Talk:Farrah Fawcett

Can someone please tell her about enzyme therapy?

It has no side effects and is extremely effective. Enzymes are so cheap there is no money in the treatment, plus its a natural treatment, so the system doesn't recognize it. If anyone close to her reads this, please look it up.

Gay icon?

Why is Fawcett listed as a gay icon (category)? She's not gay, in fact she's had relationships with several men over the years (Lee Majors, Ryan O'Neil)? If no one has an answer, I'll rever the addition. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, turns out she appeals to gays. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture

There's a famous poster of her in a red bathing suit. Someone should replace the current pic (from Myra Breckinridge) with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.22.195 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 July 2005 (UTC) That poster is copyrighted and Farrah owns all rights to it. I would not put it up, without her permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.184.155 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you chose the wrong version of the poster

You chose a version of the poster that I'd never seen, and as old as I am you can believe I saw the original... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.25.25 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Filmography is incomplete

Probably the best Playboy video to date is the video about Farrah Fawcett that she made when she turned fifty. There is some nudity, but there is more art than nudity. The going rate on Amazon for a copy of this DVD is $199.99. They are hard to find. I had one, I think my son took it with him when he went away to college. Imagine that, a 20-year-old watching a 50-year-old woman with lust in his heart.

"Playboy: Farrah Fawcett, All of Me" (1997) Directed by Mark S. Manos

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/36/16/80m.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.25.25 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A link to the poster

http://www.cybertown.com/ffposter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.155.219 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If Guernica (painting) is iconic enough to justify fair use (Wikipedia:Fair use), than certainly this poster is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent at Shatner's Roast?

I just watched that roast twice. While I agree that she was not exactly smooth in delivering her jokes -- far from it -- I do not feel that she was incoherent. NSpector 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• What roast were /you/ watching? I can't believe they let her go that long. It was embarassing. Rockhound 18:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It could also have been an act. Either way its not our place to assume one thing or another. These personal biography pages are disasters waiting to happen if we don't stay as NPOV as possible. I deleted the tabloid comment as it is the kind of thing that absolutely must be sourced, and the plastic surgery remark seems unnecessary and likely unfounded. If someone can provide a somewhat reliable source then maybe it will work. I also cleared up the roast information along the same lines.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Add: She was rather coherent during the Emmy ceremonies when she spoke so I find it hard to believe the entire roast deal was for real.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

University

did she not attend the University of Texas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.167.31 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Orr injuries

"In 1998, she was injured by then-boyfriend James Orr when he tried to stop her from vandalizing his house." Entertainment tonight just said that Orr attacked her and then she returned the next night with a baseball bat and hit his car with it when he wouldn't let her in the house. --Gbleem 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cancer

The article mentions O'Neal in this section, but does not explain who that is. It should explain who that is.

how do u get anal cancer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.250.76 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Probably similar to how one gets breast cancer, prostate cancer, or brain cancer. Eating lots of beef increases your chances of colon cancer, because of how long it takes to digest (according to my nurse friend). Lewie 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nurse friends are always excellent sources of information...while low fiber does predispose you to colorectal cancer, Ms. Fawcett had a completely different type of cancer. 68.115.83.140 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To correct you, ulcerative colitis is thought to be one potential contributing factor to anal cancer, and in turn diet is thought to be a contributing factor to ulcerative colitis. There is also a genetic predisposition to both gastric disease and all types of cancer. Abrazame (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Fawcett have rectal cancer or anal cancer? It is an important distinction, as the two have different causes. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the metastases in her liver were found in May 2007. However, the large majority of people with liver metastases are dead within a year of the secondaries being found in the liver. Is it certain the metastases were found as early as 23 months ago? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The cited source for that part of Wiki's article states:

"She was declared in remission on Feb 2, 2007, but three months later, scans showed 'not only had it recurred, it metastasized to her liver,' Nevius said.

"The latest treatment in Germany tried to address the cancer's spread to that organ, he said."

I realize this is an important distinction for those with the disease as well as those in the medical profession. If anybody can source a different or more specific mention for this detail, please discuss it here. Nevius is not the doctor, but he is being quoted by the media as her spokesperson as he is the person producing the documentary about Fawcett's treatment. Of course I would prefer to use terms and dates specified by the doctor, if we could find a quote. The article quotes Piro addressing the hematoma specifically, but not the cancer. I am assuming Piro, an L.A. doctor, would be privy to, but not authorized to speak on, her German treatment.

As for the distinction between anal and rectal cancer, I think the edits here have merely been one of linguistic propriety, to put it one way. I have seen both words used in articles about Fawcett. I have not edited that detail one way or the other, due to this conflation of terms in media sources and my own lack of understanding of that distinction. The person inquiring above about the cause was responding to vulgar vandalism. My editorial instinct is that sourced information about causes that are not specifically about an individual person's case is probably best for articles about disease or disease prevention and not articles about the individual person. Abrazame (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There are significant differences between anal and rectal cancer. Anal cancer is a squamous cell cancer while rectal cancer is an adenocarcinoma (glandular cancer). Anal cancer has been linked with HPV infection (same virus that causes cervical cancer) while rectal cancer has been linked with diet and ulcerative colitis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.46.162 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charlies angels 1st season dvdcover.jpg

Image:Charlies angels 1st season dvdcover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice

Interesting and useful article, but can it loose the passive voice? "It was revealed..."? Eeeuww. Instead, (just a fabricated example) how about phrasing such as this: "Sarah, in an interview in the Curmugeon Weekly [footnote goes here], revealed that...". Bill Wvbailey (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Health update, 04-Apr-2009

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/04/exclusive-farrah-fawcett-hospitalized

Farrah Fawcett has been hospitalized and is in bad shape, sources close to family and friends tell RadarOnline.com exclusively.

She has been battling cancer for three years and recently returned from Germany, where she had experimental stem-cell treatment. Sources told RadarOnline.com that she is critical but stable in a Los Angeles-area hospital. They also say she is unconscious and has been hospitalized for days. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The very first sentence says: Farrah Fawcett (born February 2, 1947) has died an American actress. " As of 1:25 p.m., on Monday, April 6, 2009, Pacific Time, it has NOT been announced that she has died! Please change this ASAP! Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewBe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the radaronline report was incorrect, in true tabloid style. According to her spokesperson in an AP article[1], not only was she not "in bad shape," but she had never received any stem-cell treatment. Furthermore, she had chemotherapy and radiation in 2006, but not surgery as is reported in this bio. Abrazame (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did she receive an experimental stem cell transplant? If so it should be included, as right now it says she went for 'holistic treatment', which is generally code word in the cancer community for forgoing modern treatment in favor of unproven herbs, spices, cartilage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.83.140 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the post immediately above yours here, supported by the link therein, a spokesperson has said she did not have stem cell treatment. There will be a documentary airing on U.S. network television this Friday which may shed some light on the treatment. However, we cannot speculate on the modernity or comment on the nature of her treatment without a notable reference. Abrazame (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redmond O'Neal

Stop trying to sensationalize the guy's arrests. He is a living person dealing with a challenge. He is also the child of Farrah Fawcett. While in the real world he is a valuable and multidimensional human being and an important and enduring part of Fawcett's life, Redmond has not chosen to be a celebrity or actor and is not himself encyclopedically notable. Note that, other than one sentence about his birth noting his father, the vast majority was about his addiction and record. This is undue weight both from the standpoint of its being Fawcett's bio and from the standpoint of its coverage of this young man. It's not a question of what's clearly lacking in your heart, it's a question of what's clearly lacking in your editorial responsibility given that this is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column. We need to refrain from emphasizing the tabloid elements of an article subject, in this case Fawcett's life, and virtually ignore those elements of their relatives', in this case her son's. Abrazame (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 6 news

I have restored the fact that Fawcett learned about her liver cancer two years ago, and has been living with that cancer and receiving treatment for it these past two years. This was noted not only in the article referenced but in its title. This is not some horrible new development that has transpired during or since her time in Germany. Just because most of the press is sensationalizing it due to the fact they just learned of the development, we need to take a broader perspective and present the history of the woman's life, not the history of the news reports about her. It's the misreporting of all of this that lends itself to the misrepresentation that it's a sudden turn for the worse and she's at death's door. Let's try and distill the facts and the actual reportage from the breaking tabloid news around here. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Lee Majors launch her career? Strange Wikipedia bio entry

This is a strange Wikipedia bio entry. According to this entry, she was doing commercials in the late 1960's and did an "I Dream of Jeannie" episode in 1969. And it mentions that she at that point married Lee Majors in the early 1970's. This totally leaves out that she got her Hollywood start when Lee Majors visited the University of Texas and saw a picture of her and dropped by the Tri-Delt house and told them "Tell Farrah Fawcett that Lee Majors will pick her up at 7 tonight" or something to that effect. Didn't he launch her career????, introduce her to Hollywood??? I could have sworn I read that a dozen times - but nothing in this Wiki entry. And didn't they divorce because Majors didn't want a starlet wife, but Victorian ideas and wanted her pregnant at home, cooking food for him??? I think he actually said that. But no mention of anything here. Not even why they got divorced. Maybe I'm thinking about a different Farrah Fawcett, and this one in Wikipedia didn't inhabit this particular Earth. I think they are two different people, what with all the information left out of this Wiki entry. This is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.54.161 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Farrah Fawcett that inhabits this earth, she's one of the most photographed women in the history of said earth, and there's been more than a few words accompanying those photos. Perhaps you can find the strings of quotes you're recalling from a notable source (not fan magazines, unauthorized bios or tabloids) and actually reference them in the article. If Majors began her career, then married her, but didn't want a starlet wife, that's kind of self-contradictory, no? I'm not saying I haven't read it, or that one couldn't glean the second part of that from the TV movie, I'm saying what's your point...what was his point...and does it stack up as the real story? What purpose does it serve in her bio? The germane issue to her bio is that what is notable is that she appeared in this or that project, not her former husband's alleged and changing views on her career, much less his bon mots to her roommates as they dated or speculation on the cause of their divorce.

Having said all that, I agree that this bio needs some work, as it's heavily weighted toward latter-day tabloid tales. Fawcett is not Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton, she is notable not only for her relationships and her beauty and her fame but for having been an actress with a decades-long career. The bio should better reflect that. Abrazame (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see multiple problems with what you wrote and suggested. First of all, it all took place in the late 1960's, and most newspapers do not have those articles up on the web - the web only really took off in the mid-1990's - a quarter of a century later. Secondly, Farrah Fawcett was Hollywood actress and starlet - not a nuclear physicist or politician - so the vast majority of her coverage was in tabloids etc, i.e. she was not a topic for discussion by what you would consider to be serious media. Thirdly, it is largely a waste of time for somebody like me to insert anything in Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia entries are largely dominated by people who have serious serious SERIOUS interest in the topics at hand, i.e. they "own" a half dozen pages at Wikipedia, and immediately delete/change edits that they don't like (that's probably the primary reason why Wikipedia will never be a serious resource - at least, not until the people running Wikipedia figure out a solution to that). Thus, I don't waste my time with edits. Heck, the Lee Majors stuff was probably put up at one time (probably multiple times), but taken down by whoever "owns" this page. And, lastly, any sort of edit that might be considered negative in ANY SORT OF LIGHT WHATSOEVER has to come down at Wikipedia - negative information is basically not allowed at Wikipedia (in case you hadn't noticed that) - another major shortcoming of Wikipedia until they figure out a way to be able to put up negative information without it being taken down.

One more minor comment, with your regards to what I wrote being "contradictory". I guess you weren't around when it all happened and was written about, but Majors introduced her to Hollywood for things like commercials - never expecting (or wanting) her to become a major star - and when she did - poof, there went the marriage, i.e. it's actually not contradictory if you knew the full story.

Direct-to-video

Wasn't the All of Me piece shown on the Playboy Channel and/or Pay-Per-View prior to or concurrent with the video release? As such, isn't it essentially the same as other cable or television films/specials and not truly direct-to-video? Could we get a ref for the direct-to-video status of those titles? Abrazame (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Encounter with crazed fan

This reads very poorly; e.g. "They tried—but failed—to throw the book at him." It needs a more summary style than a story. 69.221.128.207 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I re-edited that down to its unsensationalized essentials and incorporated it into a newly formed section on Extremities rather than its own section. I've also expanded and split into sections other areas of her career, in an effort to give appropriate weight to what she's actually been notable for, and less to her cancer and her son's difficulties. Abrazame (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you divided her career into subsections. Good call. LA Movie Buff (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting content from talk pages

I've just restored two deleted sections to this talk page. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, talk page content should be archived, not deleted. Deleting content because you don't agree with it, eg this, is inappropriate. It's censorship and Wikipedia is not censored! A more appropriate response to the suggestion might have been to answer with a modified version the edit summary used in the deletion. As for this edit, it's expressly covered by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long; "Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, do not delete the content—archive it." Of course the page is less than 32KB in length and there are only (now) 20 sections so the page doesn't meet the general archiving guideline in that section. i.e there's no need to archive yet. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just been made aware that one of the deleted sections was started by a banned user, so I'm re-deleting it as such deletion is entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Death

Death?

did she really die or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

She's not dead, unless the anonymous IP that saved that information knows her personally or has some other way of knowing this information before the press finds out. There is no news source reporting her death at this time. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 05:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The old Wikipedia custom of jumping the gun surfaces again...192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proseline

I tried to quickly reformat the "Cancer" paragraph to remove the proseline, but since I'm not an experienced contributor, a work check would be appreciated. If it looks OK, the proseline template may also be removed. Thanks--Webwizard (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anal cancer

There is a factual conflict between whether Farrah has anal or rectal cancer in this article. The article says anal and the footnote says rectal. This page is probably getting hit a lot on the eve of the broadcast; would a true Wikipedian please work this out? I am but a nestling. DioxonFreak not logged in96.238.101.102 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fawcett has anal cancer. I have inserted a ref for that immediately following the term, as it does not support the claim that she had surgery for her first bout, which is noted in the other ref. I've taken the liberty of changing your section title. Thanks for the heads-up, although of course it is the ref which is wrong and not the Wikipedia article. I could cite five notable refs for "anal cancer" and someone else could come along and cite five notable refs for "rectal cancer". And anyone reading the articles which state the latter will go off believing that. I have seen a preview of Fawcett's documentary, and she says the term in her own voice. I would direct anyone else who has a question one way or the other on this or any other detail to watch the documentary Friday, 5/15 at 9PM ET on NBC, and take your information on this from the source. Abrazame (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction request

Under the second paragraph under the heading 'Cancer', a course of profusion (which means an abundance) should be changed to a course of perfusion (the pumping of a liquid into an organ or tissue)

thanks! GrammarPolice23 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, by removing the sentence entirely, as it was uncited.  Frank  |  talk  14:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, one doesn't fix a typo by removing the whole sentence and its salient information. The cite came at the end of the paragraph for everything therein back to the previous cite. The reference is the documentary Farrah's Story, where the details came right from the source, meetings between Fawcett and her German doctors. Thanks for correcting my spelling of that term, GrammarPolice23! Much appreciated and a valuable contribution. Abrazame (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment and also at my talk page, I'm not aware of a reliable way to use a video as a reliable source. In addition, this is an encyclopedia, not Wikinews, so we don't need every (literally) excruciating detail of each of her six trips to Germany.  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't include any excruciating details, it names, what, four elements of her course of therapy? Abrazame (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As to video as reliable source, I used a Wikipedia template called "Cite video". Abrazame (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment details

We must always remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. To include the words "in fact" in an article is very much against the spirit of WP:NPOV. We report was has been reported elsewhere in reliable sources, and if the material cannot be properly cited, it usually should be removed.  Frank  |  talk  20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Her ancestry

The statement that her father is "Lebanese American" is not correct; the only reference to that was the British tabloid, the Daily Mail, which almost certainly copied what was on her Wikipedia page just a few days before the paper's publication on April 2 (see Wikipedia page dated March 31). These British papers do that a lot. "Current Biography Yearbook", 1978 edition, describes her as "of mixed French, English, and one-eighth Choctaw Indian descent" and quotes her mother, Pauline, as the source (Pg. 125). The same is also stated in the 2005 book "Entertainment Celebrities‎" (Pg. 219), by Norbert B. Laufenberg and in Richard Linklater's 2001 book "Dazed and Confused: Teenage Nostalgia, Instant and Cool 70's Memorabilia" (pg. 72). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Her family...

Her father is Lebanese why is there no mention of this...her name Farah is an Arabic name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.120.207 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any citations from reliable sources to support this? More than one citation in the article says otherwise; the source that was previously used in this article was a tabloid, and that was the only one I could find. If there are others, this question can certainly be revisited, but the cites we have don't include Lebanese.

Regarding her name, again...it's not clear that any cite exists to support this, and at least two say that her mother made it up. What her name might mean in any language other than English may be interesting to some people, but it isn't necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  Frank  |  talk  17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Name, or, what Farrah means to ME

Farah is indeed an Arabic name. Farah is a river, province and city of Afghanistan and it is also the name of the last Empress of Iran. In Arabic it means "joy" and in Persian it apparently means "glory" or "fortune".

However, Farrah, with the spelling actually used by Fawcett, is said—by Wikipedia's disambiguation page, at any rate—to be an English name descended from the Gaelic, and meaning "beauty" or "pleasant". This site pinpoints it as an English name meaning "delightful".

While Fawcett surely has all of these qualities, and all of these associations might make an interesting aside in the article, we should avoid making declarative statements about her name and her heritage that are not attributed to Fawcett or her parents, or people who can speak for them. What Farrah means in Middle English is probably at least as relevant as what Farah means in the Middle East, if not more so, though her parents may have known about and felt fine with it all. Abrazame (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean these things up; please feel free to jump in and help!  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

World's most photographed woman

I would like to expound upon the Pop Culture Phenomenon angle. Many women are actresses, but Fawcett's hold over the media, peaking between 1976 and the early '80s but sustained to this day, was equal to none at the time. I recall reading on more than one occasion that Fawcett was referred to as holding this informal title (I even recall reading she "took it" from Elizabeth Taylor) in the 1970s. I suppose Princess Diana and Madonna eventually shared that distinction once the 1980s really got underway, and of course paparazzi have multiplied exponentially since then, spreading their focus over so many more women. But for a while there, and for a few years after leaving Charlie's Angels, Fawcett's face was all over the place. I can only find blog posts and the promo for Chasing Farrah here. The latter may or may not be a good enough source. Can anyone help track down a better source (perhaps from the period) for this claim? Abrazame (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can find better sources, this may be worth expanding upon, but if we have to rely on original research or opinion, the article is better off without it. Personally, I'd rather address this (if at all) in terms of "phenomenon" rather than "most photographed" because the former is a description, while the latter is a declarative that is probably not supportable and not worth having long discussions about. She was certainly well-photographed; I don't think we need to try to determine if (or when) she was "most photographed" to convey the idea in the article. Again (see my comment above), please feel free to jump in!  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you glance at the last seven pages of the edit history of this article's main page, I have made extensive and frequent recent edits to the article, expanding, correcting and referencing information. I am the editor who submitted the page for semi-protection. Two weeks ago you and I had an exchange about our edits to this article on your talk page. Are you erroneously suggesting the person who wrote the Chasing Farrah promo is constrained by Wikipedia's original research guideline, or do you misunderstand my post? I don't really know what you mean about long discussions. I'm sure you don't mean to prevent this from moving further by dissuading other editors from contributing references for this topic? Abrazame (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments like "Fawcett's face was all over the place" and "I can only find blog posts and the promo..." look like original research to me, and since I don't see edits to the article that use them as support, I think this talk page is doing what it's intended to. You made a suggestion and I responded with my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure what to say about the suggestion that I might be trying to "[dissuade] others from contributing references for this topic".  Frank  |  talk  09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you misunderstand, and could benefit by re-reading my first post here—particularly the last sentence. I wasn't asking for permission to put this aspect into the article, I was announcing my intention to and inviting anyone interested to help track down a better reference than I've yet found. I'm fairly certain that one of us doesn't grasp the concept of original research if you consider inviting others to help find a reference to support something you recall having read as such. It's quite possible someone visiting this page will be a fan who has a collection of magazines from the period and/or know exactly where they read that. "I think this talk page is doing what it's intended to" sounds like you think something was accomplished here, and I'm left puzzled at what that could be, though coming on the heels of "not worth having long discussions about" it sounds a bit imperious. Abrazame (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your guess is off the mark; we simply disagree. In general, I am of the opinion that no biographical article is improved by starting with a conclusion and then finding sources to support it. Furthermore, I don't think that having to hunt around to find sources to support a very subjective superlative statement is particularly encyclopedic; it seems rather more tabloidish to me. And yes, I continue to think this talk page is doing exactly what it's here for; there is discussion about what elements should be added to the article. That is not to say that the mere presence of a discussion indicates a consensus has been reached. I am not saying she was or wasn't the "most photographed woman", nor am I saying that sources can't be found to support such a statement. I'm saying that I don't think it adds to one's understanding of the subject. I feel all the more strongly about that if it's so hard to find reliable sources to support it, and I've spent the last ten days reading articles from most years since 1975 that focus on her.  Frank  |  talk  14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I don't think that linking to something like Highbeam research is helpful to a reference, since it is a pay service and only one of many. If we can't link to the content directly, should we really be telling readers what method to use to pay for an article? It almost seems like Highbeam gets free advertising this way, just because they happen to come up earlier (and/or more often) in web searches. But ProQuest, LexisNexis, and NewsBank (to name just some) could also provide copies of an article, and some of them are available to public library patrons and university students on the Internet.  Frank  |  talk  19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, we might be helping a serious researcher who may not be currently aware that a pay service such as Highbeam exists. After all, Highbeam is a valid Wikipedia entry. If a serious researcher finds a new tool like Highbeam on Wikipedia, he/she is more likely to respect Wikipedia and return to use it often. I don't think it's such a bad thing to give Highbeam "free advertising". It's no different from linking any other commercial enterprise. Would you discourage linking Coca Cola for that reason?

Since the economy is in such bad shape right now, maybe this will help it in a small way. If we were experiencing an era of booming economic prosperity, I might be inclined to agree with you about "no free advertising". But I have been unemployed for over 6 months, with absolutely no job prospects on the horizon. I am passing my time and keeping myself sane by contributing to Wikipedia. I really think this is a minor quibble, and in my opinion, the link to Highbeam should remain. I have no affiliation or financial interest in Highbeam. I wasn't even aware it existed until I came across it a few minutes ago. LA Movie Buff (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies do not depend on the state of the economy at a given point in time, and providing free advertising is (and has long been) against policies, particularly WP:SPAM. Why would we link to Highbeam and not NewsBank? Or a search directly at the Washington Post's site? Where do we draw the line?  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

American Roman Catholics category

She is certainly an American Roman Catholic. It is stated in the article, and is referenced. Her religion is certainly important to her; her faith must be strong, as she stated this month that she is praying for a miracle to save her from dying of the metastatic cancer that she is suffering from. When praying, that would be to the god that Catholics believe in, not a generic 'higher power'. As that footage of her, including her making the sign of the cross on herself, was broadcast internationally to many millions of viewers, that qualifies her religion as relevant to her public life. I believe it fair to say that she self-identifies as RC; if someone asked her what her religion is, she would, if she is still able to, answer that question. Best name (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but please see Wikipedia:BLP#Categories - she does not meet both criteria listed for people to be included in categories relating to their religion or orientation. The point is not to "out" people whose inclusion in this category is not the central thing about them.—GraemeMcRae^talk 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe she does meet both criteria, as I explained above. It would not be 'outing' her, as she is openly Catholic and it is referenced. There is no requirement that a person's religion be central to their life or notablity for them to be included in the category. Best name (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Her religion is not central to her persona, her fame, or her notability. And, as you point out, the information is in the article for those who are interested.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Extremities at Internet off-Broadway Database

I had been hearing so much about Farrah's performance in off-Broadway's "Extremities", but I could never find any information on it at the Internet off-Broadway Database. I e-mailed IOBDB numerous times and asked them to please add information about it, explaining that since Farrah is in the spotlight so much now, there is renewed interest in that show for establishing her as a serious actress. I just received an e-mail from the database - they added it!

Woo hoo! I added it as an external link in the article: http://www.lortel.org/LLA_archive/index.cfm?search_by=people&first=Farrah&last=Fawcett&middle=

LA Movie Buff (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)