Talk:Vivien Leigh

Active discussions
Vivien Leigh is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
February 7, 2015Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

ClarificationEdit

A rich Western European died of tuberculosis in 1967? That is really weird. Tuberculosis was almost always curable from the discovery of an effective antibiotic (Streptomycin?) in the 1950s until TB started to get resistent to antibiotics in the 1990s. Not really doubting the article, but this is surprising, and i wonder if there is some story behind it?

The early TB antidote tasted particularly foul. Many people who could and should have recovered neglected to take it, the hidden medication being found after their death. Llawdden (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Sdhe suffered from severe Bi Polar disorder and didn't listen to her doctor. She died practically with a cigarette in her hand.


She did NOT die with a cigarette in her hand; she DID refuse to listen to doctors, for fear of being hospitalized. She usually hid her discomfort, too, and successfully convinced everyone that she was fine. once she let the doctors check on her, though, her lungs were practically filled with water. she was hopeless. She died while trying to crawl to her door and call for help, despite warnings not to leave her bed.

The comment was "died practically with a cigarette in her hand" which I would not take literally. I think it refers to the fact, that despite her chronic breathing difficulties and failing health, she ignored suggestions that she should quit smoking and continued smoking until her death. I don't think she died while inhaling on a Marlborough. I've read the story of her death as you describe it, crawling on the floor trying to get help, which is a very sad thing to think about and very unfortunate end for such a dynamic person. Rossrs 14:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

ApplauseEdit

This is an impressive article. I hope to see it on peer review and featured article candidates soon. Bravo! Durova 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Durova! That's very encouraging. I've been working on it a fair bit lately, and I've got some ideas that I want to incorporate over the next few days. I'm glad you like it. Rossrs 13:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I wish someone would change the very first photo of Vivien Leigh in this article as it is not a flattering photo of this beautiful actress. There are so many others that show her great beauty. Yes the article is very impressive! I am a big Vivien Leigh fan. Pixie

I'm glad you like the article Pixie. The image is a nice dramatic photo, but I agree that it is not the most flattering in terms of showing her beauty. It's a public domain image, which is always our first preference in using images, and it was the only public domain image I could find. If ever I find another public domain image, I'll be sure to include it. Rossrs 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read that the medication used to help patients that suffered from Tuberculosis (in Vivien's day) had terrible side-effects that could have contributed to Vivien Leigh's bipolar problem. Pixie

That's interesting. Can you recall where you read this? Rossrs 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This idea is half right. Today, a lot of the drugs used as mood stabilizers are anti-convulsants. The antibiotics used to treat TB do make these bipolar meds less effective; however, none of these were available (at least as treatments for bipolar disorder) in Vivien's day. History Lunatic (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

I'd also like to say it is an excellently written and affecionate article - having recently re-read two biographies of Vivien Leigh; the one by Andrew Walker, and one by Hugo Vickers, I recall one of them (sorry I cannot verify which at present) mentions that Vivien was allergic to penicillin - this would explain why she continued to suffer from tubercolosis into an era when it became curable and began to be virtually eradicated in the western world. Hope this helps.

Happy to see that wonderfull 1939 publicty photo that I found a while back and uploaded. I think it really captures something of her spirit. I know you like the concept of the up-from PD photo, but please consider switching the 1939 as it is perfectly "legal" as a true publicity/promotioal photo and was meant for wide distribution. And sad but true, if this article were featured again, may people would not even recognize Vivien from the photo of her in the late 50s when she was seriously ill. SimonATL 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You all are worried about her picture? Why are you so caught up in her looks. Time and time again, she has been very clear that she could not stand it when people were so fixated on her outer appearance. Vivien Leigh was beautiful because of her spirit, not because of her eyes or high cheekbones or narrow nose. Im a bit appalled that you somehow think a pic toward the end of her life is somehow less flattering than that of her youth. Why? Because shes not 20 anymore. Please. Vivien was always beautiful....no matter her age. I expected more from her fans.--Ownlyanangel 06:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, without her looks she wouldn't have been the actress she was and wouldn't have been given the parts she had played, spirit or no. Naturally, this fact should be recognized in representing her. --somethingsomething

"without her looks she wouldn't have been the actress she was"-physical beauty has NOTHING to do with acting ability- "she wouldn't have been given the parts she had played"-true, but this says nothing about her ability as an actress or her inner beauty, which is the idea to which ownlyanangel was referring 129.15.127.254 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OriginsEdit

I read French-Irish descent for Vivien Leigh's mother, Mrs. Yackje. Many web sites spell her maiden name as Yackjee, and make reference to Irish-Armenian-Indian roots. Does anyone have any confirmatory information on that? Vivien Leigh is listed in the List of Armenians article in wikipedia. Regards. --Cretanforever 06:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Edwards, Anne. Vivien Leigh, A Biography, Coronet Books, 1978 edition. ISBN 034023024 notes Gertrude as being of French/Irish descent. That book is the reference for the entire paragraph containing information about origins. Walker, Alexander. Vivien, The Life of Vivien Leigh, Grove Press, 1987. ISBN 0802132596 describes Gertrude as being of Irish descent, but the discussion of origins is much briefer in this work, than in the Anne Edwards biography. I can find nothing to suggest Armenian descent in either book. I'd suggest we go with printed media as a reference for this, for the time being, unless another credible source is found to support that she is of Armenian descent. I've removed her from that list BTW. Rossrs 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[1], [2],[3] Seem to suggest Indian background. Haphar 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any solid evidence that her mother had Armenian or Indian ancestry, only tendentious speculation based on part of her surname 'Yackje'. Until such evidence is referenced by the article she should not be listed as such. Karpouzi (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence on Gertrude having Indian roots. In fact Hugo Vickers and Anne Edwards, considered Vivien's best biographers, both deny that. Therefore I think there are no basis on which to call Vivien Leigh an Anglo-Indian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.24.236 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vivian Leigh was born in India. There were no Armenians in India. Indian records show her mother was an Anglo Indian (half Asian Indian and half English white). I grew up in India. Many Anglo Indians (half North Indian and half English) in appearance looked very European (facial features and coloring). THe mix between South Indian and English looked more Indian in appearance. Eurasians was the description used to describe the mixed breed. Other well known Anglo Indians are Gabrielle Anwar, Rhona Mitra, Englebert Humperdinck, Cliff Richards, Merle Oberon, Ben Kingsley, Norah Jones, Saira Mohan(global beauty 2005) Yasmine Ghuari, super model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.137.167 (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The author in charge of that which is written in the paragraph immediately preceding this appears to romaticize the context when he or she attests firstly, that there were no Armenians in India; and secondly that Indians of English heritage from the North looked "very European" while those of the South looked "more Indian". The former is inaccurate and the latter is based purely on a subjective view. Neither is credible. There is a significant Indian-Armenian population in the subcontinent and many have achieved great prominence in the country and abroad. This is not to say thet Vivien Leigh was of Armenian stock. More than likely, she was of Bengali stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.14.54 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

She had no Armenian ancestry, it was most probably Bengali, the surname Yackjee is in line with Bengali surnames in a similar fashion to Chatterjee, Mukherjee, Banerjee etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.44.71 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yackje is NOT an Armenian Name. The fact it ends in "je" is Indian. What is the problem about whether she is Armenian or Indian. Princess Diana's had Indian ancestry or are you also going to debate this, It was recently discovered. Most Armenians are large featured, Middle Eastern Semitic group of people. The Indian women have delicate features and this is what is evident when you see Vivian Leigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.34.210 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC) It says Parsi Indian. Parsi Indians were Persians who left Iran for India. They are not Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.158.244 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not clear on the distinction between "née Yackjee" and "her family name, Robinson". Does this mean that she was born with the name Yackjee and then adopted that of Robinson? DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure is that changing anything, but she has armenian blood and it is approved here http://chater-genealogy.blogspot.am/2015/08/armenian-something-vivien-leigh-and-her_12.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.220.195 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Death dayEdit

Did Vivien die on July 7th or July 8th? Some sites differ, although her death certificate does say the 8th. Hotwine8 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, she died close to midnight and was alone, therefore nobody knows for sure. John Merrivale returned from the theatre where he was performing, before midnight, and looked in on her. She was sleeping. He went into the kitchen and had something to eat, and then returned to the bedroom where he found her dead. By this time it was after midnight and was the 8th. Rossrs 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We're currently saying that Merivale looked in on her when he came home, and she was sleeping. This was a little before midnight on 7 July. That she was not already dead is proven by the fact that she was found on the floor half an hour later, having collapsed while attempting to walk to the bathroom. Exactly how long between her collapsing and her dying is not known, and how long between her dying and her being found by Merivale is not known, but it was a maximum of half an hour in both cases. The death certificate was dated 8 July, which was the most accurate date the attending doctor could provide, and he was in the best position to make an assessment. If other people have theories that she actually died before midnight, that's their business, but surely we need to be guided by the official documentation, do we not? That means changing her death date to 8 July, does it not? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
No objections, so I've changed the death date to 8 July, but with an acknowledgment that 7 July appears in some sources. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This still appears confusing in the article, which says Merivale returned "around" midnight and found her dead half-an-hour later, while the footnote reads "Leigh died the previous evening", which implies considerably before midnight. I suggest this should read Merivale returned "just before" midnight and "Leigh may have died just before midnight on the 7th". DrKiernan (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

This entry was recently vandalized by "Razib Khan" (67.171.235.192), a South Asian ("brown") supremacist. "Razib" is a Bangladeshi immigrant known to reside in Eugene, Oregon. "Razib" knowingly inserted false information in the Vivien Leigh entry. If Wikipedia has any sort of standards, "Razib" will be banned. See this entry at "Gene Expression" and the related comment thread in which "Razib" makes reference to his vandalism: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/09/brown-or-not.php220.59.133.38

This entry was also recently vandalized by " "Dr." Kernwein " — Maz2331 21:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

CommentEdit

This is a really good article. Just wanted to say that. Wasted Time R 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides her career, marriage and illness, I really hope to know more about her personal character. Sorry I think I cannot have a deep understanding of her characters from this article. Nevertheless, it has a very detailed illustration of her career path and her effort throughout her life in filming and acting which is really admirable. Thanks for all the contributions to this article.scarlett_tong 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I fell MADLY in love with Vivien Leigh after watching Gone with the Wind. Too bad I'm about 70 years too late (not that I'd have a chance with her anyway). That Gone with the Wind publicity photo from 1939 is AMAZINGLY beautiful. Wow. It's difficult to remove my gaze. I wouldn't mind it being at the top of the article. 129.15.127.254 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ProtectedEdit

Why is this page not protected? Several vandalisms have occured while this page is being shown on the main page. Someone should take care of this -- Imoeng 22:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

After Olivier's deathEdit

- Since Olivier's death, several biographers have produced books about him, several of which bring up the claim that Olivier was bisexual. Joan Plowright said:

referring to biographer Donald Spoto's claim that Kaye and Olivier were lovers.[2] According to Sir Noel Coward, sexually speaking, Olivier had "a puppy-like acquiescence to all experiences", as quoted by friend Michael Thornton.[3] Terry Coleman's authorised biography of Olivier suggests a relationship between Olivier and an older actor, Henry Ainley, based on correspondence from Ainley to Olivier.[4] Olivier's son Tarquin disputed this as 'unforgivable garbage'.[5] and sought to suppress them, leading Dame Joan Plowright to privately state that "a man who had been to Eton and in the Guards might be expected to be a little more broad-minded".[3]

- In August 2006, on the radio program Desert Island Discs, Plowright responded to the question of Oliver's alleged bisexuality by stating: "If a man is touched by genius, he is not an ordinary person. He doesn't lead an ordinary life. He has extremes of behaviour which you understand and you just find a way not to be swept overboard by his demons. You kind of stand apart. You continue your own work and your absorption in the family. And those other things finally don't matter."[3]--218.217.207.9 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "After Olivier's death" section from the articleEdit

It doesn't take much imagination to copy and paste a section from another article. Reading what was copied and even having a look at the websites it links to, would have been a very good idea. Oddly enough, when this was truncated and put back into the article, the part that was removed was the more acceptable of the two parts. The Plowright quote about Danny Kaye being involved with Olivier before his break up with Vivien Leigh, is sourced to a "Filmbug" article. Fine, read the "Filmbug" article [4] - the most interesting part of it is right at the very bottom where it says "Article licensed under the GNU FDL. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Laurence Olivier"." It fails the basic requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability - ie we can't use one of our own articles as a source, so therefore we can't use an article which uses one of our articles as a source. I've searched through dozens of websites to try to find Plowright's quote reported elsewhere, and it doesn't seem to be there. All I could find are quotes of her saying that she didn't know about Olivier being bisexual, but if he was, she didn't care.
Is the section being added to this article to try to explain in a scholarly fashion what caused the breakdown of the Leigh/Olivier marriage? Or is it an attempt to make a WP:Point? If it is the former, please note that the biographers of both Leigh and Olivier wrote many thousands of words in their respective biographies detailing the complexities of the marriage and the events surrounding its break down, and yet one paragraph about Olivier being bisexual, completely without context, is intended to add something to our understanding of Leigh in this Wikipedia article? Leigh's mental instability, her promiscuity, Leigh's need for regular sex being frustrated by Olivier putting all his energy into his acting and not having enough energy to satisfy Leigh, professional jealousies, and the basic differences in their personalities - all had more to do with the breakdown than who Olivier may or may not have been sexually involved with. This is the conclusion of the biographers who actually took some time researching and analysing the situation.
Their conclusions can be read in the following books and are roughly consistent:
If you have done more research than all of these authors combined, and find categorical proof of Olivier's bisexuality, are able to relate it specifically to Vivien Leigh and can provide reputable sources, then it is fair to add it to the article, but if you can't, it should not be added.
I expect the person who keeps adding this won't actually read my comments, and will probably reply "Vivien Leigh fan, get here", or "Australian get out", as has been the case in the past, but I hope that other editors will comment. I am going to remove the text from the article, and under the terms of Wikipedia:Consensus I would ask that it not be inserted again, until there is a consensus to add it. Rossrs 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Filmbug Laurence Olivier Page
  2. ^ {{cite book - | last =Spoto - | first =Donald - | authorlink = - | coauthors = - | title =Laurence Olivier - | publisher =Harper Collins - | date =1992 - | location =Scranton, PA - | pages = - | url = - | doi = - | id = ISBN 0-06-018315-2}}
  3. ^ a b c {{cite news - | last =Thornton - | first =Michael - | coauthors = - | title =Larry gay? Of course he was - | work =Daily Mail - | pages = - | language = - | publisher = - | date =1 September 2006 - | url =http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=403258 - | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}
  4. ^ {{cite book - | last = Coleman - | first = Terry - | authorlink = - | coauthors = - | year = 2005 - | title = Olivier - | publisher = Henry Hilt and Co. - | location = - | id = ISBN 0-8050-7536-4 - }}
  5. ^ amazon.com review of Tarquin Olivier's book, My Father Laurence Olivier

Lady Olivier ?Edit

Why is Vivien Leigh "Lady Olivier" though Leigh and Olivier were divorced ? →219.104.29.179 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the edit history, User:Wbrz not only made the edit which inserted the Lady Olivier - [5], but asked the question above attributed to 219.104.29.179 - [6]. Corvus cornix 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Per standard British usage, a woman does not lose her noble title upon divorce, but only upon her remarriage after the divorce from or death of her husband. The title, however, is adjusted to reflect her divorced status. Therefore, Vivien Leigh, though Lady Olivier during her marriage, became Vivien, Lady Olivier, after her divorce and her former husband's remarriage. This is standard practice, which many Americans do not understand.72.68.188.68 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Her HeightEdit

height = 5' 3½" (1.61 m) The Source is in IMDB, Biography for Vivien Leigh. What is sorry to write her height? I cannot understand.--218.217.208.112 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently IMBD is not a reliable source. The Behnam 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just read about IMDB, and it is a 'random contributor based' site. So using it as a source is sort of like using another WP article as a source. I honestly didn't look into the specifics when I reverted. The Behnam 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Source is Vivien Leigh | Biography (1913-1967), not IMDB.--219.104.30.140 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a better source; perhaps we should have Radio Kirk give his say. I'll restore your new sourcing unless Radio Kirk objects. Sorry; it looked like you just restored the IMDb ref, but clearly you did not. The Behnam 06:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
At face value it looks like a better source, but how do we know where they get their information from? Suppose they got it from IMDb? It looks more like a commercial site than an informational site so should we assume that they care about accuracy or that they have researched their information rather than taking it from the easiest source? Mind you, I do know quite a bit about Vivien Leigh, and the other information on the page seems to be accurate. Rossrs 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can her height be deceived? With high-heeled shoes? Are there other opinions about her height? --219.104.26.212 09:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

and again you miss the point. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Some sources are more reliable than others. There are good sources and bad sources. IMDb is not accepted here as a good source. All I am saying is I don't know if this source is a good one or a bad one. Rossrs 09:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Now, if we can't figure out whether or not it is reliable, is it reliable? I don't think so. The Behnam 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that this debate has not been continued for eleven years. But I should like to quote from a source which is much older than IMDb. It's British, and from 1956. It's Picture Show Who's Who on the Screen (Amalgamated Press, London.) From page 90: LEIGH, Vivien. B. Nov.5th, 1913, Darjeeling, India. H. brown, E. blue. Hgt. 5ft. 3 ins. R.n. Vivian Hartley ... A reliable source? And what about the various editions of Whos Who in the Theatre, in which actors supplied their own details? I don't have any of those at the moment, but I'll come back here if I do in the future. (BTW, for the benefit of many sadly-confused editors, such research is not 'original research'.) In the meantime, I'd like to point out that the costume departments in theatres and film studios had to have actors' 'vital statistics', so Vivien's height can hardly have been a state secret. O Murr (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin controversyEdit

There seems to be some debate about a cited section that pertains to her origins. What is the verifiable contradictory evidence to this information? Otherwise, this seems like trolling. --PhantomS 10:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which film is this from?Edit

In order to know whether this picture is free or not (as a user on a different Wikipedia wants to use it), I need to know which film it's taken out of. I figure one of you can figure it out... 84.108.245.222 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a still from a film, it appears to be a publicity pose. She's in modern dress, and she's wearing her wedding ring. — Walloon 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessmentEdit

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) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Languages SpokenEdit

It might be interesting to note that she fluently spoke French, Italian and German by age 18. This info is always given in every documentary I see about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.11 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First English Actress To Win An OscarEdit

i had noted this point in her article as it is an interesting and relavant acheivement but it was removed and keeps getting removed... i don't know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogioh (talkcontribs) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

nameEdit

why isit that Vivien Leigh changed the way she spelt her name from Vivian to Vivien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniegreyton (talkcontribs) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FilmographyEdit

Does anyone else agree it's kind of unusual that her filmography is listed in the middle of the article? Usually, the filmography is listed after the informational (textual) sections.Moviefan (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. As a matter of fact, the filmography is linked to twice ("see also"). I would suggest removing the first instance, and changing the header from "see also" to "List of works" (or something). "Filmography" is not the correct term in Leigh's case as there is more stage work than film work. Rossrs (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence, "Indian-born"Edit

Over the last couple of days someone has consistently added "Indian-born" in front of "British" in the opening sentence. On the occasions it has been removed the edit summaries have linked to MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph and MOS:BIO to explain the reason for the removal. It's not good form to keep pushing a point without at least providing an explanation. It seems to be too easy to just hit the "undo" button and ignore that two editors are pointing to an established guideline in good faith to support their opinions.

My take on this is that the opening sentence should be a brief comment that clearly explains the person's notability or more simply what they did to merit a Wikipedia article. "Who was Vivien Leigh?" The simple answer is "Vivien Leigh was an English actress". This opinion is supported by MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph. She was English at the time she became known, and was closely identified as English and part of English culture during her lifetime, but there is nothing notable about her being born in India. It's a matter of geography, factual but not a defining feature. Her place of birth is given in the article, but she left as a very young child, was raised in England, educated in Europe, lived and worked in England and the U.S., travelled the world as an actress, but never returned to India from the time she left at the age of seven, until her death 40+ years later. I think it belongs in the article and the infobox for sure, but not in the first sentence where it implies more importance than it merits. I'd much prefer to hear an opposing argument than just see this reverted time after time without a single word to explain. Rossrs (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn is an example of someone who is known as British although she was born in Belgium. Perhaps this article could follow that example. That would still allow for her birth in India to be dealt with early, but not in the first sentence. Rossrs (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and reverted to your version again as the IPs clearly has no interest in discussing it. I don't think it is necessary mentioning it in the lead at all. It is probably mentioned in the lead for Audrey Hepburn as it had an impact on her choice of residence during WW2 and the fact that she became a humanitarian as a result of this. Nymf hideliho! 10:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think 8 days was long enough for the IP to comment. I don't think the fact that she was born in India is particularly significant. I suggested including it later in the lead as a compromise, but if the IP doesn't want to discuss it, I'm happier to leave it out of the lead. Also, now that I think about it, Audrey Hepburn was probably not the best example to give, as there has been a lot of discussion to and fro on the same point at the Hepburn talk page. Rossrs (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And again. If the anon was interested in improving the article, or willing to discuss it, I'd be happy to hear from him/her, but this is getting tendentious. It seems the only thing he/she is interested in adding to this article is about Leigh being born in India. Well, that's covered in the article. Have reverted again.

Vivien Leigh was the first ever actress to win two Best Actress at the Academy Awards,Edit

This statement is false. Luise Rainer was the first actress to win two Best Actress Academy Awards which she did in 1936 (The Great Zigfeld) and 1937 (The Good Earth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.113.34 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

yes it's wrong and I've removed it, thanks Rossrs (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Even if it were true, she wouldn't have been the "first ever" actress to do this, just the "first". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead imageEdit

Note that a new image has been added to the commons. For a bio lead, it seems more appropriate, with the existing film character image better in the section about the film. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The image is awful. Leigh's most famous work was in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Something from that period should be selected, which I'm sure she would have wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.50.111.63 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this one better, assuming the contrast and sharpness can be modified closer to the existing one? --Light show (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR neededEdit

There is quite a bit of uncited text in this Featured article; if citations can be added, a Featured article review can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Bzuk, thanks for the work! I didn't want to add CN tags, so please let me know if you want them (the uncited portions seem obvious, and since the main editor is long gone, pretty much everything needs to be checked). These (in the article before you edited) do not appear to be reliable sources:
  1. http://celticroyalgenealogy.co.uk/
  2. http://www.geni.com/people/Suzanne-Farrington/6000000008681454413
  3. http://www.vivien-leigh.com/interview.html
  4. http://www.findmypast.com
  5. http://www.hartleyfamily.org.uk/Fame1.htm
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Although presently under construction, the Celtic Royal Genealogy website appears to have connections to heraldry and historical associations, and includes academic and scholarly contributors. I would consider their information as being reliable and not a "fan site". All of the other sources are problematic, with dead links and fancruft evident, and should be replaced by more useful references sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't access enough of anything there to convince me of reliability, and I wonder how long it has been under construction? Considering all of the books written about her, it "smells" fishy for text to be relying on geneology websites. Particularly when they weren't in the version of the article that passed FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If required, I can find another source to replace the website. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

InfoboxEdit

Bzuk, I'm not sure why you put back in the resting place and occupation: they seem, amongst the dubious other pieces of info, more useless than normal. Birth and death locations are arguably relevant, but the resting place? The occupation tag is one that constantly annoys me: it's even more pointless than normal and really shouldn't be used unless it's something that most people really won't know. - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not dubious at all as it was also her residence. When you have active dates, you need to have an occupation that flanks this information, See Elizabeth Taylor, Katherine Hepburn and others of the same stature. The dates of her active activity are important to this article as they are often not related to her first, albeit, very early performance in 1917. As this article was being challenged as to all references by an administrator/editor, it is contiingent to provide a fulsome set of details. As to dates, when there are birth–death parentheticals: Petrarch (1304–1374) is used not (1304–74) for an infobox, the style then can be used throughout the infobox in order to maintain consistency in styles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
1. You are adding needless crap to the IB. Less is more when it comes to the boxes, or the reader becomes swamped by the sheer weight of useless drivel you are adding.The resting place? Trivial balls, nothing more, and even more ridiculous when you consider its not her resting place, it's where her ashes were scattered. Education field is pointless for most people, actors especially.
2. I see you have again reverted the date format (please see WP:BRD). I'm not sure why as I've already pointed out WP:DATERANGE which advises the format of 1920–40, not 1920–1940. Consistency has nothing to do with it.
Sources, citations and references in the rest of the article have nothing to do with an IB overly bloated with trivial nonsense: the two are entirely separate. – SchroCat (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no point to this line of argument if you have already decided that the infobox is "bloated", full of "crap" and "nonsense". I have already noted your objections, but find them less than convincing. I have no time for wikilawyering about what goes into the infobox, as I am engaged in developing the article further. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I had said I would help at TFAR, but if you are not going to bother discussing the valid opinions of others (and to mislabel an attempt at discussion as "wikilawyering" in order to get your own way), then there is no point in me continuing here. Good luck in your overhaul. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't want to intrude here, but Bzuk, honestly, I think you should just let Schro edit it. I have no doubt he'll have it back up to FA status within a few weeks should it be demoted. I don't want to see him put off of editing it from a minor infobox dispute. Generally I admittedly don't see much point in infoboxes in biographies, although if they have a lot of spouses of related people then sometimes they're useful for actors. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, your comment to Bzuk is rude, dismissive and arrogant.

On the "demotion" possibility, this article is already in "Keep" territory, and it is always a joy to see FAR working as it should; kudos to both Schro and Bzuk for the save. These are examples of the reasons I used to love working at FAR.

On the infobox, I hate them in every instance, but don't want to get involved in that discussion. In other words, folks, don't sweat the little stuff ... and thanks for improving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good one, Sandy Georgia of all people calling me arrogant :-) How is it rude or dismissive? SchroCat stated that he was put off from editing the article over a mere infobox dispute and I simply said I'd really hate to see him pushed away from editing it over something minor. Bzuk is a good editor and I like him very much, but I do believe Schro has a book on its way which could really help it. Ideally I'd like them to both work together.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm afraid I have to disagree here: a call from Blofeld for two editors to work together isn't rude or dismissive. If you wish to point your disapprobation in any direction, try pointing it at this utterly dismissive and rather obnoxious comment. This disheartened me so much I withdrew from editing this article. It's not often that I find someone so uncollegiate in their approach that they dismiss a valid opinion as "wikilawyering", but unfortunately the box now contains more trivial nonsense than it did when I raised the issue. That's rude, dismissive and arrogant, if you want some form of measure of the term. – SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome any and all editors to contribute to this article. I hope I have explained why some additions to the infobox were made as other major articles such as Elizabeth Taylor include a fairly fulsome infobox. The additions were namely in giving her resting place which also identified her last residence and connects with other content in the body of the article, noting her religion was very important, and that schooling was a mess for her. Dates, aargh, not such a biggie. I hope that other contributions have been able to more fully describe a fascinating and complex individual who made her mark in the dramatic arts. 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Roman Catholic? Without the background on being twice divorced, it's out of context and misleading. Twice divorced shows just how unimportant it is. "Resting place" is the place the ashes were scattered (and having "residence" bracketed raises more needless questions than it answers). Glad to see someone has put the dates into the correct format: there was no need for you to revert it back, especially as I provided the link to WP:DATERANGE which explains it. That's me done here: I don't see much point in me prolonging my stay here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, having just looked at this infobox, I am amazed at how long it is and how filled will useless material that will, at best, distract readers and continue to attract cruft. I would delete the infobox, but at a minimum, I would slim it down greatly to get rid of, at least, "resting place", "education" and "religion". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
While I disagree with many of you on the importance of infoboxes, I do agree that "resting place", "education" and "religion" are not needed for actors/actresses. Also, in this case, the child's name should not be given, since the person isn't notable enough to have a WP page (only the number of children). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ProseEdit

Tortured sentence:

  • On 12 October 1933 in London, she gave birth to a daughter, Suzanne, later Mrs. Robin Farrington, who, decades later, would make Vivien Leigh a grandmother three times over with the birth of three sons.

Repetitive prose (three suffers in two sentences):

  • For much of her adult life, she suffered from bipolar disorder.[1] She earned a reputation for being difficult to work with, and her career suffered periods of inactivity. She suffered recurrent bouts of chronic tuberculosis,
  • In "Early life", at the age of three ... at the age of six ... should be varied.

Query (in the campus, or on the campus)?

  • Leigh was born Vivian Mary Hartley in the campus

Confusing-- this sentence seems to be about Vivien's mother, but that is not clear enough:

  • A devout Roman Catholic, her origins may have been of Irish and Parsi Indian ancestry.

Links needed ... we may know San Remo and Paris, but Dianard and Biarritz ...

  • notably in Dianard, Biarritz, San Remo and Paris.

Samples ... a prose review would be good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree- a bit of the "too many cooks" syndrome. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy's comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
These points appear to have been dealt with now. DrKiernan (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vivien Leigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerunEdit

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 3 dead links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vivien Leigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Vivien Leigh" page.