvement. The statement above seems to mean that the Colonel was the only of their friends to have an influence. I'm fairly sure this is not the meaning that is intended. If I'm wrong, undo my edit. It now reads "Colonel Victor Cazalet, one of their closest friends, had an important influence on the family." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliff (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting the sentence with the subject seems fine. In the other arrangement, "One" seemed out of place to the preposition. I don't object that you have found a better alternative. IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No such thing as "a congestive heart"

Toward the end, the article mentions that Elizabeth has "a congestive heart". There is no such thing. What she has is "congestive heart failure". This refers to congestion of blood flow throughout the body, especially the legs, caused by the failure of the heart to pump efficiently. The heart itself is not "congested". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.56.198 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

you should just change obviously wrong stuff like this, rather than slogging away at the discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.57.184 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't make changes to articles while they're semi-protected. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the Illness and Death section, it states, "The mutation that gave Taylor her striking double eyelashes may also have contributed to her history of heart trouble". Can you kindly explains how a "mutation" involving "double eyelashes" is a sign of heart trouble? If that can't be briefly explained, we may consider dropping that sentence as it's just a distraction otherwise. V Schauf (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Eyes

"Elizabeth Taylor was born with two rare mutations that affected her eyes and gave her unrepeatable look." "Unrepeatable look" sounds strange. Can someone fix it?72.152.142.104 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone else could have similar features, although they are unusual. How about 'distinctive appearance'. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with whoever removed that paragraph altogether -but I added the violet eyes in the intro as they are mentioned in many, many sources. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that her eyes need to be mentioned. Good job on your edit Tvoz! Now can we also get agreement that the header photo at least needs to be in COLOR to show those eyes? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should have at least one picture in color if the color of her eyes is clear! But I also do like the current infobox shot, so would add rather than subtract. Tvoz/talk 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a few minutes. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the old one we used earlier, even though it has low res issues, just for now. I also found these:

http://www.fullissue.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/elizabeth-taylor.jpg

http://sportsvideohighlights.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Hollywood-Actress-Elizabeth-Taylor-died-23-March-2011.jpg

- but I don't know their copyright status. If anyone would like to research them or work to find suitable color ones, I'd like to help. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally don't like either one. The first one is squarish and badly cropped; 2nd one looks artificial. Eye color is easily affected by the ambient lighting when the photo is taken, especially when outdoors. Sunny skies vs. clouds; sandy beach vs. green grass, all will change the eye color. Indoor studio lighting is totally artificial and the color temperature of the bulbs and reflectors, plus her clothing color, all have an effect. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But the eyes in the second one certainly are violet. First one looks blue to me, and that defeats the purpose. Tvoz/talk 02:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Compared to typical photos of her, the book cover looks Photoshopped, IMO. It's actually hard to capture exact eye color with photos. But a photo which expresses her overall image and personality, even without an exact color match, would seem like a safer choice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

But we couldn't use the book cover in any case due to copyright. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't notice it was a book cover - you're probably right that the color has been retouched to make the point. But I'm not sure that matters for our purposes though - why shouldn't we be able to use a photo that's been colorized, provided the copyright is clear, of course, and we're not doing the colorizing? I don't have a strong preference on this, by the way, other than that more is more. Tvoz/talk 05:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a fan of the current header/studio photo either. Or frankly, of ancient studio photos as headers to begin with. Because none really captures what we're looking for: a good color closeup of her violet eyes. We can talk about cropping, photoshopping, colorizing and the effect of the lighting all day. But in the end, as anyone who has Googled her images knows, this article should be overflowing with images of a remarkably photogenic and photographed woman; and getting a usable, quality shot of her violet eyes - where they actually look violet - still ain't easy. Quite probably, her eyes DID require some special lighting to fully capture. But the objective for the header photo remains the same - a not painfully dated, usable color closeup of those violet eyes. I'd like us to keep looking. By the way, if any of these meets with majority approval, I'll research them and see if any are usable. Thanks.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/elizabeth_taylor/taylor3_1024x768_jpg.jpg

http://news4usonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/PRN4-VIOLET-EYES-ELIZABETH-TAYLOR-1yHigh1-753x1024.jpg

http://cdn.evilbeetgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Elizabeth-Taylor-7.jpg

http://cdn.evilbeetgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/liz-taylor-15.jpg

http://cdn.evilbeetgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/liz-taylor-27.jpg

http://allin1dot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/elizabeth-taylor-eyes1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mbk0fUJ_i-U/TYpZDbu1INI/AAAAAAABro0/0bt2AdqqgOw/s400/elizabeth_taylor%2Bunknown.jpg

X4n6 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person working on finding a better header photo? X4n6 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's doubtful that her "striking violet eyes" were what she was "most notable" for. Above her acting? Above her looks? Needs support. Otherwise best to keep in body text. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You misread the sentence. The "striking violet eyes" comment referenced the notability of her beauty - not her many other attributes. So since you have good faith misread it, I've rewritten it for clarity. Also still working on getting a better header photo. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The rationale is understood, but I still see a problem even after the rephrasing. Before your edit, the lead paragraph ended with the words "extraordinary beauty." However, adding "as most evident in . . ." has the effect of taking away from the "beauty" and moving the focus to her "unusual and striking violet eyes." It's a good try, but after ending with "extraordinary beauty," the new phrase doesn't help. It's a hard act to follow.

In addition, the article describes her eyes as a "deep blue which appeared violet," so stating the color in the lead is somewhat misleading and better described later, where they are mentioned a number of times. It's also an attribute she is known for but which she had no control over. She did control her acting skills, career, personal life, and physical appearance. But I'm not sure she would have wanted to be remembered by an emphasis on her eye color, the gift from her parents.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could support your position if it were less inherently contradictory. Somehow "she had no control over" her eye color, because it was a "gift from her parents" - yet the beauty she was genetically blessed with - wasn't a "gift from her parents"? Logically how does that work? Besides, where is the source that supports your theory that "I'm not sure she would have wanted to be remembered by an emphasis on her eye color"? Because without support, such pure speculation has no place here. Even with that unavailable support, how would that matter to an encyclopedia? She was known for her violet eyes. That is an undeniable and abundantly sourced fact by itself. Her eyes could well have been deep blue, as sources in the article maintain - but that still does not change the fact that she was known for her violet eyes. How do we possibly not mention that?

And again, we still need a better header photo than a studio still that doesn't even focus on her beauty or her eyes - whatever their color. With all the great pictures already here, this article deserves an equally great headshot that clearly displays ALL of her famed beauty. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to "beauty" in a general sense: physical appearances; dress; makeup; hair styles; personality, mannerisms, etc. , things that she had control over. The comment you called a "theory," is better termed a "personal opinion." I didn't think the "IMO" notation was necessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that "beauty" is generally understood to be a genetic trait. Certainly one can build on it or detract from it, but the basis must be there and that basis is inherited. I think it's equally safe to say that whether you'd like to call it "theory" or "personal opinion", unsourced, neither has a place in editing here. And we still need a much better header photo. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of images

Dos mine eyes deceive me, or are there a tad few too many images in this article? Many of which are screen shots from her movies. I know that she was quite stunning to look at, but really. I mean really?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft for expanded lead

With a large biography as this is, it's probably difficult for many readers to get the gist of her career. The lead seems too short, IMO, and I assume that most visitors won't take the time to read the detailed body sections. So I took a few minutes to expand the lead and post it here for thoughts and edits. If there is an eventual consensus, we can post it. So feel free to comment and edit for clarity. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Dame Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, DBE (February 27, 1932 – March 23, 2011), often referred to as Liz Taylor, was an English-born American actress. She gained early fame as a child star when she was 10, becoming an integral part of MGM's stable of young stars, along with Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland and Margaret O'Brien. When she was 12, she won the hearts of film audiences worldwide in National Velvet (1944), alongside Rooney. By the time she was 30, she had become a movie icon, recognized not only as a talented and award-winning film star, but also for having a glamorous lifestyle and extraordinary beauty, exemplified in part by her stunning violet eyes.

Among her more than 50 films, were other classics such as the family comedy Father of the Bride, (1950) with Spencer Tracy, A Place in the Sun (1951) with Montgomery Clift, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), opposite Paul Newman, Oscar-winning BUtterfield 8 (1960), with Laurence Harvey, and her 2nd Oscar winning film Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), co-starring husband Richard Burton. In 1963 she starred in Cleopatra, also with Richard Burton, which is considered the most expensive movie ever made (after inflation.) She did more of her finest work with other leading actors, including James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Rock Hudson.

Her much publicized private life included eight marriages, several life-threatening illnesses, and decades spent as a social activist championing the cause of AIDS research, for which she received numerous international awards, including recognition from Queen Elizabeth II who made her a Dame, the female equivalent of a knight. She also engaged in many other philanthropic activities. After she died of congestive heart failure on March 23, 2011, at the age of 79, singer and close friend Elton John said, "We have just lost a Hollywood giant. More importantly, we have lost an incredible human being."

A two-time winner of the Academy Award for Best Actress, Taylor is considered one of the great screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age. The American Film Institute named her seventh on its Female Legends list, and in 1993 awarded her an AFI Life Achievement Award --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Elton John and the quote from him shouldn't be in the lead. If any quotes should be in the lead (and I don't think they should), then they should be from her children or her co-stars. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be expanded - for GA/FA we try for 3-4 paragraphs that summarize the article, and I think this piece could be considered for GA soon. I'll take a closer look at it, but wanted to jump in to say although I want to consider whether we should include quotes in the lead, if we do include a quote, it seems arbitrary for someone to dictate from whom. If her children or co-stars have "better" quotes, then we'd use them - if her close friend Elton John's is most evocative, we'd use that one. Why say upfront from whom they "should" be? Tvoz/talk 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not dictating; I have no more say than any other editor. I am giving my opinion on the lead, as opinions on it were asked for. Quotes are not usually in the lead of Wikipedia biographies. I don't think the quote from John should be in the lead, as it is not neutral, it is merely praise and doesn't add anything useful. When a famous person dies, many people give standard tributes, of which this is merely one; why have his quote there? It doesn't say anything that hundreds of others haven't said about her. For someone whose primary notability is acting, it would make more sense to me for a quote to be from a co-star, though I don't see why a quote should be in the lead at all. The article makes it clear that she was very popular, famous, successful etc. That can be done in a neutral way, without a stock quote from someone she never acted with. Paul Smith 132 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry Paul, "dictate" was an unfortunate choice of word on my part. As I said, I had not yet taken a close look, and now I have, and I do agree that the quote is out of place in the lead, based on our usual (but not across the board) practice. As to whether Elton John's comment is standard or stock, however, I disagree - they reportedly had a close relationship derived from the same humanitarian work that Bill Clinton extols in our article, but admittedly as Ross points out John's comment was speaking more to the emotion of her death which shouldn't be our emphasis. Tvoz/talk 21:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just tightened the summary after Wikiwatcher put it into the article. My explanations for the changes follow.

• "often referred to as" is one of the ways pen names or stage names are handled. "Liz" is an accepted short version of "Elizabeth", so can be inserted with quotes into the full name.
• Avoid metaphors! "stable", "won the hearts", and "championing" are examples of this. For that matter...
• Why mention Margaret O'Brien or Judy Garland at all? A summary is not supposed to contain anything isn't in the body. O'Brien doesn't appear in the rest of the article, and Garland is only mentioned once as a fellow child actor, not as a fellow MGM actor.
• "more of her finest work" is just an excuse to mention other actors Taylor worked with. Either mention their films with Taylor as others are listed, or don't mention them at all.
• No need to explain what a Dame is equivalent to.
• The Elton John quote is, as Paul Smith said, absolutey meaningless; clear WP:PEACOCK. For that matter, John isn't mentioned in the article either. Ylee (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ylee's comments above. The lead must comply with WP:LEAD and it must be a summary of the article - everything in the lead must be drawn from the article. We don't need an evocative quote lamenting her death. Elton John's comments resonate now but it seems to me that it's focussing on the emotion of her death because it's recent. I don't think it's the job of an encyclopedia to try to convey a sense of loss in recording the death of a notable person. We need to be more dispassionate. The lead should focus very strongly on Taylor, and if someone has a major connection to her, and is discussed in the article, they could be included. Garland, O'Brien, even Rooney don't require a mention. I think there's a fine line between describing her and exalting her, and I think some of the words chosen result more in the latter. I think we should adopt more of a "matter of fact" tone. Should we say "extraordinary beauty" when "beauty" alone is sufficient? Or "stunning violet eyes" rather than "violet eyes"? "Finest work" is an opinion, but not one that's universally held among critics. Not all agree that acting ability was her greatest attribute, so we need to be careful in our own description of her abilities. I don't think it's necessary to mention Queen Elizabeth - this looks like name-dropping. It's enough to say Taylor was made a Dame. What that actually means, and how it is bestowed is superfluous here. I don't mean to be as critical of the suggested lead, as I probably seem to be. I think the structure and the basic information are good. I wonder if it would help to go through the lead sections of some other media related biographical featured articles's and see how it compares. Rossrs (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also - "By the age of 30 she had become a movie icon". I think "icon" is an over-used word, but probably more applicable to Taylor than to most people who are given a similar tag. The problem with this phrase in the lead, is that the same is not reflected in the article. Reading through the article it's clear that she was successful, highly regarded, highly paid etc, but "icon" conveys a stronger meaning than the article text does. Rossrs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm OK with "icon"; I think the article supports that. Admittedly that's a subjective view, but then so is trying to decide whether someone deserves the title or not.

I'm also OK with "stunning"—the article has a cite for that very adjective—but agree that "extraordinary" is unneeded. I also agree removing Rooney; I only kept it when editing to be consistent with the way other films are discussed, but on second thought, why mention other actors at all? The one exception is Burton, who was 1) her husband for the longest time and 2) her most frequent costar. I'll make these changes.

Mentioning the Queen is indeed namedropping, which is why I removed it. And why should a British honor be highlighted more than an American or a French one for an American actress? Ylee (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edited again as per above. I changed "movie icon" to "perhaps most famous film star in the world" as that's based on the article; removed "extraordinary"; and removed her costars' names except Burton. Ylee (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks much better, and it's certainly worth the effort to get it right. I'm still not sure about "stunning". I couldn't find a direct quote in the article. Were you referring to: "Even her beautiful eyes—they were a deep blue that appeared violet and stunned those who met her in person"? If so, our article is taking liberties with the source material, which doesn't say "stunning", although the opinion expressed is rhapsodic. It would have been simpler if he called her a goddess and been done with it. ("what should abruptly stop me in my tracks but a pair of eyes unlike any I've ever beheld, before or since; deep violet eyes of a sort withheld from ordinary mortals that were suddenly looking up at mine from mere inches away" - by the way, this sounds great in my head if I imagine Richard Burton speaking these words, but it wasn't him of course.) This also highlights a discrepancy - we can't really say her eyes were violet in one part of the article, and in another say they were blue, although that's easily fixed. Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote, yes. While I'm not wedded to "stunning", and agree that WP:PEACOCK words are to be avoided, I think "stunning" is an appropriate way to describe the writer's reaction to Taylor's eyes; by all accounts he wasn't the only person to react that way. The summary isn't the place to discuss the details of Taylor's eye color; calling them "violet" there and explaining how they were really dark blue in the body is not inaccurate, given that they were universally seen as violet. Ylee (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ylee on 2 counts: "Stunning" is used appropriately for her eyes simply because the term was widely if not universally used to describe them. While "violet" is sufficient for the summary, leaving the details for the body of the article. If you would like the two terms attributed, I'm sure that can be easily accommodated. I did a quick Google search of "Elizabeth Taylor" & "Stunning eyes" and got over 2000 hits. Likewise I Googled "Elizabeth Taylor" & "violet eyes" and got 471,000 hits! Sufficient to provide attribution and avoid WP:PEA? I believe so. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes I agree. That's basically my feeling - "violet is sufficient for the summary, leaving the details for the body of the article". In the body of the article, we can provide context, we can attribute and we can support it with a quote or quotes if we choose. In the body, we can do more in discussing her eyes. We are more limited in the lead. If we carry the word "stunning" -or any adjective - into the summary, it becomes our word and our assessment, given without context or attribution. We should avoid that in the lead, because the lead should be written in such a way that it can stand alone. In the body, I think it could be expanded somewhat, given that her eyes were considered unique. Rossrs (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, both terms: "violet" and "stunning" are attributable. So neither needs to become "our" word. If you feel strongly that either or both needs to be attributed, I'm sure we can easily accommodate that as a fair resolution. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems that despite what appears to be consensus, "stunning" was removed. Rather than reverting, I simply inserted the word "unusual" - which is neither an opinion or a peacock word - but simply a non-editorializing statement of fact. Comments? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word to preempt this debate, but will restore it; my earlier comments on its worthiness stand. Ylee (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is not about attribution alone. Attribution is quite an easy thing to achieve. I'm not questioning that the word "stunning" has been used to describe her eye colour. Of course it has. We could choose any of various words that have been used in the media, by biographers, journalists or commentators, and attribute our chosen word accordingly. We could easily attribute "mesmerising" or "entrancing" or "bewitching" if we wished to. That wouldn't make it right though. I thought, when you said "violet is sufficient for the summary", we were in agreement on that point. The consensus you refer to below, I also thought existed, but after saying that, you disagreed with Ylee's removal of the word. I'm confused now. Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems that despite what appears to be consensus, "stunning" was removed. Rather than reverting, I simply inserted the word "unusual" - which is neither an opinion or a peacock word - but simply a non-editorializing statement of fact. Comments? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word to preempt this debate, but will restore it; my earlier comments on its worthiness stand. Ylee (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead does not need an adjective to describe Taylor's eyes, other than to state their colour. The colour in itself is unusual, and as much a part of her look as the blue eyes of either Paul Newman or Frank Sinatra were a part of theirs. It's notable enough to mention, but to use the word "stunning" is to synthesise and cherry-pick from a possible selection of quotes. Of all the possible adjectives, you the editor, are choosing one, to elaborate on the fact of her eye colour, and it doesn't really add anything significant, because the primary point is that her eyes were "violet" not that her eyes were "stunning". This isn't appropriate in the lead because there is no context and no attribution. It's the sort of language that news/entertainment media, biographers etc might use, but their purpose is different to ours, and I think we should be aiming a little higher than them in terms of neutrality and accuracy. I think you've done a great job in improving the article overall, so I'm not going to keep on about one word, although one word can be important and worth discussion. I too will let my comments stand, but on what I consider to the word's unworthiness, and see if other editors choose to comment. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"violet" eyes

this article still needs to be in line with POV and there in no such eye colour as violet but a nicer sounding colour for blue eyes that have a nice deep tone no one has ever seen violet eyes on anyone else but no unphotoshop pictures of elizabeth either her diamond colletion and husbands was as famous her eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

American

Elizabeth Taylor was actually an American actress who was born in London. Since both her parents were American it is wrong to describe her as British or English. I remember this was controversial when she received a DBE. (HantersSpade (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

She still had a British passport as she had never given up her British citizenship, she said so herself in an interview given after the DBE. Dollvalley (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Under "Nationality" Taylor is described as "English-American." What is this? English is not a nationality. This should be "British-American." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.185.117.39 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

She was an American who just happened to be born in Britain. Many people felt she should not have received a Damehood since he wasn't really British at all. (HantersSpade (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

I read she was born in Tehran, Iran.70.176.118.196 (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're all wrong except for Dollvalley. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

mostly amercian but she would have been give a dame title other wise maybe she kept her title for that reason just cause she was born here doesn't make her "ours" though audery hepburn was more british than she was but wasn't born here so some how does count — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Most people in the UK seem to view her as more American than British, including myself. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AIDS work

X4n6 and I are having a minor dispute over how to describe Taylor's work for AIDS-related causes in the summary. I prefer "AIDS advocate"; he prefers "AIDS awareness, research and cure", and claims that my wording implies that she was an "advocate for AIDS". That's ridiculous; is a doctor who is a "cancer specialist" someone who is an expert in causing cancer in people's bodies? How many AIDS advocates only support AIDS awareness and not research, or vice versa? (And how does one research AIDS without seeking a cure for it?) Bottom line: X4n6's wording is redundant and, in any case, too long for the summary when the perfectly serviceable and accurate "AIDS advocate" is available. Ylee (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post says "Elizabeth Taylor was as well known for her AIDS advocacy as she was for her acting." I agree with you. They're not saying she advocated AIDS. I read an extract from an interview recently in which Taylor said she'd had two careers. One was acting, but the other was her work with HIV/AIDS causes. Given her profile in that area, would it be possible to split that sentence, and have one sentence to address her work in that sphere, that you both could agree on? Something like "Taylor's much publicized personal life included eight marriages and several life-threatening illnesses. From the mid-1980s she .....HIV/AIDS etc etc " I think X4n6's edit made the sentence look long and wordy, but I think that was partly because the sentence was trying to address too many points. In two sentences I think it would give her work with HIV/AIDS more weight and more legitimacy. Joined into one sentence it reads like part of the "drama" that surrounded her, especially when preceded by "much publicized" - her marriages, her illnesses and her AIDS advocacy. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that "advocate for AIDS research" implies everything else, and is good enough in a summary.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ylee, I not only disagree with your edit, but I disagree with your mischaracterization of my objection. I invited you to define "AIDS advocate", which is something you have still failed to do. Bottomline: The phrase is vague. Plain and simple. Let's use your own example: Perhaps you can offer a definition for a "cancer advocate"? With specificity, exactly what does that say? Very little if anything at all. Are you a researcher? Fundraiser? Hospice worker? Grant writer? Speech maker? Are we told by that phrase if you are any or something else entirely? No. We are really told nothing more than a vague platitude. By contrast, the Taylor-cofounded AmfaR's website describes their mission thusly:

"amfAR is one of the world's leading nonprofit organizations dedicated to the support of AIDS research, HIV prevention, treatment education, and the advocacy of evidence-based HIV/AIDS public policies."

http://amfar.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=advocate

But Ylee would truncate that to "AIDS advocacy", then argue it essentially says the same thing. I couldn't disagree more.

Taylor's own Foundation explains their mission statement as follows:

"The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation (ETAF) was established by Elizabeth Taylor in 1991 to raise funds and awareness to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to provide assistance for those living with the virus. With its focus on direct care and prevention education, ETAF provides funding to AIDS organizations throughout the world, providing support services to populations in need.

Through Miss Taylor’s fundraising activities, specially-hosted events and public appearances, ETAF receives contributions which are disbursed to service organizations and entities involved in the fight against AIDS. Each recipient foundation is researched by ETAF and personally reviewed by Miss Taylor.

Through The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, Miss Taylor (1) supports organizations delivering direct care and services to people living with HIV/AIDS, and (2) supports organizations that provide education to the public regarding the AIDS virus and the prevention of AIDS. ETAF provides financial support for organizations and entities both within the United States and internationally.

ETAF supports existing organizations and entities that have exhibited integrity in managing their operations along with the knowledge and ability to expediently provide services or achieve other designated goals.

Miss Taylor’s AIDS fundraising and advocacy efforts have served to raise much-needed funds and awareness of the pandemic. It is her deepest wish to eradicate AIDS and to this end, the Foundation operates at zero overhead cost. Miss Taylor personally underwrites all costs for raising and administering the Foundation’s funds, allowing 100% of all donations received to be put to work serving people with HIV/AIDS."

http://www.elizabethtayloraidsfoundation.org/our-mission

But again, Ylee reduces that to "AIDS advocacy" and argues that it's essentially the same thing? Again, I couldn't disagree more. And in the end, what are we debating? Three words? "advocate for AIDS awareness, research and cure" vs. "AIDS advocate". Because those three words are, to quote Ylee: "two long for the summary". Hardly. As I said when I restored the offending description, surely we can agree despite our zeal for word economy, not to sacrifice meaning at the altar of brevity. It's just three words. The Earth will not topple from it's axis and the article will not be rendered unreadable. To the contrary, clarity will be given - in the summary - to an extremely significant, undeniable component of Taylor's later life. She herself called it her life's work. So to whittle something that important down to two words for no apparent reason beyond caprice, diminishes it, and in my view, diminishes the summary itself. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rossrs, I liked your suggestion. If we could agree that two sentences addresses everyone's concerns rather than trying to squeeze everything into one sentence - esp. given Wikiwatcher's offering that we expand the summary, not shrink it, I think that would solve the problem. Good idea! Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks X4n6. I've been working on a suggested lead, after considering Wikiwatcher's comments below. I'll add that, as well as my thought processes there. I'm almost done. Give me a few more minutes...... Rossrs (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Another possible source

Tvoz - I offer this obituary by art critic David Walsh for your consideration:

Elizabeth Taylor and the melodrama of American life in the 1950s and 1960s

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/tayl-m31.shtml 36hourblock (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting piece - thanks. Maybe someone will find something here to use. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead suggestions

The 3 paragraphs in the current lead seem a bit too random in the subjects discussed, now that it's been trimmed. I'd reverse the positions of the National Velvet sentence in paragraph 1 with the "Taylor is considered. . ." sentence. I'd keep paragraph 3 consistent by including her personal life and awards together there.

However, in general for someone like Taylor, 4 paragraphs might be helpful, for instance: para 1: general life/career phrasing; para 2: films, with some mention of her acting skills & style; para 3 would focus on her personal life; para 4 summarize awards & date of death.

On a petty subject, since it's become a focal point in the 1st paragraph, I personally don't like the word "including," and hope we can find a more pleasing term when referring to her eyes. The word I included before seemed ok, but so did including some co-stars, etc. , which don't really need to be included. But if we do include the word "stunning," then including another word might be a better conclusion. But I'm only including my own opinions here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's important that the lead cover important points with appropriate emphasis and balance, and considering Taylor's impact and degree of notability, I agree that 4 paragraphs would be acceptable. I think the structure you suggest would work too, but I would tweak it a bit as follows. 1. General summary and identification. 2. Career/films. 3. Personal life and non-acting work. 4. Awards, death, career legacy. That could work, I think. Looking at some featured articles Anna May Wong has 6 paragraphs, which I think is about 2 too many, but the structure is great. Judy Garland 5, but could be 4. Bette Davis, only 3 - another one to go through her career would be good. Vivien Leigh, 3 and too brief. Angelina Jolie, Kirsten Dunst, Reese Witherspoon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Brad Pitt have 3 each, which seems ok as they're still living, and still working. Jake Gyllenhaal, Eric Bana only 2 paragraphs each, and too brief. I guess the thing is that there is no actual right or wrong number of paragraphs, within reason, but the lead sections of these articles all follow a similar pattern/structure. Rossrs (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All good points. The fact that you mentioned "legacy" is interesting, since we could consider creating a "legacy" section.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for the lead. I will also give my reasons for the various changes I suggest, at the end.

Dame Elizabeth Rosemond "Liz" Taylor, DBE (February 27, 1932 – March 23, 2011) was an English-born American actress. Beginning her career as a child star with MGM, she became one of the most notable screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age, appearing in more than 50 films. During the 1960s she was possibly the most famous film star in the world, recognized for her successful acting career and for her glamorous lifestyle, beauty, and violet eyes.

After playing a few minor roles, Taylor achieved her first significant success at the age of 12, in National Velvet (1944). For the remainder of the decade she played adolescent roles, and during the 1950s was the leading lady in such films as Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1986), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her work in BUtterfield 8 (1960), and ended her association with MGM. She played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and later married her co-star Richard Burton. Taylor and Burton appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award. Taylor continued to play leading roles in films into the 1970s, but as her box-office drawing power diminished, she began to appear more frequently in television, and played her first Broadway and West End roles in The Little Foxes (1982) and Private Lives (1983). Her final performance was in the TV movie, These Old Broads (2001)

Taylor's much publicized personal life included eight marriages and several life-threatening illnesses. From the mid 1980s she was an advocate for HIV and AIDS awareness, research and cure and supported related projects and charities. She co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation in 1993.

Taylor was named a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. She received the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Legion of Honour and the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. The American Film Institute named Taylor seventh on its Female Legends list, and awarded her an AFI Life Achievement Award. After several years of declining health, Taylor died of congestive heart failure at the age of 79.

Para 1 : General summary. I think this is right place to say she was in 50 films. I've removed "award winning". I don't think she was especially recognised for her awards, rather the awards were a form of recognition. I've removed "stunning" and I've stated my reasons elsewhere. I fully expect disagreement on that point, and that's fine. I understand that Wikipedia will not implode if it uses a word I disagree with.

Para 2: Previously we discussed her career in detail up to the end of the 1950s, and then vaguely to the end of the 1960s, and then not at all. It's important as part of a summary to address her entire career, with appropriate emphasis. During the 1950s and 1960s she was a major actress in cinema, but her career continued beyond that. TV and theatre deserve a brief mention to round it out and make it complete. Her extensive work with Burton is also noteworthy.

Para 3: Hollywood is full of people who call themselves advocates for AIDS awareness - now, but before Taylor there was nobody. Taylor was the first to really put herself out there and unlike some others, she remained fully committed and had more of an impact than anyone else I can think of. I think it's right to split it into its own sentence, but that sentence must have more depth than it was previously given, especially considering that the awards she received later in life were as much for her humanitarian work as for her acting work. I can appreciate X4n6's viewpoint on this subject.

Para 4: I've grouped the major awards into one sentence, but have not dated them. I don't know that it's necessary to use dates here. Each form of recognition is for something larger than one film, so .... I think dating the films in paragraph 2 is right, in order to place them into her timeline. It's enough to know that these awards all represent her life's work, therefore the date each was awarded isn't vital for the lead. Her death looks tacked on to the end. I've tried to mitigate that by saying she had years of ill health, so it doesn't appear like a bolt out of the blue, but it's still somewhat awkward. Perhaps at some point, paragraphs 3 and 4 could be merged, and a new para 4 could discuss her death and legacy. Maybe or maybe not. In any case, it doesn't have to occur now. Anyway, please comment. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with the slightly expanded discussion of her AIDS-related work. The second paragraph is still too long. A summmary for an actor should highlight the most important works, not cover one's entire body of work. In this case, it should not mention her pre-Velvet roles (they're minor for a reason), how long she played teenage roles (a child star who transitions into adulthood starts playing adults at some point; that's common sense), when Taylor left MGM (it was important to her, but not to others), or her lesser, post-1970 films and plays (it is understood that all actors, even the greatest, have periods of time when they do vehicles that are less important than their primary body of work; both Fred Astaire and Jimmy Stewart did TV movies in the 1970s and, no, neither article's summary mentions them). "Drawing power" is an undesirable metaphor. I like mentioning Cleopatra in the context of her marrying Burton (as opposed to the previous vein of it being the most expensive film in history) and that they did 11 films together. So, something like this:

Taylor became a star at the age of 12, in National Velvet (1944), and starred in Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for BUtterfield 8 (1960), played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and married her co-star Richard Burton. They appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award.

There's also no need to mention "declining health"; most people who die at 79 are in decline before their deaths, no matter what the immediate cause. Ylee (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That does look better. I agree with you about the early minor roles, the adolescent roles, and her leaving MGM. We don't need them. I half agree with you about her later roles. I think to summarise the article effectively there should be some mention that she didn't just stop in 1966, but it does not need to be covered in the detail that I gave it. It's important to record that she had a long career, but you rightly point out that it's too much detail, so that part of her career can be referred to without the specifics. Jimmy Stewart's lead is fairly comprehensive, but it discusses his overall impact rather than specifics of his career. It's a fair lead, but it's approaching from a different angle. Fred Astaire's lead is quite poor. It does not comply with WP:LEAD as it does not offer a summary of the article. The first paragraph is a good introduction, but the second is about his influence, and is more of a list of names. What's missing is a middle paragraph that summarises his career, which is what the bulk of his article discusses. "Box office drawing power" comes directly from the article. True, it's not essential in the lead, again it can be assumed that even the most popular of stars will eventually fade in popularity, but if it's an undesirable term in the lead, it's also undesirable in the article body. Maybe that can be reworded there some time. Using "star" and "starred" in the same sentence is a little awkward. I mentioned her declining health because it was widely reported. From the time of her brain tumour until her death, all media reports seemed to mention her physical state, but it's not essential. This is what I would suggest :

Taylor achieved success at the age of 12, in National Velvet (1944), and starred in Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for BUtterfield 8 (1960), played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and married her co-star Richard Burton. They appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award. From the mid 1970s, she appeared less frequently in film, and made occasional appearances in television and theatre. Rossrs (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rossr's reference to Taylor being "the first to really put herself out there" is important and worth adding to the AIDS mention in the lead. But think the Dame mention is too long. In paragraph 1, use of the word "possibly" is not good form. I would simply rephrase to a safe zone, "one of the world's most famous film stars." Even if some writer said she was the most famous, it would still become easily debatable. Rethinking the "eyes" debate, I'd personally leave mention of them off the lead. Coming after accentuating her "glamorous lifestyle and beauty," it isn't necessary there. In any case, it contradicts the photo, and the later fact that they only "appeared" violet, but were actually blue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially with your comment about "possibly". "One of the world's most famous film stars" is generic enough, and it's unlikely to be disputed. To leave mention of the eyes out of the lead, would work for me too. I don't think the Dame sentence is too long, but how would you condense it? If it is condensed, I guess it could be included in the next sentence with her other honours, but how would you word it?Rossrs (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Then say "unusual eyes" - there's barely an article written about her before and after her death that doesn't mention her eyes, and we talk about them in several different places in the article, making it amply appropriate for the lead. I think "unusual" is well-supported by "mutation" as well as the color, and is perhaps less of a value judgment than "stunning". But I do think the eyes should be mentioned in the lead. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with anything that did not include a value judgement, including omission, but if it's considered necessary to mention her eyes, I think "violet eyes" is the most we should say. Several editors want the eyes to be mentioned, but there's not yet agreement on how to mention them. I've read through a number of obituaries since reading your comment. All mention her "violet eyes" at some point. None of them have said more than that they were violet, and I hope we can show similar restraint. It's no different to the media's description of her "beauty". For example, one obituary talks about her "incandescent beauty". We stay neutral by just saying "beauty", and that's widely accepted and a pretty safe word. We'd be getting into POV territory if we included "incandescent" just because it's attributable. We can do the same with the eyes by leaving it at "violet eyes". Not necessary to use "stunning", "unusual" or any other adjectives. Rossrs (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I lean to something simpler like "She was named a Dame by Queen Elizabeth II and received . . . " Trimming a bit more, describing her as an "advocate for AIDS awareness and research," is enough, since "outspoken" and "cure" are implied. But I think that if her "violet eyes" are mentioned, then an adjective is important. Otherwise I'd assume that many readers will wonder why that was stated, since "violet eyes" alone may not imply anything. In the alternative, maybe a separate sentence about the elements of her glamor and beauty, describing the notability of her eyes, jewelry, and fashion, for instance, for the final sentence of para. 1. That way the eyes are placed in context and help explain "beauty." There should be enough adjectives in the article to incorporate in a summary.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the Queen is still namedropping; why should she be mentioned and not President Bush? The right answer is "neither", because neither one should be mentioned. It's not important. The current summary correctly and matter-of-factly lists her title in the same sentence, and in the same way, as her American and French awards. Ylee (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true. We need not/should not mention the Queen. We could say "She was named a Dame and was awarded..... etc". Or, we could assume that because "Dame" is mentioned in the opening sentence, it does not require further mention. Wikiwatcher, I didn't use the word "outspoken" in my suggestion, but how about "From the mid 1980s she supported HIV and AIDS programs; she co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation in 1993." I think this is trimming it right to the bone. I don't think it should be trimmed any further, but referring to the AMfAR article will give the reader further information about what the Foundation does. It may also be relevant to mention that she left a large part of her fortune to AIDS programs, if that proves to be true. I've seen it reported, but it's probably too soon to be sure. Again, "violet eyes" does not need a descriptor. Violet eyes are in themselves unusual. As I said to Tvoz, I've gone through numerous obituaries and none use a descriptor and they read just fine. The only word I can think of that is somewhat neutral is "distinctive" and I think it would be acceptable. It underlines their uniqueness without attempting to describe them, so that may work. I think it would be good to extend the first paragraph to include fashion, and jewellery - maybe her perfume. They're notable, and as long as it's kept brief, I think it appropriate. I think we're making good progress. Rossrs (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the above options are fine, since I think all the phrases work. In wording her AIDS contribution, I'm taking into account that unlike some of the other issues we're discussing, the AIDS topic has its own section in the TOC, and its heading follows the lead. So an extended list of AIDS-related work isn't that necessary. Just looking at the TOC, in fact, shows that we could pull a key sentence or two from each section and consolidate them into the lead's paragraphs, and create a fuller summary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "distinctive violet eyes"? Tvoz/talk 04:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you consider an "extended list of AIDS-related work"? I think it's important we name the foundations she cofounded and founded. After all, we name the awards she won mainly as a result of her work for those foundations. Going through the TOC might help, but then do we want to mention Michael Jackson for example? I don't think it would be necessary. Rossrs (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Better than nothing, although "stunning" is the term cited in the body. But the phrase "her glamorous lifestyle, beauty, and stunning violet eyes" should be changed since it implies a quality separate from "beauty." "With" seems better, IMO. In general, I don't see any problem with adding a few more well-chosen adjectives, cited from the body, to help readability. The lead is already loaded with adjectives, ie. just from para 1: "great," "Golden," "most famous," "talented," "award-winning," glamorous," and "stunning." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the adjectives you highlight are a bit flowery, but I've reworded or removed the most biased of them in my suggested draft. We should be using fewer of these words, rather than using their presence to support the use of even more. "Stunning" is a very specific word, and it's not used in the article. The article says her eyes "stunned those who met her in person", and unless her eyes had the rare ability to render all immobile, it's not an accurate statement, and not one we should be using. It looks like it came straight out of a fan magazine. We are presenting it as a statement, not as a quote, which would be far more appropriate, and thereby making it our phrase. Neither "stunning" nor "stunned" appear in the article that is used to cite this phrase- here. The wording in our article is someone's attempt at paraphrasing this drivel - "a pair of eyes unlike any I've ever beheld, before or since; deep violet eyes of a sort withheld from ordinary mortals". If "distinctive violet eyes" is "better than nothing", can we call that a compromise on this single point? Rossrs (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK then! (a quote from Raising Arizona) Not to seem greedy, but could we say she had one "distinctive violet eye, and another that was stunning?" Just a thought. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a mutation. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The cite's language somewhat flowery, but that's the point. McCarthy is not a gushing fan or an Us Weekly writer; he is an experienced journalist (there was a bit of controversy last year when Variety, where he'd worked as its chief film critic, laid him off) who, covering Hollywood for 30 years, has met in person a large portion of the world's most beautiful women. He's saying in the article that even he "abruptly" stopped, and his breath was "literally" taken away, when he saw Taylor's violet eyes. "Stunned" is an appropriate way to summarize that sort of reaction. Regarding Michael Jackson: He shouldn't have a separate section at all, and I intend to take it out; the only possible way to continue to justify mentioning him (other than via the context of her marriage to Fortensky at Neverland Ranch, which is already in the article) would be as part of a "Friends" section, and that's one step from WP:TRIVIA. Ylee (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, what if we took McCarthy's article and quoted from it, rather than paraphrased. We could choose the most appropriate piece of text and quote it. What if we also found a secondary quotation that said something similar. In the article, it's discussed in the childhood section and it doesn't belong there. It belongs later. Then, what if we said in the lead section something along the lines of "journalists often wrote of Taylor's beauty, enhanced by distinctive violet eyes" or even "stunning violet eyes". If we can word it so that it's directly attributed, I don't think we have a problem, and exactly how we do it, I'm not sure. I don't think Michael should be removed, he should be merged. Her friendships with people like Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, Roddy McDowell, James Dean.... are all part of the "celebrity" part of her story. Maybe it's a subtheme, that Jackson would fit into. Normally I would agree that it's trivia, but Taylor's reputation for trying to rescue lost puppies, that are kind of fragile or broken (which fits Jackson and Clift to a tee), is part of the public perception of her. It can be done, it just needs to be done carefully. Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead suggestions - part 2

Taking into account the comments made above, I think this represents some of the comments that have been made. If not, I apologise. I'm just trying to bring it into one place to make it easier to read. I've also tweaked it a little because I just noticed each of the four paragraphs started with the word "Taylor" and in doing so, I've removed her "age of 12". If she was born in 1932, and her film was in 1944, her age is easy to calculate. Also changed the AFI link to read per the title of the list on the AFI homepage, namely "Greatest American Screen Legends".

Dame Elizabeth Rosemond "Liz" Taylor, DBE (February 27, 1932 – March 23, 2011) was an English-born American actress. Beginning her career as a child star with MGM, she became one of the most notable screen actresses of Hollywood's Golden Age, appearing in more than 50 films. During the 1960s she was one of the world's most famous film stars, recognized for her successful acting career and for her glamorous lifestyle, beauty, and ... violet eyes.

National Velvet (1944) was Taylor's first success, and she starred in Father of the Bride (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), Giant (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959). She won the Academy Award for Best Actress for BUtterfield 8 (1960), played the title role in Cleopatra (1963), and married her co-star Richard Burton. They appeared together in 11 films, including Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), for which Taylor won a second Academy Award. From the mid 1970s, she appeared less frequently in film, and made occasional appearances in television and theatre.

Her much publicized personal life included eight marriages and several life-threatening illnesses. From the mid 1980s, Taylor supported HIV and AIDS programs; she co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation in 1993. She received the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Legion of Honour, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and a Life Achievement Award from the American Film Institute, who named her seventh on their list of the "Greatest American Screen Legends". Taylor died of congestive heart failure at the age of 79.

Wikiwatcher: you also suggest inclusion of jewelry and fashion in the first paragraph, so please incorporate that into this draft so we can see how it reads. I'm not sure how you wish to word it. Rossrs (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good on first read. BTW, Barry Monush's Screen World Presents the Encyclopedia of Hollywood Film Actors, p. 720, says "she had stunning violet eyes and raven-black hair." So it looks like they were both stunning after all and the compromise description isn't necessary! I came across another book that described Oxford scholar Neville Coghill meeting her, and he was "rendered momentarily speechless." Signing off for a while, but will think about jewelry, etc. later. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does read pretty well. The only changes I'd make are 1) combine the last two paragraphs and 2) don't bother at all with trying to say that one eye looked different from the other; that's just silly. I see no reason to explicitly discuss media coverage; "one of the most famous" is sufficient. Ylee (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll join paragraphs 3 and 4 above to see what it looks like. However we describe her eyes, we'll have to describe them as a pair, as Wikiwatcher has retired before I asked which eye was stunning and which was merely distinctive. Precise wording to be determined. On a more serious note, the article is still being developed and depending on future edits to the article, the lead will need to be revisited, and perhaps revised. I think the article and the lead are both at "good" but could be "great". Rossrs (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also - the AFI Award is more important than her position on their list, so have swapped/reworded. Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Including details about her jewelry and fashion was originally suggested to describe her recognized "beauty," which included her "violet eyes." It seems like that isn't needed at this point. We could satisfy everyone by simply describing them as "distinctively stunning violet eyes." It might eventually be used by speech therapists along with "The rain in Spain . . ." and "Peter Piper . . . " training. I digress. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a separate 3rd paragraph, focusing on some notable aspects of her acting roles and styles, would be useful.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought your comments about fashion and jewellery were also in relation to the TOC headers, but that's fine. I've removed my silliness from the above draft. Leaving the word blank, but my first choice would be "distinctive". I would agree with "stunning" if it was supported by something more solid in the article, as I previously suggested. If you can put forward some points for your suggested 3rd paragraph, we can see how that looks. Looking through the article, I'm not sure what we could use as a starting point for that. One possibility is that we look at creating a "legacy" section, and use that as a basis. I've done a couple of "legacy" sections before. Bette Davis#Comments and criticism and Claudette Colbert#Contemporary reception. A career summary may be a way of including more general comments about how her career was viewed, and that may help to put her overall impact into perspective. I don't know. Rossrs (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the Career impact section that Wikiwatcher added, although I like your "Legacy" name better. Such sections are bait for OR commentary—something Wiki has carefully avoided, mind you—so it'll need careful watching, though. Ylee (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it reads OK. I started out compiling a "legacy" section, but discovered that with her career and personal life, it was too large a subject. The "career impact" was a step down to more manageable topic. The additions were more a snippet of some notable aspects, a concern being to keep the section size similar to the others.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great. Well done :-) Rossrs (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I took "with husband Richard Burton" out after the mentioned AA win for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, first because the wording was unclear but mostly because it kind of comes out of nowhere. Another way to say it might be, ".....and again for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, in which she appeared with her frequent costar, husband Richard Burton." But I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all in the lede, in relation to that Oscar win. Codenamemary (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

The comma separates Woolf from BUtterfield 8, so there shouldn't be confusion on whether Burton appeared in both films. We've come to general agreement here that Burton deserves mention in the summary, given that 1) the summary mentions her many marriages and 2) Burton was both her longest-married husband and most frequent costar; it'd be like not mentioning Ginger Rogers in the summary for Fred Astaire. That said, it's likely that the next iteration of the summary will mention Burton in a more elegant way. Ylee (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Burton must be mentioned, not only as a husband, but as a frequent co-star. They appeared in 11 films together as a romantic couple and aside from Fred and Ginger, and William Powell and Myrna Loy, I can't think of another pairing that was so prolific or so successful. Unless I'm reading this all wrong, there seems to be general acceptance of paragraph 2 and 3 as per the comments above, and it's paragraph 1 that is still to be determined. I'll update those two paragraphs, and obviously they will remain subject to further changes as editors see fit. Rossrs (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the way it was phrased was that by saying she won that award for WAOVW "with Richard Burton", is that it could be interpreted as if he won an Oscar for that film, too. The phrasing was ambiguous. Codenamemary (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)