Talk:Mae West

Problematic passage in article under "Career"

This needs help:

• But while gays and lesbians began a decades-long embrace of West, or at least West's public persona, the love affair wasn't exactly mutual. Every reputable biography of West has her believing that a gay man was actually a female soul housed in a male body, equating transvestism with homosexuality, and referring to gays and lesbians in the long-defunct pathological term "inverts." (West once admonished policemen who raided a gay bar and beat up its male patrons, "Remember, you're hittin' a

woman.") Although during her entire lifetime, she surrounded herself with gay men and was appreciative that they comprised her hardcore fan base, Mae's concept of homosexuality as illness was in keeping with the popular notions of the early twentieth century. Finally, West has been called an early feminist.

The author of this particular passage seems to have forgotten that this was the 1920s and that contemporary views on homosexuality didn't exist in their current form. As it stands, this reads accusationally and needs some serious citations at the very least to clean it up enough for the main article. --Roman à clef (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption Changed

Please do not change the caption to the 1978 photo we have provided - thanx! EmilEik (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that once it has been released in the public domain, it is fair use. WP guidline is that photo credits should listed on the image page and not with the photo itself. I'd urge you to update the image page with all the pertinent credit information. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As a special courtesy to the actual photographer, we would like his name to appear in the caption. Have now updated the image page with all the info needed to create understanding for this request (not a demand). Hope nobody needs to object in this special case. Thx EmilEikS (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd marriage controversy

I edited the section on West's alleged marriage to Deiro. Three recent biographies of Mae West state that the two were never married. (I have only read those three, so I don't know what other, out-of-print biographies say.) What I read on the internet on the topic gave me the general impression that Deiro admirers are all certain that the two were married, and West admirers are not even aware of this possibility. Anyways, I changed it to reflect that this is a controversy and added the "they didn't get married" POV and references so that the more mainstream POV is also represented. If there are any better references for their marriage, it would be great if they could be added. Because the only evidence is a document archived at CUNY, which would constitute original research and is not very accessible; Variety Magazine of 1913 mentioning a "Mr. and Mrs. Deiro performing"; and a self-published book not listed on Amazon.com but only at a specialty online accordion store. This all smacks of original research but I am pretty new to Wikipedia so I am reluctant to delete the whole reference to her supposed second marriage.Ivesiana (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't original research if one can formulate a citation for the material. If there is a divorce document at CUNY, it can be sourced to there, and it may be possible to get a scan of the original document that can legally be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Self-published books are an issue, but the Variety source isn't particularly so. Sources need not be available on the internet, and in fact, are often used, especially in articles covering historical events. Since there is a dispute between the pro-Deiro marriage and the con-Deiro marriage sides, it should be covered. More sources may be to be sought at some point, though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. My understanding was that Wikipedia information is not supposed to be based on primary sources. I view the divorce document as a primary source and the self-published book as the only secondary source. The Variety article is good, my concern is that an article listing them as "Mr and Mrs Deiro" is a weak proof of marriage, since it could have been a mistake, stage names, a joke, etc. If out of thousands of articles written about Mae West during her lifetime this is the only one citing the marriage, I am a bit underwhelmed. Anyway, don't worry, I am not trying to suppress the controversy. I will look for other biographies of Mae West which are out of print and see what they say, because if it is the case that all of Mae West's biographers agree that the two were never married, I would like to include that information.Ivesiana (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, primary sources are a problem, but WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources also says that primary sources can be reliable in some situations. I've seen scans of legal documents used before to verify certain facts, such as birth records, marriage records, court findings - basically, for verifying legalities. I think in this case, a scan of the divorce record archived at a major university would qualify as a reliable primary source for the statement that Deiro obtained a divorce from West on such and such a date. On the other hand, a self-published memoir would be questionable. There are gray areas in most things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, respected editors.

I do not yet understand all the intricacies of what constitutes reliable sources in Wikipedia, but if it may shed some light on this topic, I would like to post a recent letter to myself from Guido Deiro's son. Perhaps there might be some information herein which might be useful.

Sincerely, Henry Doktorski

E-mail letter from Count Guido Roberto Deiro (Nov. 12, 2008):

I don't know if this would be helpful, but I would think that if Wikipedia, or the questioning party, were provided with at least the following cites, our assertions would have to be accepted.

1. Copies of the Variety Christmas Edition 1/ 2 page advertisement.

2. Copy of any ads showing them on the same bill. With her in lesser position.

3. Reference to her blurb about him being her fiance' in newspaper interview.

4. Reference to Nels Grandlund biography stating they were married.

5. Reference to Walter Winchell radio pronouncement correcting a listener's error in that Pietro was who she had married.

6. Reference to mention by Laurie in his definitive Vaudeville book that they were married.

7. Reference by Variety that they were on the bill in Canada as Mr.& Mrs. Deiro.

8. I would be prepared to state formally that I knew Mae West personally, and that she and my father stated they were married and that she paid for my tuition at two different California boarding schools and that I had been along for the ride on occasions when my father met privately with her in her penthouse. And further, that she had admitted to me at dinner in the Sahara Hotel in Las Vegas in 1961 that she had been married to my father.

9. Her own autobiography...both the original and the revised editions...devote chapters to her long relationship with my father, but only using the initial "D" to identify him. The question begs to be asked...Why?

10. The other books and quotes that we have cited on the website that mention the importance of her relationship with my father and her proclaiming her love for him as evidence of the validity of her close sexual relationship with Guido.

Henry Doktorski (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. As a whole, WP:RS wouldn't support the use of the email itself, although if they could be checked, the independently published sources may be, so long as they weren't self-published by the author. The billing ads would only support that they worked together, which is already in the article as is the Variety reference to the Canadian billing. The blurb about a fiance wouldn't confirm a marriage either. I don't know what the Variety Christmas Edition ad says, so it remains to be seen what that would support. As kind an offer as it is, and interesting, the personal statement would be considered original research according to its definition. Her autobiography references to D is already included, and the close relationship and love isn't disputed. The Nels Grandlund biography and Laurie Vaudeville book would probably be considered reliable sources. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your recommendations, Wildhartlivie. We have ordered copies of the Laurie & Grandlund books. Will add citations soon. Henry Doktorski (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should comment that while it will be perfectly acceptable to present sourced material that supports that such a marriage occurred, there is also sourced material that disputes its existence. Both sides should be covered in the article, since all we are able to do is report what sources say, and whenever there are two viewpoints, in the interest of neutrality, both should be considered as having equal weight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag Restricted - No Way for Mae?

Though I agree emphatically about a tasteless overuse of flags, I was shocked to learn of English Wikipedia's exaggerated flag icon restriction through Wildhartlivie's recent edit. Two comments: 1) For the first time, I feel Swedish Wikipedia (sv:Mae West, sv:Camilla Henemark, sv:Ayesha Quraishi etc) has a much more intelligent and educational policy in this detail than English Wikipedia. 2) Mae West is about the most appropriate kind of subject there could be for citizens of the Unites States of America to be proud of, and the inference that it could be inappropriate to use the the Star Spangled Banner in any context to honor her is absolutely ridiculous. Narrow-minded policy like this does a lot of damage to Wikipedia! For over 50 years West did more more to further a good impression of America in the rest of the world - though her world famous and much admired American sense of humor - than all the U.S. sports stars put together. Wildhartlivie made poor old Mae turn over in her grave, extremists in the religious right are happy, and it's a sad day for English Wikipedia. Somebody, preferaby a reasonable administrator (like Wildhartlivie, who seems to own this article) lease put the flag back, in this case, regardless of overly picayune policy! I'm just askin' and I'm just sayin', and please be nice: I have a right to my opinion. Sincerely, Fiandonca (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I copied the above (started by User:EmilEikS) from User:Wildhartlivie's talk page and expounded on it here. Mr. Eikner had replied well there himself. Fiandonca (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have a right to your opinion, but I daresay it would carry a lot more weight if it wasn't just a slightly altered version of someone else's opinion. First of all, please review WP:NPA. You are making something personal out of something that absolutely is not. I have made 13 edits on the Mae West page since 23 March 2008 and those have been entirely about relatively minor stylistic or policy issues that have not in any way altered the actual content of the articles (such as image size, photo credit issues, and removing the flag icon per MOS:FLAGS. In no way have I conducted myself in a manner that would indicate a problem with ownership issues. Please review policies about personal attacks and assuming good faith and comment on content, not contributors. It is bad faith to slant a simple procedure issue into a personal issue.

I will reiterate what I said to the person to whom your opinion belongs:

First of all, nationality has no bearing upon the equal application of Wikipedia policy and in this case, people seem to interpreting the removal of the flag per policy in an inappropriate manner. It is not an "interpretation of policy." The policy quite clearly states "Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places." That is not ambiguous or open to interpretation. Further, it is completely a matter of personal perspective about what may or may not be considered an appropriate focus of national pride and I would suggest to you that there are a host of persons who have been and are equally, if not more, suited to describe as an ambassador of good impressions of this country or a symbol of national pride that have nothing to do with sports.

It's a bit disengenuous of you to imply that there is something dishonorable in the removal of an icon per policy to the memory of anyone, save perhaps a fallen military hero or leader. Please review WP:NPOV. Editors are supposed to approach articles from a neutral and unbiased perspective in order to create a balanced and unbiased product. Articles don't exist to honor anyone. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are talking very very very much down to me Mr Wildhartlivie (for lack of a personal name to write to). I share Deputy Chairman Eikner's opinion in this case and your comments about my not having my own opinion to share with him (and others), and add my own 2¢'s worth to, are nothing but insulting. I ASK YOU NOT TO CONTACT ME OR WRITE TO ME EVER AGAIN, unless you want to apologize for being supercilious and rude. If you feel I was rude to you in any way by expressing my frank opinions, then I apologize sincerely. Fiandonca (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: This poor article really needs some work! All those templates at the top are a real embarrassment. To Wikipedia, not to West or to me. So many articles like that on English Wikipedia. Did you have a look at sv:Mae West? Gorgeous! Here it looks terrible and all these templates all over the English project, for month after month, make a very bad impression on newcomers. Investors? Hah! Looks like Kindergarten or something. Why don't you spend some time on the article itself, so those awful templates can be removed sometime, instead of all the masterful arguing and nitpicking (as documented on this discussion page) about a whole list of items of minor importance? The only references needed are the well known biographies about West. Why don't you stop being an occasional breeze-in lecturer or policeman or guard of some kind and roll up your sleeves? Just a constructive suggestion. Some real editing, by a real editor, is needed here. This is one of the few articles (of 88) in the English and Swedish Wikipedias where the humble wishes of this image contributor were not respected, by you, through your speedy edit of the caption. Twice! One can only get the objective impression of you, from this page and its edit history, that that kind of pouncing is all you do. Stop trying to teach me and everyone else, so very haughtily, how their opinions "would carry a lot more weight" (above) etc etc etc etc etc! I, for one, am totally uninterested in your personal advice about such things. Once again, sorry if you find me rude. I mean well. Truly. Fiandonca (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have made no effort to contact you, I have responded to something that has totally been blown out of proportion and have been subjected to a flurry of inane attacks over my attempts to explain and follow policy. Stop making this flag issue personal. Please direct your attention to the "Please note" section below the editing box which says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mericilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. You have accused me of ownership, and yet at no point have I jumped up and down and cried foul because someone edited a caption. I find it interesting, however, to discover that you have never edited this article, so I'm at a loss at where I "disrespected" your wishes. In fact, you've only made 17 edits to mainspace articles since you registered a week ago. And at no time on this page, was being talked down to mentioned, so you seem to be responding to something someone else wrote. As far as the other entries I've made on this page, they have been in response to questions and issues posted by other editors on a talk page that few people monitor or bother responding on. One such was a discussion about what or what is not original research, one was over photo captions, and now the flag. Two out of three of the issues were raised by the same group that is now mad because policy doesn't allow the use of a flag icon. Saying you're sorry if you seem rude all the while being so is counterproductive, as is this inane discussion. Like I said, if you don't like the policy, raise it at the page where the policy exists and stop making a personal issue of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The flag item is far more important that you think, in principle. The right to publish the U.S. flag, or restrict its use according to unworthy polices, policed by people like you, can certainly be questioned legally. I will deal with it in other ways, if and when I have time. If I felt competent to improve the West article I would. You obviously are. Since you must have missed that you are not to reply to me again (or you wish to prove yourself totally disrespectful), I have now emboldened and capitalized the text above so nobody can miss it. You have written things on Eikner's user page and have now insulted him and their board too. Thank you for not invading mine (yet?). Talk about personal! How about your word inane!?!? Twice! What an unbelievable hypocrite you appear to be! Any further attempt of this kind by you to hurl snotty insults at us will be reported as harrassment. And you will find out that we do know where to report it. I have obviously only reacted to your doings, and rather naturally I feel. Fiandonca (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of my Board, I would like to say that I am deeply sorry that Fiandonca has been subjected to insulting language like "jumped up and down and cried foul because someone edited a caption". Will someone capable please finish this Mae West article? Soon? EmilEikS (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fiandonca, you brought this discussion here, so you must expect, when you attack another editor, that the editor in question will likely respond. I also removed the caption from the images because it is not the way the captions are recorded on en-wiki, and I have Mae West on my watchlist, so if I'd noticed the flag icon added, I would also have removed it. sv.wiki has its own policies and guidelines and if they are different, they are different. I'll take your word for that, and also that some articles there are better than their en.wiki counterparts, although the opposite would also be true for other articles, wouldn't it? en.wiki has over 2 million articles and you've mentioned three. Discussing this article, the purpose of the flag is not to "honor" Mae West any more than the article itself is to "honor" her. There is no issue of patriotism involved. The flag icon is/was being used decoratively. The first sentence says she was American and the consensus on en.wiki is that this is enough. This is established as a guideline at MS:Flag and it has been discussed over a period of time by numerous editors, with differing viewpoints. The guideline is the result of these discussions. It is perfectly acceptable to use that guideline as rationale for removing flags from this article, as it has been used as a rationale for removing flags from other articles. Rather than attack the editor that removed the flag, you should perhaps discuss the guideline at the Manual of Style guideline page, and see if there is support for rewriting the guideline. And yes, you have commented there too attacking the guideline with words such as "assinine" and "sickening" and "ethnic arrogance". Twice in one paragraph you've restated your right to express an opinion, and we certainly get that, but you might have taken a more persuasive approach. The purpose of the guideline is to ensure consistency and accuracy as much as possible, with the knowledge that it, like all policies, won't work in every individual situation. It's not reasonable for other editors to agree that the guideline should be applied to all of the articles on en.wiki but not Mae West's. You've made several comments about the quality of this "poor article", and the need for a real editor to get in and do some work, and that may be true, but you seem to think that fixing the article is someone else's responsibility, and not your own. I'm not sure exactly how you think that mocking the article and its editors is going to gain you any support. I notice that you've made no edits to the article itself. I also notice that you've twice apologized for being "rude" although you have not been accused of it. The responses you have received have been about as courteous as you should expect considering the personal nature of your first comment, and the editor Wildhartlivie has attempted to explain procedures that you clearly either don't understand, have not read or are refusing to accept. I don't know, or care, which applies. If you see this as talking down to you, that is entirely your own perception. You have the right to your opinion, but the manner in which you've chosen to express it is usually not tolerated here for very long. Your comments are among the most mean-spirited and unpleasant that I've had the misfortune to read, not to mention that the view expressed is completely unsupported by anything relating to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Whatever your views of en.wiki, its policies, its guidelines, the Mae West article, and the editors that have contributed to it, you are mistaken if you believe you have behaved in an appropriate manner. There is no reason for turning a simple disagreement into a personal attack against an editor who has conducted herself within en.wiki's guidelines, and who has responded to your intitial comments with an explanation of her edits. On the other hand, there is nothing in anything you've written that suggests a good faith attempt at discussion, despite your assurance that you mean well.

Also, if you request that an editor does not comment on your user talk page, that will be respected by most reasonable editors. It's more effective if it's done politely, but if you feel that common courtesy is beneath you, then I suppose you should continue taking the impolite approach. Also, if an editor posts a message on another editor's talk page, and then forbids them the opportunity to reply, it does not suggest good faith (just the opposite, in fact) and could not be construed as a serious attempt at communication (again, just the opposite, in fact). It seems more like a bullying/harassment tactic to me. Why do you think you can bold text a note personally directed at Wildhartlivie, telling her not to contact you, while in the same edit you continue to attack her? This page, by the way, is open for anybody to comment, and comment I will, but it goes without saying that I won't go anywhere near your user talk page. Rossrs (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At risk of breaking another rule or two, I am copying here my recent comment from above as it is even more appropriate here. Fiandonca has started out very nice and has only reacted naturally to the extremely condescending and increasingly sarcastic language used by the editor in question. We are starting to realize, quite sadly, that such language is commonplace at EnW and that we have to like it or lump it when talked down to like that. This kind of language seems to be defended vehemently (by it being called normal) by many EnW regulars and old-timers, and those who are offended are attacked if they say so. I was warned emphatically about this and told not to contribute before securing permission from my Board to do so anyway. Fiandonca hasn't attacked anyone, that I've seen. From what's on her talk page now, it looks like Fiandonca has really been frightened. That's what can happen when someone is ridiculed in public, which is the worst kind of insult. That's when it starts getting scary.

From above: On behalf of my Board, I would like to say that I am deeply sorry that Fiandonca has been subjected to insulting language like "jumped up and down and cried foul because someone edited a caption". Will someone capable please finish this Mae West article? Soon? EmilEikS (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on our opinions of Fiandonca's manner. Her very first comment was not "very nice" in my opinion, as it accused another editor of ownership issues in relation to the article. Wildhartlivie's reply contained no personal comment, save for the word "disengenous" (which was directed at you, and not at her), and explained her actions in accordance with guidelines. This was all it took for Fiandonca to react in what I would categorize as a very rude, condescending and superior manner. As a newcomer to en.wiki it would have been more prudent to invite discussion and ask questions in order to get a better understanding of how things are done here. Perhaps other Wikipedia's operate differently, but as newcomers it would benefit everyone if you accepted that you may not be aware of every nuance in guidelines and policies, and react positively when someone tries to explain it. I don't feel that Fiandonca attempted discussion. I think her attitude is summed up with her comment "I, for one, am totally uninterested in your personal advice about such things". Anyone who doesn't want to hear the opinions of other editors, should refrain from starting discussions on a talk page, and they absolutely must refrain from attacking another editor. Most editors will reply. Nobody likes being ridiculed. Not Fiandonca, not Wildhartlivie, not me, and I'm sure not you. Fiandonca's words were very ridiculing, and there's no justification. As for the warning on her talk page, there is no reason for Fiandonca to be frightened, though she must take it seriously. If an editor makes a legal threat, they are held accountable - just as in real life - and all she has been asked to do is explain what she meant. Enough about Fiandonca. We'll disagree, but I think we have now exhausted the subject. Rossrs (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully Referenced now?

This article now has 49 references. There are so many footnote markers that it is almost disturbing to try to read the text. If there is a Wikipedia award for a maximum amount of references I would like to nominate this article for it. With all due respect to anyone who watches this article, I am now removing the template at the top regarding sources. If anything else needs references please tag specific items, or better yet, remove any unsourced material. The tone of the article is still too personal and too gushing in some places. Remove or edit that too, anyone who has time. I will try to get to it later if not. EmilEikS (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Typo corrected EmilEikS (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the article having 48 references, no, it is not fully referenced which is why I didn't remove the tag the first time I did a clean up. I didn't accidentally leave it up which is why Wildhartlivie restored it the first time it was removed. The "Career" and "Motion picture" subsections are largely unsourced and those sections (among others) need to be addressed before the tag is removed. I would also discourage tagging that amount of unsourced content with a {{fact}} tag. Those are only used for small amounts of unsourced content or one point that is the source of contention. That is not the case here. Once the article is fully referenced, rest assured, I'll be the first to remove the tag and make a note on this very talk page that the article has been cleaned up and fully referenced. This article is watchlisted by several editors including myself and we're not going to miss anything. We're also not working towards a deadline, so there's no rush to remove the tag until all the points are properly referenced. That said, if you feel the article is too "gushy" or "personal", you're free to remove that content yourself. Telling other people to do it is unlikely to get a positive response since we're all volunteers, we're all free to edit the page at any time, and most of us do work in other areas of the project. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I support what Pinkadelica has noted about the references. As I noted in my edit summary, sufficient referencing does not depend on the number of references included, but on the statement of facts and quotes the article may contain. You might take a look at some featured articles (Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie, Bob Dylan - which has 265 citations) to see how extensively an article might need to be referenced to reach featured article status. This article is no where near that sort of status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, a Refimprove tag is no longer necessary here. Seems like {{fact}} tags would be better now, as per Help:Footnotes. But I am not going to challenge your opinions to keep the Refimprove tag; however I did edit the tag a bit. I reverted the date to the original date listed (April 2008) and I added a link to this talk page. It would be especially helpful to create a list on this talk page of what areas are in need of citations. Kingturtle (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As was requested, facts and quotes needing citations (including statements about box office failures/hits, references to convictions, pen names, claims about things done, felt or stated, blanket statements about controversy, etc. etc.) have been added and a few POV comments edited. It is unproductive to compare this article with one on another WP version. That copious references are needed is an issue with the article's sourcing. Finally, I've twice corrected the section title "References & Notes" as not in accordance with MOS. Removing templates and fact tags/citations need tags doesn't improve the quality and verifiability of the article. Adding adequate sourcing does. As it states below the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You have overdone to an extreme the amount of {{fact}} tags you just put in. Almost everything you question is well known about West, facts supported by all the books about her cited in the "Notes" section. Perhaps you know how to reference them thus so the article won't look ridiculous like it does now? I don't. That would be very nice. How about a "Bibliography" section for example? EmilEikS (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please put the detail back in about her being world renowned because of her sense of humor (the whole book I referenced that to is built specifically on that theme). I am tired of arguing at every turn, so I won't be touching the article again, even though I would have loved to take some of the gushing out when I have time. EmilEikS (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Emil, the fact tags I added are all legitimate points of fact, quotes, references to box office/stage flops and successes, allusions to West's thoughts, statements, etc. etc. If the books cited support these things, then citations should be given from them. Like I said, look at the examples I noted above, well-referenced articles have had up to and over 200 individual citations, depending on what the article says. The article isn't written for people who are well-versed about West, it is written for someone who has never heard of her. Meanwhile, WP policy requires verifiable sourcing for these things. Some examples that need sourcing and citations:

• Her family members didn't support her career choices
• Age at which performing began and prizes won
• "Her trademark walk was said to have originated..." Where does one verify this?
• According to West, her mother thought everything she did was fantastic
• Citation that she used a pen name
• Sourcing about arrest and jail time
• The statements in the paragraph about The Drag all needs citations
• Anything alleging censoring, controversy or banning needs a source
• Comments that she was old for a new screen star, etc.
• Quotes and more quotes all need referencing.
• Statements alleging income
• The statements about her issues with WC Fields
• Citations supporting the dates and facts about her first marriage
• Citation that supports that she fired Mickey Hargitay after he married Jayne Mansfield
• citations about the musical recordings
• Definite citations in the section about her problems while filming Sextette

None of this is unreasonable in needing referenced. It is frequently controversial and again, WP policy requires that such material be referenced. The books that are cited with inline referencing don't require a separate listing and a Bibliography section for West's own books is already present. This is not a contentious thing. These are all facts that would have been tagged some time ago had not other issues, such as a flag icon issue, hadn't arisen. These issues had already been under discussion before you came onto the page, none of it is new. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are getting sort of personal starting to call me "Emil" several times now when you write to me, though you know I do not know your name, first or last, so I cannot return that courtesy or however you mean it. Would you please stop that? Thank you! I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye, though everyone can see I have tried, so why don't we just stop corresponding altogether as I suggested above? It will all only get worse, I'm afraid. This was my last entry on this page, in any case, since this isn't really constructive input about this article, like it should be. EmilEikS (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No personalness to it, does your username not start with "Emil"? Regardless, I will respond to discussion on article talk pages, I am not personally corresponding with you. You claimed the fact tags were overdone, I simply responded regarding that very issue, and covered the scope of the tags that were added and what needs to be sourced with proper inline citations. You are perfectly free not to respond. However, the tags and requests for reference citations is specifically constructive in terms of the article. Despite your protests to the contrary, it is not personal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A check list for references

Note: When a proper citation has been added, simply place a {{done}} tag beneath it.

• Her family members didn't support her career choices Done
• Age at which performing began and prizes won Done
• "Her trademark walk was said to have originated..." Where does one verify this? Done
• According to West, her mother thought everything she did was fantastic  Done
• Citation that she used a pen name

 Done

• Sourcing about arrest and jail time
• The statements in the paragraph about The Drag all needs citations
• Anything alleging censoring, controversy or banning needs a source
• Comments that she was old for a new screen star, etc.
• Quotes and more quotes all need referencing.
• Statements alleging income

 Done (I think)

• The statements about her issues with WC Fields

 Done

• Citations supporting the dates and facts about her first marriage
• Citation that supports that she fired Mickey Hargitay after he married Jayne Mansfield

 Done

• citations about the musical recordings
• Definite citations in the section about her problems while filming Sextette

 Done

To clarify what I've done: I sourced the content regarding West's use of a pen name and cited the text regarding her income and actual rank on the box office draw list. I reworked the text regarding WC Field's and West's working relationship because sources I found basically claimed that while the two had problems, there was nothing explosive about the time they worked together. If there is an incident that should be documented, I couldn't find it. I removed the "legend has it" text regarding Fields and West because I could find anything to support it and IMHO, it was verging on hearsay. I do seem to remember reading that West fired Mickey Hargitay after his marriage to Jayne Mansfield, but again, couldn't find any sources online to support it so I removed it. Since I originally rewrote and sourced the Sextette section, I defined those citations for clarity. I also removed more POV wording throughout the article and trivial content. Most of it pertained to "West's fans being delighted" about a performance or something to that effect. I'm sure I've missed some because it's (still) strewn throughout the article. I also rewrote the "Radio" section to include the actual quotes and controversy surrounding the incident which was, evidently, quite the scandal at the time and probably should have been fleshed out more. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

compromise on the image and caption

I am fine with your compromise. I was just thinking that since the fan in question has an article on Wikipedia, he should be bluelinked - but it isn't a big deal. Kingturtle (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was happier with the non-cropped image. It provided depth of field and relationship. The cropped image gives no indication of location or size. Kingturtle (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I am going to remove this - "West became a legendary American entertainment personality.[1]" - from the lead section. I don't doubt that it's true, but it's too broad a statement to be cited/attributed to one source without being explained in context. I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could pick just about any random celebrity and find something in writing to say that somebody has referred to them as a "legend". The way it's written, it's an opinion presented as a fact, but it's not supported by anything stronger than this one reference. Rossrs (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)