Talk:Rex Harrison

Vandalism

I revert the changes made by 87.29.89.217 (talk · contribs). Some of them are quite obviously wrong (e.g. the movie Cleopatra is from 1963, not 1953), and none of the changes were explained (neither here nor in an edit summary) so I had to drop my assumption of good faith. --Aleph4 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blindness

I'm intrigued - in what capacity did he serve in the Royal Air Force during the war? I would not have thought he would stand the remotest chance of getting in (even to a ground-based position) if he was blind in one eye? --Ndaisley 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alleged bisexuality

I've removed the content about Harrison's alleged bisexuality for the umpteenth time because the wording is far too ambiguous and, until the morning, unsourced. The source given this go round didn't even have a page number for verification. Aside from the obvious problems of verifiability, the wording is horrid. Who widely believed Harrison was bisexual? Everyone? Left handed people? Who? Until the wording can be fixed and the content can be properly sourced, the content needs to stay out. Additionally, I think building a consensus towards its inclusion might be in order. If one source made this claim, I think we're giving undue weight to the claim in general. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 14:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no benefit whatsoever from what the IP has tried to insert. It certainly offers nothing in the way of information. So a biographer wrote that he might be bisexual, it then goes on to say that his friends doubted the claim. That casts doubt upon it at all. It was barely sourced, not supported and amounts to gossip. We aren't in the business of repeating gossip here and I have major issues with its inclusion. The rewording made it even worse, still with no corroboration besides the gossip of one writer. I'd suggest a consensus determine it to be unworthy of inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One badly written comment from one vaguely cited source does not fill me with confidence, especially when it's not even stating that he was bisexual, only that someone (who?) had suggested it and Harrison's friends had denied it. I'm also bothered by the fact that claims against dead celebrities are a dime a dozen and there are vague statements made about numerous dead actors from Rex Harrison to.... Lassie. The fact that a claim is made does not make it relevant. Finally, I'm especially concerned about the IP making the edit who has an IP address and editing style very similar to a banned user. Rossrs (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally, when it comes to the alleged sexuality of historical figures, the threshold for inclusion is WP:WELLKNOWN speculation from numerous sources. As in a few thousand or so hits on a simple google search. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found nothing to support the claim anywhere which is why I initially removed it. I think it's safe to say that it should remain out of the article. One source that can't even be verified isn't enough. Thanks for the input guys! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the book if you are so concerned because it does indeed discuss Harrison's apparent bisexuality in great detail. Some of his friends denied it completely but others said that he probably did have several same-sex relationships in his youth. (92.13.211.99 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Seems that the source was far from definitive on this. In any case, I'd like to see more than one source for this. There is a tendency to overemphasize salacious material in articles on movie stars, and it has become a serious problem. In this instance I'm a tad more inclined to consider the allegations because this book was well received and apparently was not the usual tablod tittle-tattle tell-all biography. Still, such allegations need to be well sourced, preferably with multiple sources. The lack of citation of specific page numbers is also unacceptable. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the page number or numbers from the book in that case. Then it can be determined by consensus of editors on this page whether it is notable and reliable enough for inclusion or whether it is simply sensationalistic speculation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we've even reached that threshold, based on the IP's description of the contents of the book. It seems inconclusive. I would not favor saying something to the effect that some friends said he "probably" was bisexual and others not. Better to leave it out completely. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that a simple thing like a page number is not forthcoming, it's worded very ambiguously. "Widely believed" (by whom?) and then it was denied by some of his friends but others (who?) said he probably (so they're guessing?) was bisexual... The book may well have been well received/well regarded, and I don't have a problem with that. There must be numerous events related in the book that deal with Harrison's career, and our article could certainly do with some beefing up in that regard. Why is it that the only thing drawn from the book is a vague rumour of bisexuality when so much more could be said? That suggests to me that the main objective is to include the rumour and the book is being cited as an excuse for inclusion, rather than a justification. That makes me question the weighting it is given in the book - for all we know it could be one sentence. Rossrs (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

His autobiography may also be a good source for fleshing out this article. By the way, for what it's worth, in The Lavender Screen he is called "antigay." See page 80.[1] Stetsonharry (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Harrison pretended to be anti-gay because he was an actively bisexual man at a time when such activity was illegal under British and American law. (92.11.239.118 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I have that biography as well, I think it should be mentioned. Regardless of what Harrison's sexual orientation was, it is a fact to say that there was great speculation about it. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Since there was much speculation about his sexuality, and it is sourced, then it shoiuld be included. Lots of gay and bisexual men pretended to be homophobic in those days. (92.15.32.37 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

There is no consensus to add this material. Several editors have objected, so before you add this to the article again, you need to gain consensus. Rossrs (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that one IP editor with a very similar IP address has already been blocked for being a sockpuppet of a (registered) user who was blocked. I'm assuming good faith, despite my concerns, but just in case the IP is who I fear it might be it's probably worth reminding everyone that using sock puppets to evade a block will most likely result in this and other articles being protected, the original account having its block extended, and possibly a range-block to block all IPs likely to be used by the sock master. DHCP is great, but it's not magic. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I expressed a similar concern regarding the similarity of the IP near the beginning of this section discussion, and I think that while maintaining an assumption of good faith, each editor is aware. It's all very familiar.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

IP, I'm getting so sick and tired of the type of edit summaries that are being used when this rubbish is added into the article. "Hardly, it's all in the book" and "read the book mate - I did" I'm not interested in what you claim is in the books you claim you've read. You are not offering verifiable proof because you still are not sourcing it properly. You've been told a couple of times that a page number is required. That's what makes it inadequate. In any case, the sourcing is a secondary issue. There is no consensus to add it, so stop trying the patience of other editors. Rossrs (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the time to semiprotect has arrived. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've requested temporary semi-protection for the article. If this starts up again (and I've no doubt it will), I'll request the page be locked indefinitely. We've all been quite patient and it's safe to say that every bit of good faith is gone at this point. Pinkadelica^♣ 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good faith could have been displayed by this anon with an effort to improve this article, which is currently quite lacking in substance, but I never seriously expected that to happen. I'm sure "the book" contains many useful facts that could benefit the article, but obviously none as useful as the vague claim that he may or may not have been bisexual. Patience and good faith completely gone now. If it stays semiprotected forever, I won't mind a bit. Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It all comes down to notability, anyway. There are sources for many claims, but that doesn't mean we should add all claims to an article. Is Rex Harrison's alleged bisexuality notable? If so, and it can be cited, then by all means add it to the article. If not, then don't. I think this is where the IP went wrong - "it can be cited, therefore must be added" isn't a correct stance. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I will borrow the book from the library to find the relevant page numbers. Harrison's bisexuality is certainly important since it may explain why he behaved the way he did off screen. You may be aware that many people have speculated that his most famous character, Henry Higgins, was a closeted homosexual. (92.10.96.198 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Consensus is already clear that the content does not belong in the article, page number or not. The only reason the page number issue was brought up is because it's quite clear you were deliberately leaving it out. If you don't have the source right in front of your face, there's no reason in the world why you should be citing. Regardless, the quacking around here is deafening. As fun as this game is for you, the rest of us who have dealt with you before don't find your years-old games of sockpuppetry and POV pushing amusing. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Harrison was bisexual this DEFINITELY needs to be in his article. (92.10.96.198 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Sight

A now banned sock puppet attempted several times to insert content about Harrison being blind in one eye. It was reverted twice for lack of sourcing and once more with unsupported speculation about his sexuality due to unsourced concerns. It wasn't taken up further because the person was banned. However, the vision content was returned today with sourcing, which is fine. However, the concern I didn't address at the time of the first additions is how that is pertinent in regard to his notability and career. It is sort of stuck in there in a bit of non-sequitur addition to the personal life section after the text about the death of his wives and the next section which details the women he married. It has no context in there. It does say that it caused difficulty with one stage appearance but has no detail whatsoever. If it was a factor in the career, it should probably be there with context, but as it is, it only seems to be a bit of an odd placement of a trivial fact that has no home. Just expressing a concern. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly opposed to the sexuality reference. On the sight, evidently the sock took it out of IMDB, but I found a reference in Harrison's autobiography, describing how he was mostly blind in the eye since childhood. I tend to think that's a rather important, if little known, handicap, somewhat akin to Peter Falk's though not as well known. Now, I agree the placement is awkward, and I don't feel that strongly about the subject generally, so I think it would be nice to find a place for that fact if we can.Stetsonharry (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to the "Early life" section. The chronology isn't exact, but it's as close as it can get. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to say (edit conflict) that I thought that was a very good move. Stetsonharry (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, I mostly was commenting (now) on it was kind of sticking out like a sore thumb (eye, whatever...). Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It did. I can understand your wariness because of the tendency of people to throw in all kinds of poorly sourced muck into articles on film actors. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever portrayed Sherlock Holmes?

It seems to me that Rex Harrison would have been the very best actor to portray Sherlock Holmes of anyone in history, yet I don't think he ever performed the role. Was he ever in a production of the stage play perhaps?

If I were ever in a situation like the Holodeck on Star Trek, one thing I'd want to see is how a simulated Rex Harrison would do in the role —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading that the authors of the Broadway show Baker Street had Harrison in mind for the Sherlock Holmes role. (They ended up with Fritz Weaver, who also played Henry Higgins a lot on stage.)

You should check out Nicholas Meyer's novel The West End Horror, in which George Bernard Shaw is a supporting character. In the story, Holmes demonstrates the ability to correctly determine a person's residence from his or her speech, and Shaw witnesses the feat. The footnote by "Dr. Watson" tells us that a few years later, Shaw attributed this talent to his Pygmalion character, Henry Higgins! WHPratt (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My Fair Lady issues

He won ... international superstardom (and a second Tony Award) for his Henry Higgins in the musical My Fair Lady, in which he appeared opposite a young Julie Andrews

• Did he really achieve "international superstardom" for his appearances in the 1956 Broadway play My Fair Lady? I'd have said this status came only after the release of the 1964 film My Fair Lady.

He was best known for his portrayal of Professor Henry Higgins with Audrey Hepburn in the musical My Fair Lady, based on the George Bernard Shaw play Pygmalion, especially after he reprised the role in the 1964 film version, for which he won a Best Actor Oscar. The 1956 cast album set sales records at the time.

• That reads as if he and Audrey Hepburn appeared on stage in the play, and then reprised their roles for the film. I can’t see any evidence she ever appeared on stage as Eliza Dolittle. That was Julie Andrews, who was widely tipped to get the nod for the film version, but it went to Audrey Hepburn instead. This text appears in a section called "In film", yet it talks about the 1956 cast album, which was about the cast of the Broadway play, which was 8 years before the film came out.

• Quite a mess, really. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to be like a character,

three dimensional. Please help me round out the first and second paragraphs in the lead with more summary of the body. Maybe someday, if we are like ten-thousand monkeys, we can add a third. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Family Guy mention in lead paragraph

Since one editor wants to mention that Harrison is the inspiration for Stewie's voice on Family Guy (a point which I don't think anyone disagrees with) in the lead paragraph and has been repeatedly attempting to add this despite being reverted by various editors, the next step is to discuss this matter so we can find consensus. Personally, I don't think this point needs to be in the lead paragraph because it was not what Harrison was notable for. Contemporary audiences who may not be familiar with Harrison might only know him for that, but I don't think this point should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. The fact that it is mentioned in the article is more than sufficient in my opinion. Additional thoughts on this matter are more than welcome. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. One hundred years from now, Harrison will not be primarily known for being a Family Guy inspiration. It will be worth a trivial mention, and so while it belongs in the article, it does not belong in the lead paragraph. 78.26 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Also agree, but the editor who wants Stewie mentioned in the lead does have one valid point, which is that it does need expansion and some mention of his personal life is appropriate. (Actually, Family Guy is one of the very few TV programmes I ever see, and I don't see the resemblance, btw)TheLongTone (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added info about his most famous movie (My Fair Lady), the fact he also played it on stage (representative of his whole career), and an example of Harrison's effect on pop culture. His role in MFL was iconic, so iconic that it inspired one of today's most popular TV characters.

I'm not trying to overwhelm the reader with Family Guy trivia. I created the second paragraph of the lead and filled it out with what a reader will recognize. Why does mention of a football-shaped matricide-headcase scare everyone? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

I'm fairly certain no one is "afraid" of the mention, it just seems disproportionately out of context in the lead - especially the way you're attempting to present it. Your first attempts to add this content had words like "beloved" (which are POV in nature and don't belong here) and made claims that some of his wives died under mysterious circumstances. What does that even mean? Which wives died under mysterious circumstances? Only one died while he was still married to her and she died a natural death. How is that mysterious? In any event, how is that needed in the lead to give a reader an idea of why Rex Harrison has an article here in the first place? I'm all for expanding the lead, but it needs to contain content about Harrison's career, not unsourced innuendo or trivia about a cartoon character. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Good content is good content. You might not like Family Guy (as can be read on your userpage) and you might not like content you find to be unfavorable to Sir Harrison (as can be read on this talk's history and above) but if you'd reassess this situation, you'd see the solution lies in adding content to the lead, not in deleting what I've written. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What you added was not good content as evidenced by the fact that it was reverted/removed by several different editors. I find it interesting that you're focusing on a userbox on my page (which would indicate that I am actually a fan of the show as the userbox uses a line from an episode that Peter says repeatedly, but way to spin that) instead of answering why you added unsourced speculation about the man's wives and other such nonsense. For the record, I couldn't care less about an actor who has been dead for over twenty years. I've never been a fan of Harrison's but unsourced speculation about anyone doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Again, nice way to spin that but it's not going to work in this case. You're also still not providing a reason why this particular bit of information is paramount to the lead paragraph. You just keep saying the content is "good" and the rest of us need to see that. WP:ILIKEIT is not a compelling reason. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation? Don't throw around accusations. This is material from the body. I took some info to add to the lead to provide a better overview of his life and career. If your not gonna help, don't just be a negative-nancy. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation - I asked you why you did something, I didn't accuse. No where in the article does it say that Harrison's wives died under "mysterious deaths". If you culled that from the information from the article, your comprehension skills are questionable at best. Further, when there is an ongoing discussion about content, you don't shove the content back it as you have done. That is edit warring which is against policy. Calling me "disruptive" because I'm actually going through the process of dispute resolution doesn't equate disruption - it means I'm following procedure. The lame name calling and other crap you're attempting to dish out is going to stop as well. If you can't comment on the actual content and the issue at hand, don't comment at all. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that your accusations qualify as name-calling. Secondly, I've been finetuning my edits. They've grown with the help of other editors comments. Reverting anything I add is editwarring. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, no accusations - just facts as evidenced by your edit history. You can "fine tune" your edits all day long - you're still adding the same trivial muck you've been attempting to add for the past week which you're edit warring to add. And did I revert you? Nope. I'm not going to play games with you. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Luke, this is geting very silly indeed. Please stop STOP putting Stewie into the lead and find something more constructive to do. Btw its 'Sir Rex', not Sir Harrison'.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's silly, I think it belongs in the lead. It allows the reader to have an instant idea of his voice and persona. It also shows how influential he is, even though he is no longer a household name. Stop accusing me of vandalism, AGF, and help me make a better article. Again, if you don't think something in the lead deserves as much weight, add more to the lead. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I note that Harrison did not perform in a play written by Shakespeare, as far as his filmography in wikipedia goes. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonnman (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rex Harrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150708214634/http://www.terencerattigan.co.uk/html/biography.html to http://www.terencerattigan.co.uk/html/biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rex Harrison/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.

Needs expansion, citing ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 04:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)