Talk:Robert Taylor (American actor)

Untitled

Spangler Arlington Brugh (Robert Taylor) graduated from Beatrice Nebraska High School in 1929. I just finished looking over the year book The Homesteader, of which Brugh was on the Homesteader Staff. He also was in the Dramatic Club, Glee Club, National Honor Society, Orchestra, Student Council, and Senior Social Chairman. My mother, who is now deceased, often told me about knowing Brugh in high school. She said all the girls thought he was quite handsome, but did not remember that he had any regular girlfriends. The year book shows his "Handsome profile" on many pages. He was the lead in all the plays given that year. The senior class had little sayings on all the classmates. Brugh's said,"Few things are impossible to diligence and preserverance." I guess that was better than the student who's quote was,"So slick he would slide on sandpaper." or "She often talks without thinking, but never thinks without talking." My mother remembers that Brugh was the pride and joy and only son of his parents and lived in a modest home in the residential section of Beatrice. I recently watched an old movie on TCM made in 1936 which starred Robert Taylor. He looked just as he did in that 1929 year book. --Helen Hohbein--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.67.13 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Helen for sharing this nice reminsence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.200.174 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Taylor

Does anyone have any info on actor Robert Taylor?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.67.176 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Date fof birth

The source http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtaylorR.htm set his date of birth on August 4. What's the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 06:05, 28 January 2006

No source

"Some say that Taylor outgrew Stanwyck, especially during the six months of filming "A Yank at Oxford", the first MGM film to be filmed on location overseas. Still others say Taylor found Stanwyck too possessive and would succumb to the amorous advances of women eager for an affair with the leading man." I say this stays out until somebody provides references. Clarityfiend 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, here it is: Jane Ellen Wayne (who also wrote books on many other celebrities, including Clark Gable, Lana Turner and Judy Garland) and her book on Robert Taylor. I read it cover to cover, and that is her story of what happened about how Taylor outgrew Stanwyck. Can you put the quote back, please, and next time ask before removing? Thanks! 10:50 pm., 25 September 2006 (LD)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.80.54 (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taylor Quo Vadis.jpg

Image:Taylor Quo Vadis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Major asset

He had the arches in his eyebrows insured by Lloyd's of London for 5 million dollars.Lestrade 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Homosexuality

Shouldn't the article mention that Taylor was a homosexual? It's well known that he lived separately from his lesbian wife Barbara Stanwyck, and that their marriage was arranged out of convenience by the studio. (172.200.182.13 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

No, because he was not a homosexual - see Jane Ellen Wayne's book on him for a reference, as she interviewed many people in the industry about him. Also, Barbara Stanwyck was not a lesbian - this was a rumour started after her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.88.139 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's well known Taylor was a homosexual, like Rock Hudson he married a lesbian to keep it hidden. You can't blame him for chain smoking and drinking himself to death in his fifties. (92.11.156.27 (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

It's total garbage that Stanwyck and Taylor married out of some arrangement. They were in love, and she was in love with him for the rest of her life. In Lana Turner's book, The Lady, the Legend, the Truth she describes Taylor wanting to divorce Stanwyck for her. Some years later, Lana and Stanwyck ended up in the same hotel, and Lana called her to say hello. Stanwyck still had hard feelings about what happened and never spoke to Turner again. Even Axel Madsen admits that Stanwyck was obsessed with Taylor. A definitive book about Stanwyck by Victoria Wilson has been in the works for some years, though page 6 of the New York Post reported shortly after she started her research that she was upset to realize that Stanwyck was not gay and wanted to abandon the book after several men said they had had affairs with her. What she has found out in the interim, I don't know. Whatever it is, it's complicated, and not cut and dried as he was gay and she was gay. I don't think Taylor was gay or bi.Lorrobhen (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want, but most relationships in Hollywood were complicated at best and there were many gay and bi relationships that were carefully protected from the press by the studios and agents. Some of these may never be able to be doccumented because of all the careful press. He was considered to have at least had experiences with men by other gay performers that were in Hollywood at that time. Doc ♬ talk 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't that well hidden, and most people know about them. Hudson and his secretary, Edmund Lowe and Lillian Tashman, Van Johnson and Evie Abbott (who was threatened by Mayer with the cancellation of her husband, Keenan Wynn's contract if she didn't comply). This Stanwyck-Taylor stuff came up after their deaths which makes it suspect. If you want to state that Taylor was gay, you need to provide some sort of references that have a strong source. People like Larry Quirk, who gives writers third and fourth-hand information and people like Boze Hadleigh, who prints rumors as facts, are not reliable resources. Robert Taylor had no reason to write his wife love letters unless she was his wife in fact - because they weren't going to published, yet he wrote her many.Lorrobhen (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He had a big gay following and found constant references to his pretty boy looks hard to bear. He used to go up in the mountains with Gary Cooper at weekends. (92.11.241.122 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.65.8 (talk)

Taylor actually spent his wedding night with his mother instead of his "wife". Sal Mineo knew the truth. (92.8.39.86 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

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

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

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255—Preceding unsigned comment added by IP4240207xx (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-McCarthy era controversy section & other article issues

I just removed the Pre-McCarthy era controversy section because it has been left unsourced for quite some time. It was tagged in February '08 (by me), but has been in the article, in at least one form or another, since '05. That's far too long for unsourced and controversial information to be left in any article. I have NO problem with the content, just the fact that it contains a number of unsourced quotes and what appears to be original research. If someone wants to add it back, it needs to be rewritten and fully sourced before it is added back. Additionally, I've noticed there seems to be some POV issues with this page. Phrases like "the creme de la creme of Hollywood" are not encyclopedic and do not belong in the article. If this behavior continues, appropriate action can and will be taken. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned because it is all Taylor is known for today, and destroyed his legacy and reputation forever. (92.9.64.177 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Per WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.

Bearing this policy in mind, if you would like the material to be included, the burden lies with you to source it. It has been in the article since at least 2005 and it has been tagged as unsourced since February '08. If it takes three years and some odd months to dig up sources, the material shouldn't be in the article. Per policy, I've moved the unsourced section to the talk page to give whomever wants to section included yet another opportunity to properly source it before re-adding to the article. As promised, I've asked a third party to step in and comment on this situation and if need be, we can take this to mediation. I've also reverted the last edits to the article because there is no reason to include the POV (and unsourced!) "creme de la creme" wording again and per WP:DATE, we no longer link dates which is why they were unlinked. As I stated before, I have no problem with the content and I am fully aware that Robert Taylor's reputation was destroyed by the scandal and is very much a part of his life and career, but these claims need to be cited to be included. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to return unsourced controversial material which has been removed based on valid rationale that includes violations of Wikipedia policy. If you do not have proper references for this material - specifically the McCarthy era material - then it cannot be returned and such changes will be reverted. Meanwhile, do not return deprecated date linking, there is no valid reasoning for this. Your statement "it is all Taylor is known for today, and destroyed his legacy and reputation forever" is POV and is not valid rationale, verifiable or probably accurate. Please desist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody under the age of fiufty knows of Taylor today other than because he named names. His stardom ended in the early 1950s with the awful "Knights of the Round Table". It's ridiculous if his article doesn't mention in detail the only thing for which he is remembered today. (92.13.24.101 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, your IP seems to be within the range we're warned about in the preceding section, and your attitude and POV seems to fall within the same range. You have blindly reverted the entire section. You haven't discerned what is acceptable and what is not. You've just reverted the whole lot, complete with deprecated date linking, original research templates - the whole shebang. Nobody is going to accept this material just because your edit summary tells people to read such and such a book, a tactic you've unsuccessfully employed elsewhere. It's not sourced, and it's not staying. Rossrs (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Taylor was a Nazi who is only known for the evil he did. I'm glad he died of cancer at only 57.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.47.114 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page yet again. As Rossrs and Wildhartlivie clearly stated, doing a blind revert and adding back other content that was changed for a valid reason makes no sense and is unacceptable. The only ridiculous thing about this whole matter is the amount of sockpuppetry and POV pushing. Since two other long standing and trusted editors have weighed in, I am wholly satisfied that removing the years-old unsourced content was the right thing to do. Any other attempts to re-add this content will be considered vandalism. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that the above IP conveniently removed the section identifying the IPs associated with a confirmed sockpuppet. I've added back. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pre-McCarthy era controversy

Taylor was among the Hollywood conservatives who took part in the formation of the right-wing Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals in February 1944. In October 1947, Taylor testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Originally considered a "reluctant witness", he wrote a letter to J. Parnell Thomas to tell him he thought the entire event a "circus." He was reclassified as a "friendly witness" and subpoenaed to appear in front of the cameras. He said he appeared in the film Song of Russia against his personal beliefs and desires but at the urging of not only MGM but also the United States government.

When Taylor was asked during the hearings: “Mr. Taylor, these people in the Screen Actors Guild who, in your opinion follow the Communist Party line, are they a disrupting influence within the organization?," he responded that " . . . it always occurs that someone is not quite able to understand what the issue is and the meeting, instead of being over at 10 o’clock or 10:30 when it logically should be over, probably winds up running until 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning on such issues as points of order, and so on.”

The questioning persisted, “Do you recall the names of any of the actors in the guild who participated in such activity?”

Taylor responded, “Well, yes, sir; I can name a few who seem to sort of disrupt things once in awhile. Whether or not they are Communists I don’t know.”

Yet he was under subpoena, and the questions persisted, "Would you name them for the committee please?”

“One chap we have currently, I think, is Mr. Howard Da Silva. He always seems to have something to say at the wrong time. Miss Karen Morley also usually appears at the guild meetings.”

He did go on to say, " “… I must confess that I objected strenuously to doing Song of Russia at the time it was made. I felt that it, to my way of thinking at least, did contain Communist propaganda."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Family name

Most sources give his family name as Brough, and I have always understood it to be that. Is there some authoritative source for "Brugh"? Godingo (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The film Flight Command (1940) is missing from the filmography. I just watched it -he starred as Ensign Alan " Pensacola " Drake & co starred with walter Pidgeon & Ruth Hussey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.67.125 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

how tall was robert taylor ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.194.251 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Taylor (Abusive Person)

Robert taylor was an incredulously Abusive Parent/Spouse, I know this because he is my mother's Father's Father's Brother, and I have spoken with his son, who has told me that he was an abusive drunk.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5b0:27ff:2ef0::37 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

ROBERT TAYLOR DID NOT CAUSE LESTER COLE TO GO TO PRISON. THIS IS FALSE.

The section of the article on Robert Taylor which deals with his politics has false statements that need to be corrected. He did not cause the imprisonment of Lester Cole and this should be taken out of the article. Here are facts which you need to consider: 1. The HUAC testimonies of 1947 were carefully covered by the New York Times and these articles can serve as valid resources. There are also many records of the actual testimonies which can be easily obtained. 2. Several people, including studio heads, gave testimony before Robert Taylor. 3. The name of Lester Cole had already been mentioned in earlier HUAC testimony before Robert Taylor gave his testimony. 4. Lester Cole was already on the docket to be called to testify before Robert Taylor gave his HUAC testimony. 5. Lester Cole was sent to prison because he refused to cooperate with the inquiry and answer questions and thus he was in oontempt of court. This was his choice and not caused by Robert Taylor. 6. Lester Cole DID have known communist ties and these hearings were about this. Robert Taylor was not responsible for this. It is reckless of you to imply that Robert Taylor caused Lester Cole's imprisonment when facts do not support this. 7. Robert Taylor was subpoenaed and had no choice but to give his testimony and tell the truth. 8. Had Robert Taylor never been called to testify, Lester Cole would still have been called and would still have gone to prison.

You should removed the line that implies Robert Taylor caused Lester Cole's prison time. This is slanderous to Robert Taylor.24.144.10.11 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)P. GREENWAY

I Agree and have removed the line: "In consequence, Cole was sent to prison and was never able to write again under his own name." Cole was imprisoned for contempt of congress, not because Taylor spread rumors about him as the removed sentence makes it appear. Dan D. Ric (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Death records

There is now an undue emphasis (see: WP:weight) on one section of the article. Please note that editors have been trying to come to a consensus as to how the death of Robert Taylor should be described. I am of the opinion that a brief mention and one reliable source is all that is necessary. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Google and sourcing

Just a short note on the appropriate use of Google kinks in WP.

• Don't link search strings, usually Google gives you a result with an id and a page number which is all you need to link the the page. The search string after that is not required fir linking purposes and just gives a longer messy url making WP source text harder to read. If you just want to link a book without a particular page, the url with the id only is sufficient.
• Avoid linking Google if the referenced section or pages are not available online, that is if it is not part of the restricted preview. First of all many fellow WPns somewhat frown on excessive Google linking in general, but more importantly without the option to verify the article's content directly the Google link is of little or no benefit to readers. If you want to provide some additional (statistical) data on the reference, link a library catalog entry instead of Google. In addition such functionality is already provided via the linked ISBN anyhow.

A general comment on the current sourcing. The seems to be heavy reliance on the smaller not particularly reputable newspapers for much of the content. While for the content they source that seems somewhat acceptable, they nevertheless should in doubt be replaced by better sources at some point.

Also the Axel Madsen book (iUniverse) is of a self publication/book on demand type, which are generally not accepted as sources in WP, unless the have been written by a renowned expert and have received positive (which usually not the case).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Axel Madsen is actually a very legitimate and highly respected biographer. The recent trend of authors, even well-known ones, choosing to take their works into the realm of self-publishing is not uncommon, as the role of the author versus publisher can often be vexing. One author I know had her first novel completely rewritten in the editing stage, with a new title grafted on and generally felt that the entire process of publishing was a combative and stressful period. Axel passed away in 2007, so that any decisions as to re-publishing his original works were probably made via his estate. The reason for using Axel's google books link is that it is an additional verification of the actual quotes, although it's a comme çi, comme ca issue to me. The over-linking of many common words in the article revisions has been noted by another editor, and should be limited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found that linking to Google preview of books is of limited usefulness, as which pages are available differ from place to place (pages you can view in the US might not be available here in Canada, for example) and from IP to IP (stuff I can see at work I can't view at home). Also, I have noticed that as soon as we cite a particular page of a book, that page is no longer available for Google previewing. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

True enough, it is often an additional source of information, but editors who have recently edited some film articles, do "like" the way that contentious statements can be checked. If they are there, I leave them, but try to use more reliable sources as an alternative. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've written above self published material may be used on occasion and is not banned per se, however its usage is restricted to well founded exceptions. Looking at Madsen,he seems to be be qa legitimate journalist, however the quality on his work seems somewhat mixed (see [1]). Taking to account that this article is about Hollywood topic, wwhich tends to be subject to rumours, halftruth, falsehoods, outrageous exaggerations, solid sources are particularly important. So imho simply being a Hollywood journalist is not cutting it here, there should be at least some positive reviews of the self published book for it to beused here.

Note that there is nothing wrong self publishing as such (in particular for novels), that is up to the preference of authors and maybe its readers. However in the context as sources for WP, in particular in the additional absence of external reviews, self published material is problematic as we lack independent (formal) evidence to assess the reliability of the material. Reputable publishers used to and to degree still do weed out most nutcases and clearly wrong material and they perform some limited proof reading/fact checking. This provides us with some hint at the reliability (together with reviews and the reputation of the author).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a number of Madsen biographies, and, generally, his work is non-contentious, even when dealing with a tricky subject such as Barbara Stanwyck and her life with Robert Taylor. He is not one of the slavish, fan writers nor is he an academic writer, he could be classed as more in the style of the popular documentarian. I believe that the aforementioned book went out of publication and was re-published in its original form, albeit via an on-demand publishing house. There are a number of reviews of the book, most complimentary, but Stanwyck was typically a difficult subject to nail down. See: <http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-017997-7> FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, it would be good idea to provide the original publisher as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: It is true that the (restricted) preview various based on location (due to local copyright laws) and the accessibility may chance eventually over time. Nevertheless it is often relatively stable and still provides a large fraction of the readers with direct to the cited sources and hence beneficial many readers and the article itself, though not for every individual reader. Directly linking the source also helps to cut short many contentious argument about source and its content and it provides other editors and proofreaders with easy and efficient (one click) verification, which helps to maintain and improve the article. Hence (restricted) previews tend to be accepted and used by many editors, whereas mere snippets or links without access are not (or at least signficicantly less so).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Taylor (American actor)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

All sections need expansion ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 04:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Page Formatting

Something seems a bit off with the formatting right now; I just saw a ===Politics=== tag, tried to correct it but that seems to not have worked. No idea who added that tag before. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:F462:6A60:DEA:83A0 (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Robert Taylor (actor) → Robert Taylor (American actor) – Since there has been [for the past 15 years, as of 6 July 2006‎] an entry for Robert Taylor (Australian actor), "Robert Taylor (actor)" thus existed for those 15 years as incomplete disambiguation and should have been redirected to the Robert Taylor#Arts and entertainment dab page which has 76 entries, 51 of which use the form "Robert Taylor". However, the lead sentence of the American actor's entry states, "Robert Taylor (born Spangler Arlington Brugh; August 5, 1911 – June 8, 1969) was an American film and television actor and singer who was one of the most popular leading men of his time." Taking that into account, I would also support an alternative to the proposed move, designating the American as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC — Robert Taylor (actor) → Robert Taylor and Robert Taylor → Robert Taylor (disambiguation). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support the American actor gets 25,599 views compared to 22,006[[2]] for the Australian one, no case for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Quick post-close comment: I think this is a reasonable enough outcome, but if anyone wants to challenge the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the future, the argument would be that the pageviews Crouch, Swale noted are only comparable due to recentism: the Australian actor gets 22k while currently active, whereas the American actor gets 3k more than that despite having been dead for more than 50 years. There's no question therefore that the American actor is far more famous. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)