Talk:Olivia de Havilland

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Olivia de Havilland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this tomorrow, definitely now;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• Y " and psychological dramas playing unglamorous roles in such films as" Try "and unglamorous roles in psychological dramas such as"
• Y " and television feature films, such as Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna for which she received a Primetime Emmy Award." -comma in the wrong place, move it to after Anna.

Early films

• Y "Los Feliz section " -link?
• Y "The film was released in February 1938,[81" -move this up to where you mention "The film, which marks her first appearance in three-strip Technicolor".

War years

• Y "While the comedy is light, it is also intelligent, " -in who's opinion?

Personal life

• Y "Stewart in fact proposed" -"in fact" not needed.
• Y Link "Paris Match"?

Already linked in the lead and in the article above.

• Y " Bois de Boulogne park in the Rive Droite section" -did you link these?

Already linked in the lead and in the article above.

Excellent job, very comprehensive. Perhaps a little too detailed in places but that can be addressed if needs be at PR stage. Certainly looks well researched enough to be a future FAC. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctor, for reviewing this article. I appreciate your time very much. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct nationality?

SHE SHOULD BE DESCRIBED IN THE LEAD AS AMERICAN:

The consensus is that it is not correct to describe de Havilland as having been a British-American actress.

Some editors recommended that she be described as a "British-born American actress" but as other editors noted, she never lived in the UK; she was British under "jus sanguinis"; and WP:OPENPARA says, "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

The consensus is to describe Olivia de Havilland in the lead as an American actress and to discuss more details about her birth and citizenship in the personal life section.

Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Since her nationality keeps getting changed, I posted this issue at the MOS page. It seems to be an ongoing issue. Even Elizabeth Taylor, who moved to the U.S. when she was around 6, and Cary Grant, when he was 16, achieved their notability in the U.S. only. Since the only reason they are in WP is because of their notability, which was made in America, it seems more correct to call them an "American actor." It also seems logical to add British-born, to avoid confusion. --Light show (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA says to give the nationality the person had when he/she became notable in the first sentence, and not to stress previous nationalities or the place of birth on the first sentence unless relevant to notability. So I agree "American" is best. However I fail to see what "British-born" adds. We explain her family history further down in the lead and amply in the article body, and, as I have just explained, it goes against MOS. Also, Britannica introduces her as just "American" in their article. I see no reason not to do the same. Plain-old "American", I say. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, except where infoboxes get removed, such as for Cary Grant or others, which makes birthplace hidden or harder to find for casual readers. That's another reason for infoboxes, besides the quick view of marriages, children, age, etc.-Light show (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yawn... Cassianto^Talk 08:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Why, in a matter like this where you are essentially branding the article's subject, pander to people who can't be bothered to read beyond the first line or two? That's not improving the article in my view. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. But then Light show is an old hand at this kind of discussion. Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

WP Guideline: "Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Need a link? --Light show (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should heed your own advice, Light show. This topic, or article, come to that, has nothing to do with the infobox on Cary Grant. Cassianto^Talk 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cliftonian. This debate even for Grant goes way back. --Light show (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does. The cases are not the same, though. These are two different people and two different life stories. What's right for one article is not necessarily right for the other. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Does she really holds the American citizenship, where is the source? One person can be successful in a certain country without having that nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.116.39 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

She was never a British citizen. The first time she was ever in England was in 1939, when she visited at age 23. Her relationship to England was only through her British parents. She was an American actress, not the misleading "British-American actress" description in the lead sentence. The second paragraph in the lead clarifies this, "Born in Tokyo to English parents...."-Light show (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If she was born in Tokyo to British parents, she would have had British and/or Japanese citizenship. Unless her British parents had naturalized in the US prior to her birth. She must have been naturalized sometime after moving to California but I can find no reference to this in my admittedly limited search. However, given that she lived in the US from an early age, it seems quite proper to call her an American actor. Wschart (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As an aside primary sources (General Register Office Consular Birth Indices) show her birth and her sister was registered with the British Consulate in Tokyo which would show they were considered to be British citizens. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on nationality

• Is it correct to describe de Havilland as having been a British-American actress? 20:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No: MOS guidelines would imply that she should be described as an American actress. Per MOS, it would be: the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. --Light show (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• No She was born in Tokyo and moved to the US at the age of three. Naturalized US citizen for over seventy years now, and never spent any real time in the UK. She has strongly self-identified as an American. Notably, she was neither given nor nominated for any British acting awards. Not even as a "Foreign Actress". Collect (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• NO: -- she (and her sister Joan Fontaine) should be described as "British-born American actress"[es]; there is no indication they remained British citizens after taking US citizenship. I don't know if Olivia ever became a French citizen, though, despite the many years she has lived in Paris. Quis separabit? 14:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, she and her sister were born in Japan, and, as far as I can tell, never ever lived in the UK. Thus they were British under "jus sanguinis" only, and did not act as British citizens. Collect (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA advises not to mention birthplaces or prior nationalities in opening sentences unless relevant to notability. Here I don't see that they are. Jus sanguinis is a method by which citizenship is transmitted at birth, and those receiving citizenship in that way are just as much natural-born citizens as those born in the country—not a lesser form of citizenship or anything like that. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is what I wrote. Collect (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case I misunderstood you, sorry. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is the first mention so important? British, American, what's the difference? "We are one people separated by a common language," as the wag said. But seriously, folks, as long as the details of where she was born and lived - and how she identifies - are made clear a bit further down, don't we have better things to do? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• No Bot summoned. I agree with previous comments, she should be described as American only. Greater details about birth and citizenship can be given in the personal life section. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• No Her place and citizenship of birth are details for later in the article. In this instance it would even be misleading to use 'British born American', since it would imply place. Pincrete (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

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.

Extended nationality discussion

FWIW, there is a discussion and RfC for how to describe Charlie Chaplin's nationality as a filmmaker. --Light show (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland was made a Dame,not an honorary one...this reflects her British nationality from birth.She has been a citizen of the USA since 1941 and has not been a resident of the UK,but right now both the intro sentence and the infobox treat her as having only the nationality of the country where she lived from 1919 to 1954/55 (when she established residency in France to marry,after which she only visited the USA for work).At a minimum,the infobox should show a double nationality.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Substantive vs honorary awards hinge on citizenship, not nationality. She is a British citizen; that's all that matters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet the infobox says simply "Citizenship United States" and is thus incomplete in a way incompatible with the fact that she's eligible through her longer-held other citizenship for a full DBE.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've sourced her Damehood; as listed on gov.uk, her Damehood is not an honorary one. View the entire 2017 Birthday Honours list here. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not a source for actual or even implied citizenship. It's for "honours to reward and highlight good works by citizens of those countries," namely other countries. The list you added includes mostly citizens of other countries. Please also be aware of not using a synthesis for facts. --Light show (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, it should be mentioned that the only Order relevant here in the Order of the British Empire; the one appointing DBE. There's an intrinsic difference between Category:Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire and Category:Honorary Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire. As sourced above, and again [here] (page 8), subject's Damehood is substantive (not honorary), the same one that was appointed to Julie Walters and June Whitfield on the same date, as the source proves. Also, when appointing an honorary DBE, the Order of the British Empire clearly specifies it, like [here], e.g. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good example of synthesis. Please find a reliable source without using that disallowed method, such as books, magazines, websites or newspapers. While this fact might be true, it wouldn't prove citizenship either. --Light show (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note above in the closed dicussion that she was found (see comment by MilborneOne) to have been registered with the British consulate in Japan when she was born.As far as UK law is concerned she has been British since then,as far as USA law is concerned she has been American since 1941...the USA may regard her as having ceased to be British in 1941 but the UK does not care about that.If the UK did care she would have been made an honorary Dame.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You can add that her father took her to the British consulate when she was born, for some reason, but without a source stating that it made her a British citizen, it's just more synthesis. We need to stand by the RfC unless we start a new one based on some new information. --Light show (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to the last comments made by Light show: If you're going to go down that road, then surely it's your duty provide a source to prove that Olivia de Havilland relinquished her British citizenship when she became an American citizen. She was born a British citizen......that we agree on. So where's your evidence that she relinquished it?

There is overwhelming cause to describe her as British-American: (1) She was born a British citizen; (2) She lived part of her early life in England; (3) Both her parents were British; (4) There is no evidence (to my knowledge) that she ever renounced her British citizenship; (5) She has been awarded a Damehood (not an honorary one) that people who do not hold British citizenship are ineligible to receive.

You seem determined to follow strict Wikipedia guidelines on this issue. Surely this is the one time to just use common sense and describe her as British-American. After all, honorary titles are given to people who have made an important contribution to relations between their respective country and the UK......in which case, why would Olivia de Havilland meet that criteria?

Standingfish (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay it's seems like we don't agree on the fact that she was born a British citizen......but the rest of my argument still stands

Standingfish (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What matters is that we do agree to go by guidelines and an RfC. BTW, did she ever apply for citizenship?--Light show (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

a RS was presented and sourced on subject's page (this), while you only managed to present Invincible ignorance fallacy thus far, by ignoring the given evidence. Repeating synthesis that is utterly irrelevant here and attempting other fallacies might have worked for you in other arguments, but not here. BTW, speaking of fallacies - in the future, you really ought to use full quotes and not the part that you think would work for you in the argument; the full quote: "The 2017 Queen's Birthday Honours are appointments by some of the 16 Commonwealth realms of Queen Elizabeth II to various orders and honours to reward and highlight good works by citizens of those countries." - not "other countries", but 16 Commonwealth realms and - as you would learn - the U.S. is not part of the Commonwealth realm. So, I'm not entirely sure where you attempted to go there, but it's almost as amusing as your forced use of YouTube videos here. Here's another use of full quote: "Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where the Queen is not head of state, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame. Occasionally, honorary appointees are, incorrectly, referred to as Sir or Dame – Bob Geldof, for example. Honorary appointees who later become a citizen of a Commonwealth realm can convert their appointment from honorary to substantive, then enjoy all privileges of membership of the order, including use of the title of Sir and Dame for the senior two ranks of the Order." TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, pls note that my argument is not about subject's national identity (this is why I didn't make any changes to the lede, in the article); if it was proven that she identifies solely as an American, we must respect it and not challenge. Citizenship is another matter. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyIsTheWoman :"if it was proven that she identifies solely as an American, we must respect it and not challenge. Citizenship is another matter." -- Ummm, what??? If she has spent as much (or almost as much) of her life living outside the US as in it (count years in Paris, etc) and she has accepted a substantive damehood of the Order of the British Empire then how can you posit that "she identifies solely as an American"?? "British-American" is appropriate and "American of British descent" is factual.

I took it to mean she identified solely as an "American actress," which is what she was notable for. But then there's Charlie Chaplin, who had yelled to a massive crowd during a rally, Although British-born, I am 144 percent American, but whose lead is still sadly de-Americanized. --Light show (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please review [from thread at top of closed discussion -- closed w/o any consensus, I might add]: As an aside primary sources (General Register Office Consular Birth Indices) show her birth and her sister was registered with the British Consulate in Tokyo which would show they were considered to be British citizens. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in the above comments, I only added her citizenship, per her substantive damehood, as this is now a matter of fact. I didn't alter her nationality in the first paragraph, per the closed discussion above. I agree that "American of British descent" is factual. Personally, I wouldn't object "British-American" here. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely any "closed discussion" becomes reopened again when significant new information comes to light......such as the information of her Damehood that now makes her British citizenship, as you correctly put it, "a matter of fact". Just out of interest, is there anybody apart from Light show who still objects to her being described as British-American in the opening paragraph? Standingfish (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoever wrote those guidelines might object. --Light show (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jojhutton @Light show : NO -- I participated in the above now-closed discussion (above thread) and objected to a dual nationality on the grounds that the then-available evidence indicated only one nationality (U.S.) Now, however, that it is evident (not apparent) that De Havilland either maintained her British citizenship/nationality or that the British government restored it (I don't know which) and that she holds a substantive damehood, the previous closed discussion (above thread) must be abandoned in light of the new evidence. From 1916 until her naturalisation as U.S. citizen in 1941 she was a British subject (as was then the vernacular).

What's more, the portion of MOS/Biographies: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability" is not applicable as her -- either newfound or ancient -- British nationality is certainly relevant in light of her substantive -- not honorary -- damehood. The lede has to be fixed and, if necessary, I will do so as per IAR in the event of a failure to reach this common-sense consensus. Quis separabit? 12:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Some questions: Since she was never notable for being a "British actress," why is the MOS irrelevant? If her notability is only for being an American actress, on what MOS basis should we now tack on "British"? Does her damehood make her a former British actress? The issue also still seems like a perfect example of synthesis, which is against guidelines. --Light show (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyIsTheWoman, @Light show, @Standingfish, et alia: I absolutely agree she was never a British actress -- her career was almost entirely in American productions between 1934 and her retirement in the 1980s, during most of which time she was a US citizen, having naturalized in 1941. However, her damehood -- for the thousandth time -- is substantive not honorary, which means she maintained her British nationality or, possibly more likely, had it restored. (Her birth in Japan, in case anyone believes it has any relevance -- is irrelevant. Liv Ullmann and Victoria Principal were both born in Japan (the latter to US parents on an Army base) but were never Japanese nationals or citizens.)

We cannot leave her as a mononational (is that a word?), i.e. American in the lede, especially when the text and the categories and the damehood all BELIE this. I don't wanna invoke IAR so let's work together. Why would anyone have a problem with -- and this is MINIMAL and I am not crazy about it -- "American of British descent", given that she was born to British parents and was a British subject (terminology at the time) from her birth in 1916 until November 1941? Quis separabit? 00:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead stating she was an "American actress of British descent" would be accurate, although it really crosses the line by ignoring MOS guidelines. It's just as accurate to say she was an "American actress born in Japan." However, the first sentence in the second paragraph already states both facts more clearly: Born in Tokyo to British parents ..., and it doesn't cause debates.

BTW, Chaplin, as you know, lived to be 88 and left England for America when he was 19, never to live there again. His entire notability for the last 100 years is from being an American actor and an American comedian. Yet his 15,000-word article does not mention either fact anywhere. His entire lead has been de-Americanized (if that's a word,) to few objections. Even though he called himself "144% American" --Light show (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Chaplin, as you know, lived to be 88 and left England for America when he was 19, never to live there again. His entire notability for the last 100 years is from being an American actor and an American comedian. Yet his 15,000-word article does not mention either fact anywhere. His entire lead has been de-Americanized" -- Ummm, maybe because he never became a U.S. citizen and was essentially deported, living abroad for decades??!! (And De Havilland's birth in Tokyo means nothing; it is an accident of birth. De Havilland, Joan Fontaine, Liv Ullman and Victoria Principal were all born in Japan and had/have no claim to Japanese nationality, under Japanese nationality laws.) Quis separabit? 02:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue is whether we ignore the MOS or not. Since her notability is from being an American actress, it seems that the details in the second paragraph are more than enough to clarify the basics.

BTW, Stan Laurel, who like Chaplin is noted for being only an American comedian, also never became a U.S. citizen, yet it never became an issue. Same with Mary Pickford as a Canadian. Few knew or cared. Actually, Laurel said it irked him considerably to read the attacks on Chaplin under the pretext of his being a non-citizen. They came to the U.S. on the same ship! And like Chaplin, his bio has also been stripped and de-Americanized, with essentially no mention that he was an American actor and an American comedian. --Light show (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Light show -- there are various other actors who never became US citizens yet stayed in the US until their deaths (i.e. Ricardo Montalban, Lynn Fontanne, Estelle Winwood, Judith Anderson). Others became US citizens but left the US long before their deaths. Yul Brynner was forced to renounce his naturalized US citizenship over taxes, for instance. Jean-Pierre Aumont, James Clavell, Maurice Evans all decamped and left the US permanently for Europe but it is unknown (to me, anyway) if they elected or were allowed to retain US nationality. Every case is different. By the way, Mary Pickford became a US citizen, likely through her marrige to Douglas Fairbanks Sr. but, in her later years, successfully petitioned the Canadian government to reinstate her Canadian citizenship, meaning she presumably died (in California) as a dual citizen. Quis separabit? 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of comparison to other articles, but I really think this one is an anomaly. Her Tokyo birth further complicates things, rendering her a "Japanese-born British American". My preference is the current style, using "American", and then filling in the details in the lede's prose. I am sympathetic to concerns of the dissenters; they have made some fair points. The current style, IMO, is the worst solution, except for all the others. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is false. She has been a British citizen her entire life, has English parents, and has just been awarded a damehood that only a British citizen can acquire. Reading my local newspaper online: "de Havilland declared that being made a dame was “the most gratifying of birthday presents” – as she prepares to turn 101. The actress, from Hollywood’s Golden Age, is being made a dame for services to drama. She said: “I am extremely proud that the Queen has appointed me a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire.". In addition, she brought an English style to her films: "She was the paragon of gentility and her characters summed up English reserve and decorum accompanied by a hint of steel.". Light show is trying to homogenize the whole thing to "American" for anyone that works in Hollywood: Omar Sharif was changed to American actor (his two biggest films were from Britain, perhaps he's a British actor?). Other points, Stan Laurel is a British music hall comedic talent on screen, as is Chaplin. Another thing brought up is where people live: Switzerland is a tax haven, so too is Monte Carlo where another British film icon Roger Moore lived. This is not relevant. And the final point on de Haviland being in Tokyo, her upbringing was English, the same can been seen with the author JG Ballard who wrote about his experience as a British boy in Shanghai (Empire of the Sun) and hadnt yet set foot in the UK. To have de Havilland as just "American actress" is patently false, and one engineered by Light show. Irish GAA DC (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You should be thanking Michael Curtiz for making her an "American actress," not me. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

French?

Since she hs lived in Paris for over 60 years, wouldn't it be appropriate to call her American French? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Images

I see thirteen none free images in this, none of which are particularly illuminating. This should be cut down to possibly one or two. I'm not sure what the plans are for this article, but whatever they are the non-free images have to be dramatically reduced. (If this goes through to FAC, for example, the image reviewers such as Crisco 1492 will be sure to insist the axe is wielded; even without FAC, there still needs to be a cull). - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• All thirteen should be removed. We have multiple free images of her. No non-free images should be allowed  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Chris here Cassianto^Talk 08:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I've been bold and removed them all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Fued

Apparently she was in some long running fued, with I think her sister?, according to Beeb Radio 4 PM. scope_creep (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Feud? Indeed! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal life in opening section

I think that the personal life in such detailed fashion doesn't fit into an opening section, especially since her private life (except the feud with her sister) was never that relevant to the public. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

A Confederate soldier named Alan Ladd?

This is the information that the section "New life in Paris, 1953–1962" gives; it should say "played (or portrayed) by Alan Ladd". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.205.11 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

change

They moved into a large house in Tokyo, where Lilian gave informal singing recitals for the European colony.

to

They moved into a large house in Tokyo, where Lilian gave informal singing recitals. Mxmbt2 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — MRD2014 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Academy Award in 1946 for "To Each His Own."

The Wikipedia article on Olivia de Havilland states she won the Oscar for Best Actress for "Hold Back the Dawn" in 1941. This is incorrect. Olivia's sister Joan Fontaine won the Academy Award that year for Alfred Hitchcock's "Suspicion." The two were pitted against each other in the same category that year. This circumstance added to the legend of their sibling rivalry. Olivia won her first Academy Award for Best Actress in 1946 for "To Each His Own." Her second Oscar came three years later for "The Heiress" a film adaptation of the book "Washington Square."

Shaun L. Creighton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.107.184 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Image change?

Can I ask why the image was changed by an anonymous user with 2 contribs and not reverted? The previous image was perfectly fine. Shouldn’t the image be one taken during her career (1930s-80s as stated) rather than over a decade after? The current image is also not of the best quality and is rotated in an unusual manner. SpaceFox99 (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The image is also used twice in the article, being placed in a later section. SpaceFox99 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Be bold," as Wiki guidelines suggest. It's easy enough to restore the earlier edit, and you are quite right that the 2001 photo cannot be used twice in the article. An important point is to include an edit summary (justification for the changes you make), which the editor who replaced the long term photo did not do. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for unexplained changes to the lead image, I forgot to put an edit summary on my edit. Basically, I think the image had to be of better quality, as the 1936 image had some noise, which doesn't complement her nicely. Any other options? Roif456 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think the current (1936) image is a better one, showing her at the start of her career. It is certainly of good enough quality at the size it is in the IB. I like it - but de gustibus and all that, I suppose is no reason to retain it just for my preference. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Better to have a career image, not a retirement one. Quality is not the main thing, relevance is. Some of us have begun to discuss image quality as if we had any amount of free (free) images to choose between. We do not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, to make it clear, I was not the OP, but another user who asked for an image of her at her peak career. Roif456 (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just saying, I've changed the image to a version with less noise a days ago. That's why the image is same, but looks different. Roif456 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Why did the image change from to the 1936 one in the first place?. Again, it was changed by a random IP with no edit summary. (Changed 30 September 2019). The previous, long-standing file was taken in the prime of de Havilland's career and provides a clearer picture with less noise. It also shows her out of character (the current image is from "Anthony Adverse" (1936)). I'll change it back to the original long-standing image if no objections are raised. SpaceFox99 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, someone insisted, that the current image is better, even if we were bothered to find a higher quality alternative. Again, that discussion about the same image you mentioned also happened a few months ago, but they said that the current was better as according to them, it shows her at her starting career. Nevertheless, I think the previous image was better (the one you mentioned) since it shows less noise, and nothing about a quality picture captured from a scanned book. Lemonreader (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Years Active

Can we all agree that her years active should be 1935-1988? It has been that way over a decade and is stated in multiple sources including Forbes and LA Times. One voiceover 21 years later doesn’t mean she was actively working as an actress all those intervening years. Her film career began in 1935 and ended in 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.42.138 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve said in the edit history, no formal rule exists, but the last production is the year displayed as the ‘last year active’. Many actors may have large gaps between performances, but they are not considered to have ‘stopped being active’ unless they announce their retirement. See Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglas and Mary Astor and their respective filmography pages for evidence of this. Gaps don’t equal end of career. If a primary source reference could be provided of de Havilland’s retirement (eg her explicitly stating it), instead of secondary sources that probably looked at Wikipedia to get 1988, I’d agree with your proposal.

If this is SpaceFox whatever, there’s a huge difference. Gregory Peck has small gaps but continued acting, Olivia de Havilland hasn’t acted on screen since 1988. That hasn’t changed and didn’t change in 2009 when she did a voiceover for a small film. Looking back over a decade ago, the years active hasn’t changed, there’s absolutely no reason it should now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.42.138 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• There’s no such thing as ‘authority’ on Wikipedia. See WP:AEAE. Administrators have special functions that they can perform, and users may edit a certain page more than others, but no ‘authority’ is created (although, perhaps, autoconfirmed users wield more ‘authority’ when random edits occur from new users/IPs).
• Please refer to users by their correct names by doing proper research prior to attacking others.
• Stop threatening me with warnings and blocks (see WP:ATAEW).
• The source you have used does not contain inline citations, and therefore does not meet WP:BLPRS.
• Please provide a primary source for her retirement, and I'll compromise with Years active: 1933-1988, 2009.
• You have also not provided any reason to undo 1933 as the start year.
• The fact that de Havilland's page hasn't been changed in over a decade, means nothing. If everyone thought that way, nothing would change after a certain amount of time.
• Please PROVIDE PROPER REASONING with RELIABLE SOURCES for undoing edits, not your opinion that because it hasn't been edited, it shouldn't ever be. SpaceFox99 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded on this. To be fair, anything she does in the entertainment industry is included on 'years active'. 'Years active' means years she's been active on the entertainment industry. Take a look at Jane Fonda, she retired in the 90s, but made a return in the 00s, thus this is reflected at her years active which has a comma to separate the gap. Lemonreader (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Then by that logic Lemonreader, shouldn’t it be 1935-present? She still occasionally gives interview, attended the Cesar Awards in 2011 and apparently plans to release another memoir. There is no official announcement of retirement from neither 1988 nor 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.42.138 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Because there's no announcement of retirement in 2009, and if she still does do interviews (which I was unaware of but you're right), then yes, she should still be displayed as active (from 1933 as referenced). SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Interviews doesn't mean "active", When an astronaut leaves NASA they still do interviews (look at Buzz Aldrin), but no one would consider them an "active" astronaut. Interviews isn't "acting". Her "active" years should be either 1988, or 2009 (if counting the documentary she narrated.) Using 2020 is not correct. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Should end in 1988. She was an actress. Interviews and narration aren't acting, except in the way every action is an act. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Just foiled SpaceFox's plan to call it for 2015, based on an alleged final interview the article doesn't mention, for both reasons. Acting is acting. We should all know it when we see it (or hear it in cartoons and radio plays). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

French residence

It belongs in the lead but keeps getting removed. The woman has lived in France for decades. That is a much more vital fact of her life than some of the fan-site trivia in the lead now. Put it back! Or I will. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Death date

Death date is July 26, not 25. Ryoung122 20:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Source? All sources I have read say "died Saturday", which is the 25th no matter where you are in the world. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"No matter where you are" is logically impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenacGenac (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Check your calendar. The 25th is a Saturday, no matter where you are. AMCKen (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Here’s a source that says she died on the 26th.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/26/entertainment/olivia-de-havilland-dies/index.html

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

Change word “thee to the” in the following sentence.

She was also thee last of the major last surviving stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood Cinema, until her death in 2020. 96.228.19.52 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Last major surviving star".

Hi! Would it be better to call Olivia "one of the last major stars from the Golden Age Of Hollywood", as opposed to stating that "she was the last major surviving star"? Actors Sidney Poitier and Sophia Loren are still alive and are the last two living Golden Age "Screen Legends" from AFI's list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clear Looking Glass (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"The Golden Age of Hollywood" is an infuriatingly vague term as it can span anywhere from the silent era to the 1960s. I think it would pay to be more specific in the case of Olivia de Havilland and take into account that she was the last major star of the 1930s (bearing in mind Poitier and Loren weren't established until years later in the '50s). In fact, as far as I can tell, de Havilland was the last major figure of the 1930s. Truly the end of an era. Crisso (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

6 1/2 minute ovation

While she received a well-deserved standing ovation at the 75th Academy Awards, it was not six and a half minutes as stated in the first paragraph under the heading "Retirement and remembrance, 1989–2020". Unless the broadcast has been altered, the ovation was just under a minute. May I suggest changing "earning a six-and-a-half-minute standing ovation upon her entrance" to "earning an extended standing ovation upon her entrance".

Olivia de Havilland entrance 75th Oscar's

Bartolo Falstaff (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember watching it live back in 2003 and it was definitely not 6.5 minutes. So yes - it definitely should be changed to reflect that. Crisso (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Crisso (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to Warner for GWTW contract

References to David Selzick request for Gone With the Wind acting contract does not explicate which production company asked Jack Warner to yield. Kindly explicate. GenacGenac (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It was Selznick's own production company, Selznick International Pictures. Basically he was it. Crisso (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

I would like to submit that Olivia de Havilland received an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Mills College in May 2018. (Link: https://www.mills.edu/news/videos-webcasts/mills-college-commencement-2018.php)

Thank you! 24.4.196.38 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

error

Olivia_de_Havilland was not the last golden age of hollywood star, she was the last surviveing cast member of gone of the wind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjv40950 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Dead link?

When I click on “Full List” next to “Awards“ nothing happens. Shouldn’t it then take me to another page? Thank you— wasn’t sure where to mention this. Sweetpeagirl (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Date of death?

On Sunday the media reported that de Havilland had died the previous day i.e. Saturday. As such much of the media has recorded her date of death as July 25th (per the EW article currently in the article, but also BBC America, Golden Globes along with many others. However, it seems The New York Times reported she died Sunday along with a few other American outlets. Britannica seems confused, recording July 25 and July 26. I decided to track down the original statement and it seems ambiguously worded: "Last night, the world lost an international treasure, and I lost a dear friend and beloved client. She died peacefully in Paris". In truth it could be either date. Should we record both dates? @SchroCat:. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Until there is something more official we could follow their lead and say "during the night of 25-26 July..."? There will be an official one at some point, but this seems to be best for now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's my take on it. Hate to be ghoulish but it's only a matter of time before a photo of her headstone pops up on the Commons. Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If a headstone is the only written date we can find anywhere, it's better than nothing at all. But headstones should normally be used only to confirm details found in written documents, as it's far from unknown for headstones to be dead wrong (no pun intended). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the confusion comes from the fact that Olivia de Havilland lived in Paris, where the Sunday (and the day) begins earlier than in the United States - most of the sources naming the 25 July are from the USA. Her publicist Lisa Goldberg stated quite clearly that it was Sunday, which would be the 26 July. --Clibenfoart (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sunday in which time zone? Once there is an official stance, it will be the day the French authorities put on the death certificate. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The news of her death broke on the evening of Sunday in Europe. The agent also told the German press agency "dpa" (time zone: one hour earlier than France) that it was Sunday, so she obviously stated Sunday to media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic. --Clibenfoart (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

All the sources I'm finding (CNN, NYT, The Guardian, Variety, Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, ABC News) all state Sunday. The only cites I've found saying Saturday seem to be less than reliable sources, or wonky sources in general, like Dailymail or Forbes. It looks very clear cut it was Sunday, especially when the citations saying Sunday are sourcing her agent. Rusted AutoParts 01:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly also published another article about Havilland that says she died July 26. Rusted AutoParts 01:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Clibenfoart has put forward the most likely explanation but is there any way we can check this for sure? Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I genuinely feel it can be tied into the overwhelming amount of sources that supports the 26th. As I illustrated above, the more considerably reliable sources have corroborated the 26th, whilst the 25th seems to only be supported by more tabloidish sources. Rusted AutoParts 17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to go with the Sunday date can we at least include a note explaining the discrepancy? Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Don’t see any issue with that. Do we word it like “some outlets reported her date of death as Saturday” or “some outlets misconstrued her date of death as Saturday”? Rusted AutoParts 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of "de Havilland died at night in her sleep which led to some media outlets reporting she had died the previous day". It doesn't have to be exactly those words, but it explains the confusion over the dates. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve added a note though it currently looks malformed. Fee free to adjust the wording. Rusted AutoParts 22:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Further discussions regarding citizenship in the infobox

I see that there was a prolonged discussion regarding her citizenship, unfortunately, none of them were able to answer these two questions: First, under the 1914 British Nationality and Aliens Act she ceased to be a British subject when she was naturalized as a U.S. citizen, so is there any proof that she gained the status of a British citizen (aside from the Damehood argument)? Second, where is the source or proof that she obtained French citizenship? If none of these questions can be answered I suggest the citizenship information be removed from the infobox as they can't be verified, and the only proof of citizenship was her well-documented naturalization as a U.S. citizen. 184.148.38.90 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)