Talk:Anna May Wong

Far Too Long For Such A Subject

Approximate word count for Wikipedia article on the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (selected purely at random): 6,571.

Approximate word count for Wikipedia article on actress Anna May Wong: 6,115.

This is pathetic, the sort of thing that will forever keep Wikipedia, if not a laughingstock, then severely lacking in credibility--unless, of course, the aim is to make Wikipedia the in-depth pop culture resource of choice. If so, then by all means, let's have more 6,000-plus word articles on minor Hollywood figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernoctus (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit or bitch about. So what's keeping you from writing about Hegel? You want to tear this article down because others are in poor shape? Get off your ass or stop complaining. Dekkappai (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The only Asian American to merit star billing in a feature film for many decades, the first Asian to star in a television series, however short-lived, doesn't need some effete Hegelian to attack her fifty years after her death, when we see that Asian-Americans are still hard-pressed to see anyone on screen who reflects their racial characteristics. Bustter (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As an Asian-American, I am pretty mad to see this message. Ueutyi (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the issue is that you are far too self-important to understand why Anna May Wong is much more important than you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.223.193 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GAN review

This was fascinating to read; I'm truly pleased that such dedication was put into writing and researching such an important subject in cinema history. The article itself is well written for the most part, it follows the MOS and is factually accurate and verifiable as well as neutral and stable. It is certainly broad in its coverage and the images (most of which are either free or in the public domain) are lovely. I do have some suggestions on the prose:

• The opening sentence is a little unwieldy. Stating that she was both the first "Chinese American movie star" and the first "Asian American star" seems repetitive, although I can see how they are different. Perhaps reword the last part and relocate it? "The first female Asian American celebrity (?), Wong..." Done
• Her career spanned the silent movie era, the advent of the talkies and television, as well as starring roles on the stage, and in radio: verb disagreement here as "spanned" and "starring" do not fit. This could be split into two sentences or maybe reworded as such: "Her career spanned the silent movie era and the advent of the talkies and television; she also appeared in starring roles on the stage and in radio." Done
• In Hollywood she acted with Marlene Dietrich in Josef von Sternberg's Shanghai Express, one of Wong's best-remembered film roles: terms such as "best-remembered" definitely require citation so as to not seem POV, but is this sentence even needed since Shanghai Express is already mentioned in the previous paragraph? Done

Addressed repetition, but citation still needed. --Red Sunset 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the lead bothers me. Rather than stating the obvious ("first Asian American star" is already repetitive), I think the examples ("three major literary works and major film retrospectives") can just speak for themselves. Done
• There is a lot of time spent of Wong's family, their origins, occupations, etc. If you're looking to trim info, that may be a good place to start -- we're writing Anna May Wong's biography, not her forefathers and mothers. :) Done

Some trimming done. --Red Sunset 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• There were now two hills between the new home and Chinatown; this helped influence Wong to assimilate further into American culture: the way that this reads now, it sounds like the hills helped influence Wong to assimilate instead of the distance from Chinatown. How about "Two hills stood between the family's new home and Chinatown; this separation helped influence..."? Done
• she received her first leading role, and was officially "discovered" in the early Metro Technicolor movie, The Toll of the Sea: is "officially 'discovered'" necessary here? Isn't that what "first leading role" denotes? Done
• After this second breakout role... is there such a thing? Perhaps state the year instead for some context? Done
• It had become evident by now that Wong's career would continue to be limited by anti-miscegenation laws that existed all over the U.S. at the time. This is a good example of redundancies in the prose throughout; it isn't grammatically incorrect, but removing such wordiness can help remove some of the bulk in the article and stave off prose snobs in the future. "It soon became evident that Wong's career would be continuously limited by American anti-miscegenation laws." Done
• mostly white actors would play in yellowface": missing quotation mark. Done
• The New York Times, for example, called Wong "splendid" in her minor role in Forty Winks (1925).[34] Disappointed with Hollywood's treatment of her: it's confusing to have these two sentences back to back. One may be led to think that Wong was disappointed with such glowing reviews, which I know wasn't the case. Give it context; what "treatment"? Done~~

Reworded slightly. --Red Sunset 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the UK in 1929, Wong made what is today considered her finest movie, Piccadilly. This needs a source. Done
• In both America and Europe Wong had by now been seen as a fashion icon for over a decade: comma after "Europe". Done
• The "Legacy" section is bloated; much attention is paid to two different people's ideas of the three most important aspects of Wong's career. Rather than he said, she said, this section should deal in facts. "Wong is remembered for" and not "So-and-so believes that Wong is remembered for." A lot of this can be cut down drastically.  Done I believe we did reduce the bloat. EraserGirl (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some copy-editing from non-involved editors would help eliminate some of the prose redundancies that I mentioned above, especially if you plan on taking this to FAC. All you need to concentrate on in order for me to promote, however, are the above concerns. Let me know if there are any questions/comments or if you need further clarification. Overall, this is a very detailed (perhaps overly so) article and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dekkappai, since I have not actually made any textural contributions, just voiced opinions, I could take a stab at smoothing this prose unless someone else feels they have a better handle on it. Just holler if I can help. EraserGirl (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Just taken a quick run through to cover most of the above points, but over to EG for polishing. --Red Sunset 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will take a pass at smoothing the language but make no structural changes, I swear. Here's my Sandbox.EraserGirl (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You should remove the categories and similar categorizing templates from your sandbox version so it won't be taken for a duplicate article. Also, it would be helpful for me to affirm progression if contributors were to either strike my above comments or add {{done}} beneath the individual bullet points when completed. Again, I don't think a full copy-edit is needed in order to be promoted to GA status, so just let me know when the above has been adequately addressed. Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you guys may find User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a helpful for tips in how to reduce prose redundancies. I think it should be required reading for all college students. :) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. María (habla conmigo) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only online for a few minutes today-- so I'll just poke my nose in here quick-- to say thanks to everyone addressing the concerns brought up in the review. I'll be happy to help with any work still needing to be done tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I bagged the idea of a sandbox version, every time I came back to paste stuff in, things had changed. I will just work 1 small section at a time, that should reduce edit conflicts and let people fix anything of mine they don't like right away. EraserGirl (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I polished down to Move to Europe section, but its late here, if ya'll don't mind I will finish the other half tomorrow. So be my guest if you want to take a pass at the top half. I have trouble seeing periods and commas on a backlighted screen. To make some room I have been trying to remove redundancies and information not directly related to the subject, but anything larger than a few words i merely commented out, in case someone disagrees with me. Quite a few paras were unrelated sentences grouped together, so it may LOOK longer, but really isn't. EraserGirl (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished what I could do, if anyone wants to unpolish my polish. I did comment out another paragraph that was completely about her family, but I moved the most important sentence in it to a later section. Dekkappai and Bzuk are going after the Legacy section. EraserGirl (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the text above need to have the strike-through line? Is the tick enough? I think that is is best that editors do not strike out other editors text. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Is this image any good for the infobox File:Anna May Wong (passport style photograph).jpg. It is from her re-entry document. Was she excluded from USA in the 1930? Snowman (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• That is a fabulous image for that propose..it is HER at the height of her beauty, not a role, no background, no flowers, no fancy lighting and in public domain - Delish. EraserGirl (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a plain photograph of her as a young woman. I will link it in, but would you find a place for the current infobox image, because I do not know where to place it. Was she forced to leave the USA int he 1930s? Snowman (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, HongQiGong and I considered this photo in a small discussion up above somewhere... We both like it as a picture (how many passport pictures look that good?), but I voiced the opinion that, since Anna May Wong is/was an international fashion/glamour icon, that the lead photo should reflect that image. Again, I have no objection to using it as the lead, but the question of whether it's the best one remains in my mind. However, if it is used, I think it needs to be better-captioned. It's reproduced in one of my sources (I hope I can track it down again), with a description as to the year and its reason. (She was never forced to leave the US, but-- in the 1920s-- Chinese American citizens were forced to have special documents prepared. This was the era of Chinese-exclusion, and a Chinese-American citizen who left the country and tried to re-enter without proper documentation risked losing citizenship.) Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the original artistic image be restored to the infobox. The passport photo could be included in the section (which I can not find) featuring the Chinese Exclusion era in the USA in the 1930s. Perhaps, the infobox image was changed with too much haste, and I should have waited for your input. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to suggest that we either use File:AnnaMayWong2.jpg, which shows her face much more clearly than the current picture, or File:Anna May Wong (Hurrell).jpg, which is a much more glamourous picture of her than the current picture. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of these images were at one time used as the infobox image with both being problematic. The Hurrell image was used temporarily but it is too stylized and does not represent a good picture of her face. The other image is a mess with all the flowers framing her face and detracting from the overall impression. Sorry, the best so far is the current one. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

Legacy section

It looks like the only GA-review concern left is over the "Legacy" section. This section gave me the most trouble in writing-- I think it's important that we have one, but how to go about it? I tried putting it in chronological order, which didn't work very well. Then I tried a version by "aspects" of her legacy. Which didn't work very well. Finally I tried a mix between the two, which is up now, and which doesn't work very well. I think the information I've gathered has the makings of a decent "Legacy" section, but perhaps I'm too close to it to see how it can be better put-together. EraserGirl or RedSunset-- Or any of the other editors-- if you see how it can be put into good shape, please feel free to do so. And feel free to cut out as much as you think needs to be cut. Again, thanks to all the editors who addressed the GA review concerns yesterday. Great job, all! Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"I think it's important that we have one, but how to go about it?" why? EraserGirl (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the only section I don't feel qualified to polish. I could work on the wording, but I am not very objective. I find Legacy sections too subjective and full of opinion - I like facts. I think that's my foible. When I finish with it there wouldn't be much left. Anyone else want to tackle it? EraserGirl (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dekkappai should tackle, I'll run interference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

It's late here now but I've just had a quick stab at rearranging some of the info. It's nothing fantastic, but take a look here and see what you think. Mix it up as much as you want if you think its worthwhile! --Red Sunset 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer EG's "Why?" Above-- Because an artist doesn't work in a vacuum. They work within a culture which influences them, and on which, if they are significant, they have influence themselves. We have covered the overall culture's influence on Wong; and how she was perceived by later generations is an important part of her story too. I'm against the "in popular culture" sort of sections which are just random lists of trivial references to the subject. But the legacy of the subject's career-- good, bad, or non-existent-- ought to be mentioned, I think. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a valid argument. But when I look up someone in an encyclopedia, the articles usually stop when they die. Personally I find it all very subjective. JMHO EraserGirl (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need more opinions? I think Red Sunset's done a pretty good job-- but it's still awkward. Anyone else say just leave it out? Maybe leave just the section on the recent Biographies? It would solve a lot of problems. Dekkappai (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar sections are common in high quality biographical articles, especially FAs. Anthony Michael Hall has an "In the media/Recognition" and Bette Davis has "Comments and criticism", for example. Wong, being such a trailblazer in her field, is especially entitled to a section dedicated to her impact on culture and the legacy she has left behind. I'd be disappointed -- as the reviewer and a reader -- to see it go completely. My initial comment regarding the section was only that it needs to be somewhat condensed, with which I think Red Sunset has made a nice start. Whichever way it goes, such debates can wait until the FAC, but for now you just need to pass GAN, right? :) María (habla conmigo) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

True. It would may only have to recreated at a later date, as the move from GAN and FA would probably entail an expansion SOMEWHERE. Perhaps just RedSunset's rework would get us from this point, to the next rung. EraserGirl (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah HAH! There's that Shanghai Express was her best-remembered bit-- it's cited to Hodges in the current (at the page) Legacy section. I say we use Red Sunset's version without the sub-section headers. The only change I see it needs is "Among Wong's major film roles, for decades Shanghai Express alone retained mainstream..." because with the centennial and the new film festivals a wider body of her work, particularly Piccadilly has received re-appraisal, for the better. Dekkappai (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took another stab at this. I took Red Sunset's and put it into paragraphs discussing 1) The impact of her career during her life, 2) How her films were remembered/forgotten 3), How her image became something of a literary symbol, and 4) the centennial re-examination of her life & career. Again, everyone is welcome to chip in on it. Dekkappai (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EG-- Is it just me, or is "paragon" a bit flowery? Have a better word? Dekkappai (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• For a woman born "frosted yellow willows" I think flowery is just fine, besides paragon has few synonyms. I took a swipe at those run on sentences and tried to make it flow a tad better. I also tweaked the tenses, feel free to tweak them back, but you have to stick with ONE, past or present. EraserGirl (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Bah. Danged roolz. Thanks, E.G. Much better. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the tweakage and wordsmithing EG and Dekkappai, it has a better flow now, but I still think that I didn't manage to integrate the references to her gay community following and the Chinese Nationalist criticism very smoothly. However, taking María's comments into account, could these be dropped for the GAN? Also, maybe we should simply state that Wong was the subject of several poems and books, naming titles authors and dates, but cut out the descriptive comments that currently follow each one. Both actions would condense the section which seems to be necessary for the GAN, and that brings me to the point that EG made: would it need to be expanded again for FA? I reckon it would be useful at this point to have some input from María regarding what, in her opinion, would need to be addressed for the article to achieve FA status so we know where we should be going. --Red Sunset 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Red Sunset-- I think it looks pretty good now. I think the Chinese gov't/gay community thing was in one sentence before, which was pretty jarring. But the paragraph now basically names off how Wong was viewed by different communities, each sentence taking a different group, so it doesn't look awkard now. I suggest asking María if we've addressed her concerns, and if not, what else need be done. Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Maria's talk page. Cheers. --Red Sunset 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shanghai Express "Best-remembered"

I got the bit about Shanghai Express being one of her best remembered roles from a source, I know... The source describes how her film roles were neglected, and this film was one of her few remembered performances for decades, mostly because of von Sternberg's and Dietrich's participation in it... Anyway, I can't locate this source at the moment. Until/if I ever track down the reference, I suggest we just take out "one of her best-remembered film roles," It's not a crucial point anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

loose paragraph

I find this sentence :"As an adult, her religion was Christian Science,[4] and she loved reading on a variety of topics including Asian history, Lao Tzu and Shakespeare. Her hobbies included golfing, horse riding and skiing." looks very out of place where it is in the "Later Years" section. It justs sits there. I recommend perhaps moving it to the introduction section as it is too interesting to strike all together. EraserGirl (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Butting in again, but that suggestion goes against WP:LEAD; the lead section should be a summary of the entire article and must not include information that is not mentioned in the body of the article. If there is a more concrete timeline other than "as an adult" (did she convert? when? year?), then the information should go chronologically with where it fits best. I personally think her hobbies, unless given context, are not truly necessary; religion is technically better regarded. María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, only significant aspects of her life are included, although a case can be made that her other interests included scholarship and outdoor activities which then allows some expansion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

True, I definitely agree. Personal/extracurricular activities give biographies some life, and I'm always for that. You guys just need to provide context so it won't stick out like a sore thumb. Back to the bleachers with me. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps creating another small section by combining it with "In both America and Europe, Wong had been seen as a fashion icon for over a decade. In 1934, the Mayfair Mannequin Society of New York voted her "The World's best-dressed woman", and in 1938 Look Magazine named her "The World's most beautiful Chinese girl."[68]" and any others tidbits about her. EraserGirl (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Right-- that paragraph gave me trouble too. It's a legacy from an older version, and I too found it too interesting to remove. Couldn't context it though... If someone else can, please feel free to. About recent edits-- I'm not sure about a couple things. Isn't changing "Asian American" to "Americans of Asian ancestry" a bit unwieldy in an overly-PC-ish way, without being, to my knowledge, actually PC? HongQiGong-- if you're still watching this page, you might have an opinion on that. Also to answer a question in an edit summary-- She was brought up speaking Chinese (Taishanese) at home, English outside (and in school, hence the need for Chinese school.) And about Figueroa Street-- it's in Los Angeles, the city. "Los Angeles County" just seems downright wrong. True, L.A. is in L.A. Countr, but it's also in California, which is in the U.S.A., which is in North America, which is on planet Earth... I think you get the drift-- it's Los Angeles Anyway, I'll revert that, hoping that there are no hard feelings. Dekkappai (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify-- Figueroa Street does run outside the city into areas we would call "L.A. County," rather than just "L.A.", but the Wongs lived right in the city, near downtown/Chinatown area. Dekkappai (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

About "Asian American" vs. "American of Asian ancestry" - personally I don't see it as a big deal using one term over another. This is not a sociology or linguistics article, and certainly not an article on identity politics. Both essentially mean the same thing. Though I can imagine random editors coming to the article and changing it to "Asian American" instead since she is somewhat of a big deal for Asian Americans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would ask though - would articles refer to early black actors and actresses as "Americans of African ancestry"? I think that may be a good litmus test to use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Right-- I see your points. I was thinking about changing all the references to "white" Americans to "European American"-- an equivalent construct to "Asian-" and "African-" American. The Chan biography does this throughout the book, and in the intro he gives his reasons for doing this, and I think they are good reasons. But you're right, this is article is not on sociology or linquistics-- and if it were, I, for one, probably wouldn't be very interested in contributing to it. :-) And obsessing over the terms at the expense of the content would be counter-productive. Thanks for the input, and I guess we just leave it alone unless someone raises a big fuss over it. Dekkappai (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait...I'm European American now? did I miss a meeting? I thought I was still an Anglo Saxon-American. No offense children but I think we are starting to parse this into base molecules. I think we should stick to 'common' contemporary usage and not try to be retroactively politically correct. During Wong's lifetime anti-Asian (or anti-Negro or basically anti-everyone else but me,) views where held by many white Americans. In present day racist thoughts are the domain of a much smaller group and not limited to skin color. JMHO EraserGirl (talk) Beige American 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, that was my point-- "Asian American" and "Chinese American" are more common, at least to my knowledge, than "Americans of Asian descent" and "Americans of Chinese descent." And it seems to me that "Americans of Asian descent" is the one which is retroactively politically correct... As a fellow Anglo Saxon-American, though, I'd point out that "white" is a very loose, and very loaded term, even if it is still in common usage. I do think there is valid reason to wonder how "encyclopedic" it is... Dekkappai (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GA to FA

I'm not an authority by any means, but the criteria for GA and FA are not drastically different. The main difference is that FAC requires "elegant" prose and there is seemingly a difference between a content's broadness (GA criteria) vs. comprehensiveness (FA criteria). Both of these are the main issues that users face when bringing their article hot off its GA promotion to FAC. I don't think you guys will have an issue with this article being labeled non comprehensive; in fact, it's probably still a little too detailed in places for most FAC reviewers. As for the prose, although cutting it down 5k has done away with unnecessary detail in parts, it has made the writing clunky in places: unnecessary commas, beginning sentence with "And", not a big fan of "paragon", etc. The random "As an adult" sentence is still hanging around and there is also the matter of that huge section, "Return to Hollywood", which should definitely be cut in two; how did I miss that before? Another copy-edit (preferably from an experienced editor/regular reviewer at FAC) will help fix these things.

For now, however, the article is a definite GA. Well written, cited, beautifully illustrated, etc. Congrats! María (habla conmigo) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and the suggestions which have greatly improved the article, María. And congratulations to all who worked on this article! Dekkappai (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations as well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

Ditto --Red Sunset 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose we run the article through Wikipedia:Peer review and then list it for FAC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Hong. I've never been beyond GA, so those who are more familiar with these processes, please lead the way. Did you get my question above about Asian American / American of Asian ancestry, Hong? It seems to me that if we have to dab to "Asian American," that's the term to use-- besides "American of Asian ancestry" being unwieldy. No big deal either way though. Dekkappai (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Dekkappai, Bzuk, Red Sunset Hong Qi Gong and all the cooks stirring the soup. EraserGirl (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

assessments

Should we petition the other projects this article is part of for assessment? EraserGirl (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not EG; the input from further assessments, together with a peer review as suggested by Hong Qi Gong above and Maria on my talk page, would be invaluable in identifying the points that need to be addressed for FA. --Red Sunset 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review has been requested. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

An automatically generated review has been... err... generated. Take a look - Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/May_2008#Anna_May_Wong. (Compare that to the average number of comments generated for other articles, I'd say this article is doing pretty good!) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Should we archive this page up until the Legacy/Loose paragraph section since they seem to contain material useful for near future rewrites. EraserGirl (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure-- it's pretty lengthy, and reaching GA seems a good point at which to archive. Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

File:Anna May Wong (Hurrell).jpg; Is the Public Domain copyright tag correct? If it is incorrect, can the tag be corrected. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews

I've tried to address all the points brought up at the two peer reviews. I'm not sure I did the ellipses right-- maybe someone can check those. Bzuk? Is this your area of expertise? I also broke an "Atlantic crossings" section off from the large "Return to Hollywood." If this is all done correctly, are we ready for the next step? Dekkappai (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments

I've addressed three of Rossrs' comments, but the other three require a bit more delving into the reference sources which I don't have. --Red Sunset 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Operatic career

Thank you to all who have collaborated on this article, it looks delightful! One area of subject matter, however, seems to be missing, unless I am simply missing it myself. In the "Late 1930s" section there is a photograph of Wong in costume for a performance of Turandot - yet her singing and operatic career are not mentioned (as far as I can tell - I admittedly did not read through the entire article, as I am currently pressed for time). I suspect that her activity in opera was not limited to Turandot, considering that at the top of the article she is listed as a singer. Anyways, thanks again for collaborating on this article, Iamunknown 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not Puccini's Turandot that she performed, but a stage/musical version, I believe. Her stage career is mentioned, though not gone into much detail because she was known more for her film work. Her operatic career, as far as I know-- and I'm pretty sure-- was non-existent. Dekkappai (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, shows how much I know. :( More info on her stage career would be appreciated (at least from me), but I would understand if little more were added. --Iamunknown 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this a little more. Would it be possible to clarify the caption? An example might be, "Carl Van Vechten photo portrait of Wong, in costume for a musical theatre production of the opera Turandot at Westport, August 11, 1937" (I don't have access to the source, so am deferring to your expertise) --Iamunknown 05:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking along those lines since you brought up the question... I've checked, and it turns out it's actually a dramatized (non-singing) adaptation of the Puccini opera. I'll change the caption and source it later today. Thanks for the suggestion! Dekkappai (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused... shouldn't this be: "The only leading Asian man in the silent era was Sessue Hayakawa, in no small part because white actors would usually play in yellowface even if all of the characters in the movie were Asian." Would that be considered original research? It doesn't have to be bolded in the text, but it seems like a pretty strange oversight to make. 129.119.164.75 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was more concerned with the implication that Hayakawa was the only Asian leading man in silent cinema, period. This implies there was no silent cinema in Asia, which is quite false-- Japan, Korea and China all had healthy silent film industries, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if other Asian countries didn't also. I tried to address that, and also took out the POV/OR-ish "so white actors..." and made it into two sentences as plain statements of fact-- 1) Hayakawa was the only Asian leading man in the U.S., and 2) white actors usually played Asian roles-- without implying any cause/effect. Hope that addresses the concern. Dekkappai (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this personally seems like overkill. Hayakawa was the only Asian leading man (much like Anna was the only leading Asian woman) out of English/US cinema. I mean obviously the the Asian and US silent film industries were way separate. US films were screened in Asia (Mary Pickford was known there) but Asian films were not usually screened in the US, as the obvious racial issues there.

For both male and female Im sure there were others in US cinema but they werent very well known. Example would Tsori Aoki, Hayakawa's Japanese wife. --Thegingerone (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as someone with a strong interest in Asian cinema, I think pointing out "U.S. cinema" is completely appropriate. There were healthy cinema industries in Asia, after all, and they did have their stars. I know it's not unusual for U.S.-English writers to pretend we're the only industry on earth (Titles like "History of Cinema" "Films of the 1990s"... usually leaving out the important information that they only cover U.S. films...) but Wikipedia is for an international community, and should not be so myopic. That's my view anyway-- any other thoughts? Dekkappai (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not pretending anything, in fact I like Ozu. However the history of global film represents what I said (in essence we're saying the same thing) US film is usually from the US...and very rarely in its history does it import anything, especially from Asia. Not saying it NEVER has (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Im not good with talkies :p) just it rarely does. Especially because in the early earlllly days of film the US was one of the first and one of the only. Of course that changed, but with the star system and what not they did keep a bit of a monopoly.

Back to my point. Given the context of this particular article I find it overkill. Because Anna May was in the same boat. It is made quite clear that we throughout the article are talking of her struggles in the US cinema, and her ventures into European cinema. In the part about Hayakawa it is speaking of her difficulties in the US film market. So in the US film market her only other leading man could be Sessue Hayakawa. Yes one can be more specific, but it seems extremely PC to me given that. Or better wording is needed all together maybe.--Thegingerone (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's PC at all, it's just specific. I don't understand how it harms the article in any way, and its removal makes the article less objective, less accurate and more provincial. Maybe someone else can offer input. Dekkappai (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing wrong with being specific here, particularly since Sessue Hayakawa apparently acted in Japanese films. The question we have to ask is "Do we expect the majority of readers to understand that given the context that specific sentence is referring to US films only?". IMHO it's difficult to say so it's better to be specific. Note that this is quite different from when an article is e.g. about the US/Australia/Hong Kong and we can presume that the reader understands $ refers to US/Australian/Hong Kong dollars (for starters, can we be sure the majority of readers will be aware there was a film industry in Asia at the time?). Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Danger Man

Apparently there was another actress named Anna May Wong in the late '50s, early '60s. More than one source mentions an Anna May Wong in an Anthony Quinn film of this era, pointing out that she is not this Anna May Wong. And more than one source mis-identifies the actress as this Anna May Wong... Right now, we have a "reliable source" (the Parish chapter) saying she was in Danger Man and an anon editor saying she wasn't... I see on the Internet HERE-- what appears to be a fan/review site-- which says the Danger Man Anna May is not this one... tv.com says it is her. I suspect the anon editor and the fan site may be right, so I'll do some investigating today and see if I can find a good source that says so. Otherwise, I suppose, we have to go with "Verifiability"-- good sources which give an incorrect piece of information-- over "Truth"-- weak sourcing which may point out correct information. Or, alternatively, we could just leave mention of it out of the article. Dekkappai (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to comment it out pending verification, and then delete or reinstate accordingly. --Red Sunset 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. In the meantime-- I know the entire Danger Man series is out on DVD... If that set has any kind of a booklet which identifies cast members, it might mention this problem, and would, I think, be a "reliable source". Also, if there is a book on the series it might help (I can't locate one in my sources right now). Dekkappai (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK-- Problem solved, I think. Chan makes numerous references to the Danger Man appearance. Hodges specifically mentions the "other" Anna May Wong-- and actress named Marie Yang, who did appear in the Anthony Quinn film, and a British production using Wong's name-- yet he mentions Wong (our Wong) as appearing in Danger Man. What really convinces me, though, is that Hodges paraphrases an announcement from Wong herself, about her appearance in the show. Dekkappai (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That last Hodges comment seems pretty conclusive – it would be interesting to view the episode in question. --Red Sunset 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right... There is still room for error in the sourcing, but all the best sources still say it's her... If I ever have access to the DVD, I'll check it out, just to be sure. I suppose a citation to the actual episode/cast listing would trump "reliable sources" which are in error... Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a clip of that Danger Man episode. She appears at about 1:35. I don't know if it's her or not, but I'm just putting it out there. Cheers --Sloths (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why change your wife?

IMDB and Wikipedia both dont list it but I was wondering what others thought. I seen "Why change your wife?" (1920 Cecil B DeMille pic) tonight and I swear in the fashion house scene where Thomas Meighan goes to buy lingerie for his wife the Chinese servant in the background is Anna. Whoever she was she was on screen for all of 2 minutes and just that scene, but it looked just like her. Anyone else have any info on this?--Maggiedane (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not credited according to the IMDB page. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

However, she has several uncredited roles dating from that exact period. Since very few Asians were employed on screen with any frequency, the likelihood tht this is another uncredited role is high -- however, original research doesn't qualify this for inclusion. A reliable source is needed. The curious can find the scene here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz2QHynswYA at time signature 8:25 Bustter (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes since FA status

There have been a few changes made to the article since it has made FA status, not all to the good, I think. First: Her Chinese name in the lead. That was discussed, and input obtained from China-specialist editors, who said it was not necessary, since the Chinese is given in the infobox, and Wong was of American birth and American/European in career. Second: The "Popular culture" section. These sections are, at best, random collections of trivia. If the factoid is important enough-- and sourced, it should be integrated into the body of the article-- probably in the "Legacy" section. I see nothing important enough in the section currently to include in an encyclopedic article on Anna May Wong. The trivial mention in a (notable) Broadway song is also, with regards to the life of Anna May Wong, trivia, I believe, and not worth including in a biography. Not insiginificantly, the cited source does not even back up the mention of Wong in the lyric. If the article were to undergo FA review today, certainly this would be one of the first things to be thrown out. But since other editors have expressed the opinion that this mention in the lyric is worth including, I will hold off removing it. Since this is, after all, a Featured Article, and since these other bits of trivia are unsourced, I'll remove them now. I'll wait for input from other concerned editors before removing the other additions. Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you around Dekk! I actually removed that (remaining) piece of trivia myself when it first appeared in the Legacy section. The show and song may be notable, but IMHO just the mention of Wong's name isn't, so I wouldn't be sorry to see it go. --Red Sunset 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Red. Right-- I don't think it belongs here, but would be perfectly fine at an article on the song, if not the musical-- though currently it is not even properly sourced. I think it was Bzuk who expressed preference for keeping it, and, since he was involved in the development of the article into FA status, I'll hold off for a week or so until we get some input from him. About the Chinese in the first sentence-- not only is it inappropriate and redundant, I think, it is also sloppily done. The bolding is unnecessarily intrusive, and the pinyin not necessary at all since she (at least publicly, and in biographies) did not use it, and it's already in the infobox. But again, I'll hold off for a week or so for input. Dekkappai (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought... Bzuk hasn't edited since October, so input from him doesn't seem to be coming soon. I'll go ahead and remove it. If he disagrees, he can squawk when he's back. :) Dekkappai (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 programme

On Anna May Wong has just been broadcast, half an hour long, lots of clips and quotes. Here are the details - "A Celestial Star in Picadilly: Anna Chen presents a tribute to Hollywood's first Chinese-American movie star, Anna May Wong, star of the classic 1929 silent movie Piccadilly. Filmed in London, it made her a celebrity in Britain in the 1930s. Despite her talent, Wong struggled against racial prejudice throughout her career, and was banned from even kissing her leading men. However, her reputation is now enjoying a revival thanks to the restoration and re-release of Piccadilly." Sadly it's not available yet on the Listen Again facility on the website: [1]. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

anime

notice how her given and middle name sounds like japanese ANIME? that's cool, very cool. too bad she isn't japanese though, it would work even better ; - ) 24.129.235.8 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Early Career - No Peter Pan?

It's a bit surprising that no mention is made of Anna May Wong's portrayal of Tiger Lily, the Princess of the Indians, in the 1924 version of "Peter Pan." Not only was it a notable role, but it adds an interesting twist to Ms. Wong's frustrations about Asians not being cast as Asians, and further illustrates the challenges of ethnicity in film.

That said, this is a great article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.18.145 (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As one who helped put this article together, thanks 67.171.18.145. I don't remember why Peter Pan was not mentioned in the article. But as you can see from the little rant at the top of this talk page, some were complaining the article was too long... without even resorting to ridiculous comparisons... Books have been written on her life, but we had to boil it down to one article... Dekkappai (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of death

Is it 2 February or 3 February 1961?

• Most of the interlang articles seem to favour 2 Feb.
• Google is roughly evenly divided.
• We have a foot in both camps, the worst sin of all: the lede and the text say 3 Feb, but the infobox says 2 Feb.

So, what's the right date and why? And which ever one it is, why do so many sources prefer the other date? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

racism

The article carefully avoids to point out that Anna May Wong was a victim of WASP racism - that is cowardy and dishonest. Bernard Reiser, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.5.247 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. The article makes numerous mentions of her struggles with prejudice, the Code, anti-miscegenation laws, etc. As a matter of fact, as principle author of the article, I had to consciously struggle to keep from making it a PC rant against American hypocrisy and intolerance... now, please explain to us how much better minorities were treated in Germany during the '30s and '40s... I'm sure I won't be alone in enjoying this... Dekkappai Lives (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anna May Wong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327104822/http://www.annamaywongsociety.com/ to http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=6590
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327104822/http://www.annamaywongsociety.com/ to http://cinema.cornell.edu/series/raceonscreen.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.annamaywongsociety.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Children

This article lists three children who purportedly survived Wong. Is there a source to indicate that these people existed? Wong was famously unmarried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:201:E130:65E4:A9F5:8C44:9A2C (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I just pulled that section. The editor who added it seems to have gone a bit of a spree of adding unsourced family information to various celeb articles, and it's not entirely clear the intention was to add accurate information.