Talk:Jayne Mansfield/Archive 1

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 21:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you post about the Gay Icon project on every actors/actresses,singers page on Wikipedia? Not every actors/actresses,singers are gay icons just because you want them to be. Female gay icons are-Bette Davis,Judy Garland,Joan Crawford,Janet Jackson. Ive never heard of Jayne Mansfield being a gay icon.--70.157.42.18 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Someone with more knowledge of Jayne Mansfield's life please break up the article into sections. Gabe 06:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some pov that needs trimmed. There is some disparaging comments such as "didn't have much ambition for her". Could some body take a look?--61.33.85.95 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture request

• I don't mean to be crass here, but it's pretty well known that Mansfield was know for her large breasts. Does anyone know of an open license picture which could be used here to illustrate this well-knnon feature of her?--Hraefen 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to your request, and I could show you where to find such a picture, but, I am afraid that such a link would be removed from here probably soon after it was posted. NorthernThunder 10:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Her breasts were not always large, the point (or points) is that she was a living pop-art monument to the blond bombshell and used society's breast fetish to her adavantage regardless of whether she was breast feeding (she had five kids) and huge or trim and in proportion. Any photo of Jayne kicks butt!

More on Movies

Since it would not be appropriate in the article, I thought I would offer some more information here. The following are the most daring movies featuring Ms. Mansfield.

• The Wild, Wild World Of Jayne Mansfield (Alt title: The Labyrinth Of Sex): A Documentary film made in 1968, after her death

Check Internet Movie Database for general information

Check The Spinning Image for critical information

Check Rotten Tomatoes for more critical information

Check Amazon for further information

• Primitive Love (Alt title: Mondo Balordo): A Mondo film, which rather can be described as an Italian sexually oriented farce. This film sometimes described as the "lost" Jayne Mansfield film was made in 1964.
• Promises! Promises! (A fiction feature made in 1963)

Can someone authenticate this list, with appropriate corrections if necessary? (Aditya Kabir 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

Better not use the phrase "hottest movies," or the Wikipolice will go after you for violating NPOV. 66.108.4.183 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed "hottest movies" to "most daring movies". And, and adding more information as well, including some references and some links to find relevant information that may not be completely compatible with the NPOV policy. - Aditya Kabir 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

According to several biographies of Mansfield, at least two of her children were fathered by men other than her husband(s), at her own reportedly open admittance. Is this information appropriate to cite or would such a mention start a Wiki tempest?67.142.130.48 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it would be appropriate personally. Hilljayne 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)HJ

I didn't ask for "personal"; I'd like to know from an editorial viewpoint, since famous people (primarily royals) on Wiki have their children mentioned, whether legitimate or out of wedlock. Actors should honestly be no different.204.126.250.241 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no proof of this and since the birth certificates state the children have fathers there is no need or justification for Hollywood rumors. 70.147.145.165 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied request from my talk page

Please, check the article on Jayne Mansfield. It needs massive copyedit. - Aditya Kabir 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I did what I could to clean up the layout, structure, and references, but didn't work on copyediting. Since the article is mostly unreferenced, has many references that aren't reliable sources, and needs some cleanup of text, a copyedit would be premature. Also, copyediting isn't my forté. I suggest you focus on cleaning up the following list, and then find someone to help with a copyedit:
  • Reference the entire article
  • Remove all references to self-published sources
  • Remove quotes to wikiquote
  • Eliminate trivia (unencyclopedic), incorporating worthwhile portions of that into the text
  • Combine all of the short stubby sections in Outside film into a cohesive whole - those sections are each too short to warrant separate sections.

Sandy (Talk) 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What self-published sources? All sources in references are books, newspaper and magazine articles. Nothing is self-published that I can see.204.126.250.241 22:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Improved

I like how this page is developing. I have made one change though: a recent change separated out the film and theatre roles, but the consequence was Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter threatre run was lost near the end of the page. To me, this role was instrumental in launching Mansfield's early film career - after the Broadway run she went into leading film roles including starring in the film version of Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter - so I've moved it up to the top and renamed the section. I feel this is more natural and more useful. Moving out the Broadway run seemed artificial: in reality in was part of and instumental to her film success, moving it to separate part of the article disguised that. Asa01 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ray Strait book

I personally think that this page is using Ray Strait as a reference entirely too much. His book is full of exaggerations and should not be used as a legitimate Jayne Mansfield reference. A better reference would be Martha Saxton's Mansfield biography or Michael Feeney Callan's. Hilljayne 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayne Marie Mansfield does not appear in 'Olly Olly Oxen Free'. She is credited with such on IMDB but they are incorrect. The film she was in was called 'The Great Balloon Race' (which OOOF is also known as) and was never released. Hilljayne 10:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alas, Hilljayne, the Strait book was written by the star's longtime manager (who has since become a well-regarded biographer) and is the first biography of the actress to be published—and to quite positive reviews in the national media as to its insight, detail, et cetera. Much of Strait's information can be verified by cross-referencing to contemporary publications (ie magazines and newspapers), so it stands as a legitimate reference. (FYI And you're talking about an actress whose life, career, pronouncements, figure, et cetera, were all enormously exaggerated, as daily events.) If you feel the Strait book contains exaggerations, you cannot just state that as a fact or personal opinion without being able to back it up or show in a concrete, verifiable fashion that any of the Strait information used in the Wiki article is incorrect (ie provide a citation). Also, according to the DVD of "Olly, Olly, Oxen Free", Jayne Marie Mansfield is listed in the cast credits; it was originally filmed as "The Great Balloon Race" and "The Great Balloon Adventure" (according to contemporary reports in the New York Times), so unless you can provide a better source than the Times (could you be JMM yourself?), then the information will stand as written until otherwise corrected with a verifiable citation.204.126.250.241 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alas, you have your sources wrong. Strait was NEVER Jayne's manager he was her secretary. SECRETARY. Perhaps you can supply some SUFFICIENT positive reviews of this book BESIDES those on the back jacket cover. The book was a hack job and by all accounts is not to be trusted. The book is filled with inaccuracies that both Jayne Marie Mansfield and Matt Cimber have disputed. The most reputible is Saxton's book. Raymond Strait is NOT a well regarded biographer. He wrote a few sleazy books, made some cash and now lives in retirement in Florida. Hilljayne 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayne Marie Mansfield is NOT in the movie 'Olly Olly Oxen Free'. I own the movie and she is not in it. She also filmed no scenes for the movie. She made a movie that was never officially released and she herself only owns the trailer to it. It was called 'The Great Balloon Race'. The Times got their information from IMDB who got the Jayne Marie Mansfield contribution from a fan, who are able to make submissions. Hilljayne 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that your beliefs and statements, however firmly held, about this are sufficient per Wiki. You need a citation, ie proof that the film was never released, and make the citation. If JMM is a friend of yours, or she is you herself, that is not proper sourcing, per Wiki. I will remove the information until this can be resolved. However, just to state it once again, the New York Times report about the film cites Jayne Marie Mansfield as being a member of the cast of the film. As for the information you claimed earlier in this discussion, re claims about JMM and the beating when she was a teenager, that has been verified by newspaper accounts of the incident (ie JMM implicating her mother in the beating, which you disputed or otherwise questioned) and is now cited accordingly per a report in the New York Times at the time of the incident. As for your comments re Strait, though I am not in the position of commenting on whether he is not "well regarded" as a biographer or writer or that his books are "sleazy", he actually has written more than 30 biographies, including Rosemary Clooney's well-reviewed "as told to" autobiography and co-wrote authorized biographies/memoirs of the actor [Lou Costello]] (1981) and the actress Jean Peters. My mentioning these in no way addresses the books' merits, but merely serves to show that Strait is apparently valued in some fashion by people wishing to tell their tales. Also, the apparently official Jayne Mansfield website (jaynemansfield.com) describes him as her press agent rather than her secretary, as Hilljayne states. Other sources describe him as her "publicist", not her secretary. And Californiaauthors.com states that he lives in California and has done so since 1957.Mowens35 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDB was just like wikipedia in that information is submitted by users. They have cracked-down a lot since the early days - like in 1997 when I added new titles (for real films!) they would be instantly accepted - now it is a lot more difficult to gat major new additions in there. Sometimes it seems that while it is quite simple to get new info into imdb, deleting errors and false entries is way more difficult. Asa01 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

HELP

Someone's previous edit completely mangled the "references" section (now renamed "footnotes"), so that the footnotes do not show properly. Can someone fix this? I have tried, to no avail. It is beyond me.Mowens35 14:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whomever fixed the footnotes, thank you very much. Trying to figure it out was driving me 'round the proverbial bend.Mowens35 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the December 20th version. That was the last one prior to the changes that started the problem. Anything done to the article after December 20th was removed. The article was moved around so much it's hard to tell what should have stayed and been removed.

Glad that corrected it for you. Philbertgray 15:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A question and a request

Do we really need three images to tell us what she looked like? I think the images with her information as a Playmate is representaive enough (a Playmate pic from Playboy itself, showcasing what the publicity stunts represented, and a presentable enough showcase of her most discussed physical attribute). The other two promotional images add no value on top of that. Should they be removed?

Leave them - they enhance the article. Philbertgray 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Playboy picture and the Magazine cover make her look less than attractive. The publicity shots define her screen image. Having only those two would make the uninformed wonder how she ever had a career. Philbertgray 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your opinion of the pics is POV, no? She looks quite attractive in both shots. Again, your opinion of them is POV, as is mine.Mowens35 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone edit the inroduction of the article? I think it should be self-containing enough to carry all the highlights of her life and career, and should be less on comments that look suspiciously like unreferneced opinons. Her marriages and awards, her career on and off hollywood - all that is missing big time in the intro. - Aditya Kabir 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the intro, as requested, though the previous version, with all due respect, did not "look suspiciously like unreferenced opinions". Then as now, in the revised version, it is an encapsulation of the entire article, hence is based on the article, hence is not opinion but a reduction, as in a sauce for cooking. As for the photographs, I see no problem with there being more than one (I didn't post of any of them, however). If they enrich the article and help break up the lengthy text, then they should stay.Mowens35 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life cleanup

Removed commas where not required; removed the reference to two awards as the same information appears later in the recognition section. Removing repetition gives the article a more concise flow and avoids redundancy. Tightened and combined several sentences. The article is coming along well. However, I think the article would benefit with some further editing. One or two sentence lines are normally too short to warrant a separate heading. The Promises! Promises! heading could be removed as it is essentially a part of her career decline. Also, the Outside film section probably should have the individual subheadings removed. This was mentioned by an editor earlier in the discussion section.

A reference for punctuation appears in the Manual of style section of Wikipedia. Ask.com also is a good source to check punctuation standards. Philbertgray 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing, very much. The intro should idelly be a summary of the whole article, as well as a teaser for the rest of the article. If you really want to remove redundant information from the intro you may end up removing name of the subject (its on the title already), date of birth and death (in the infobox) or the fact that the subject is an actor (repeated throughout the article) - in short everything. Let the awards be in the intro.

Then, the one or two sentence sections you mention already has more text than many complete articles that didn't only deserve a separate header, but a separate namespace as well. The editor who proposed removing the subheads did it before they were edited and expanded with text removed from unstructured areas of the article. Those parts may still warrant some expansion, and I tagged them as such.

Promises! Promises! is not way a part of her career decline, though it came out in the same time period. Rather, it is a milestone in sexploitation movies (and, hollywood in general) to feature a major actress in the flesh. That credit really was to go to Ms Monroe.

I'd still strongly agree to copyedits (including tightening of sentences, a smoother flow - not compromising easy navigability, of course - and punctuations) and rewriting the the intro (it still could improve as a summary and a teaser). Yours - Aditya Kabir 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The best path to a good article is through discussion and appreciation of different points of view. If you feel the awards references should be in that is fine. There is a section regarding introductions to articles in the manual of style. The recommendation is to give an overview of the article itself without being too extensive. The article itself is meant to cover the details. It also helps to avoid overly lengthy articles which cause the reader to lose interest.

Quick Note: Agreed in principle. But, that still doesn't invalidate the a summary and a teaser ideal. Let me quote from WP:LEAD - "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles)."

From the Wikipedia manual of style:

"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing. Once the attention span limit is approached, most readers will start to lose focus and retention of the information begins to become significantly hampered. All but the most determined readers will quit reading once this starts to happen, so going over the recommended limit needs to be justified by the topic."

Quick Note: Completely agreed. We need copyedit not only to tighten the prose, but also to reduce the article in size. And, that makes the case for leaving the sub-headers intact. Let me quote from the WP manual of style - "Be generous in adding sub-headings. They help readers to get an overview of the article and to find subtopics of interest. Create sub-headings if a section becomes too long, and choose appropriate sub-headings to aid in your exposition."

Per Wikipedia "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject" so it would be inappropriate to remove information from the box. I personally think the "infobox actor" should be used for the article. Jayne Mansfield had a much broader career than Playboy model.

Quick Note: Yes, and yes again. The Playmate infobox definitely doesn't do justice to the subject. I'd wholeheartedly support replacing it with the actor infobox. But, I'd still like to incorporate the Playmate infobox info in a easily accessible way (like the way an infobox does)

I'm interested on hearing all thoughts from editors on this and all articles and look forward to any purposeful exchanges that result in an improved article. Philbertgray 15:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick Note reference: All the three notes were posted by poor li'll me. - Aditya Kabir 18:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life additions - some conflicts identified

I added the information about Jayne's marriage to Paul Mansfield at aged 16 (I never knew she married that young before) and birth of her first child the same year to give perspective to the interplay between her personal live and budding career. Interestingly enough all but one of the bios on the internet show her marriage date as May 1950 and her child's birth as November 1950. The one dissenting bio stated she was secretly married in January 1950 and had an official marriage in May. I wonder if that was studio fabrication to cover what would have been an "illegitimate" conception and could have been a career destroyer at the time.

^In an interview with the BBC in 1999, Paul Mansfield said they were secretly married in January of 1950 and then had an "official" wedding in May of that year. This is from the documentary Arena Blondes: Jayne Mansfield.Hilljayne 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The same information, precisely, is cited in "Jayne Mansfield: Here They Are" by Raymond Strait. Reportedly, Mansfield was pregnant at the time of the January ceremony, though had miscarried by the time of the second "official" wedding.Mowens35 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the information of her marriage, Austin schooling, move to Georgia and return to Dallas into chronological sequence to avoid any confusion as to when each occurred.

I have found a couple of discrepencies. The article states first that she and her husband moved to Los Angeles in 1954. (This was the last sentence in the early life section - i moved it to the beginning of her career section since the move was to further her career. There is a statement in the career section that says she was discovered by a talent scout at the Pasadena Playhouse in 1953 which would be impossible if she didn't move to California until 1954. I can find no information that ever places her at the Pasadena Playhouse although there are several references to her attending classes at UCLA. Can anyone site where that came from? I left the comment in but removed the 1953 reference to the Pasadena Playhouse.

Jayne attended UCLA during the summer of 1953 then went back to Texas for fall quarter at Southern Methodist University in Texas. They then moved to Hollywood during the winter of 1954. I have her college yearbook from SMU which clearly shows she was a student. Hilljayne 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, one conflict resolved. Philbertgray 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to have more of a "fact" than a Wiki user having a copy of her yearbook at hand. Any other, more easily verifiable source than that?Mowens35 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to provide the copyright information of the yearbook which can be verified through the SMU library. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. The 1954 Rotunda. The Clio Press. Jayne Mansfield, Sophomore, page 403. Hilljayne 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayne. Would you please put that info in a footnote? If you're going to offer information to the article or proofs of that information, you should put it into a footnote, like the rest of us. Thanks. Mowens35 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The photo for the Tchaikovsky & Me album is tagged as 1964. The verbiage in the music section says 1963. The discography list says 1964. Anyone know which is correct?

New York Times has a release date of 1964; I'll put in text with quote from reviewMowens35 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the album cover for "The Girl Can't Help it" that I placed in the article earlier when there were only two pictures of Jayne. The album is for the soundtrack and not really her album so I don't think it really needs to stay in the article. Philbertgray 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There are three albums of romantic mood music that depict Jayne on the cover. She doesn't sing on any of them.

BTW the trivia section states: During the late 1950s, the front bumpers of some American cars came with extensions that resembled a pair of the conical brassieres of the period. Soon after their introduction, these extensions were nicknamed "Jayne Mansfields". I never heard that term; I always heard them called "Dagmars", named after the 1950's TV personality [1] 209.36.79.10 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

REORGANISE

I am reorganising things. I feel that separating things like tour and films and stage shows into separate sections takes them all out of context. Really, the Europe tour was part of her career high film career and should be stated in that section, within the context of that part of her career, not separated out and listed at the bottom of the article in an isolated section. Same goes for several other sections. Promises! Promises! is included in the Career decline section because, chronologically, that was the period of her career in which the film was made. Yes, it was a success. Since the article clearly states that, then we shouldn't have any problems. Melbn 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for the heroic efforts you've spent on this article. Wikipedia lives only because of such diligence and goodwill. But, there has been a slight misunderstanding here, I guess. My understanding on the changes you made are:

• Chronology can't always be the principal guideline or the guiding context in laying out article. Organizing an article around another principal, i.e. contextual divisions, sorting information into stratified structures and more, can also be useful. (I know you recognize this statement as true, as you already removed and commented on a chronological piece of information on JM's marriage put supposedly out of context into a section on her career)
• Merging shorter sections and paragraphs into longer sections and paragraphs are a barrier to good reading. We humans have an astonishingly short span of interest, unless we're aiming for a really big reward. WP is an encyclopedia, and therefore serves more people than the serious researcher. The original article was cumbersome long almost unbroken piece of text, and was quite a labor to read. Let's not take a step backwards if it's not too necessary.
• There is no reference here that says JM's stage or television career were necessarily supplementary to her film career. Those forays she made to stage and television were mostly acts of desperation and/or simply bad decisions. Her film career can't neither be justified nor explained by a chronologicalpresentation of those.

There has to another way of putting things in a chronological context other than just cramming them up into long and tedious sections and paragraphs. I am sure that your understanding, energy and interest will find a better way towards that end. Until then, I am reverting the wonderful work, with sincere apologies. Aditya Kabir 08:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what is wrong with the new layout exactly? It is not purely chron order but groups information in what I think are meaningful ways: early acting career, career decline, personal life. I do not mind if things like "Career decline" are renamed. Your only problem seems to be the length of the sections. Is there an official WP policy about lengths of sections? Melbn 08:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was wrong with your reorganization (it was rather good and thorough, really), what I meant was - it made the article tedious and a boring read. There are a few other issues as well, some already discussed above. Like, Promises! Promises! should not be an integral part of the section on the subject's career decline. It was milestone movie.

About her work on stage it would be more appropriate to have that story in a comprehensive structure under the existing section header (pseudo-headers could go out, then). This part of JM's career has less of a direct link to the highs and lows her film career than a parallel career developing into a safety net in her later life.

On top of that, you have made some factual mistakes while trying fit in all those stage and theater stuff into the main timeline. Like, The Match Game did not happen during the early stages of her film career or turning down Gilligan's Island did not happen when before her film career ended, like where you put it.

Disagreement is most welcome. But, I still think - there are ways beside a chronological layout to tell a story. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Basically I didn't think to check the talk page first before making my changes. I wont just jump in and revert. I think at some point I will probably reintroduce some of the new information I had added, maybe in a different place as per your notes. One thing I think that comes out of all this is that I am not sure about the Career decline header. It seems she had high profile roles in a few big films, then went into smaller films... but somehow calling it a career decline seems to contravene NPOV. In any event, this alleged decline covers such a long time it becomes a little meaningless, and yes there were successes in there. I wonder what years the stage performances, like Bus Stop, were? Yes I agree more flesh in the small sections would be good. Too bad all my Jayne reading was from library books I no longer have access to. Melbn 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The last 2 lines of the paragraph "Death" contains reference to "The Pink Palace was sold....". What is this about? this seems to be a cut and paste from another entry. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.225.8 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pink Palace was her home, as mentioned in the "personal life" section. It was sold after her death. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mickey or Miklós?

What to call this Mister Universe - Mickey Hargitay or Miklós Hargitay? Or maybe we call him Miklós "Mickey" Hargitay as it was on the article much earlier. There seems to be difference in opinion. I'd prefer the real name, but there also is opinion for his public name. Some might also prefer to have both. Say what? Aditya Kabir 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:RickK started the article on 21 December 2003 by calling him Mickey Hargitay (here). An anon edited it to Miklós "Mickey" Hargitay on 26 November 2006 (here). User:Mowens35 edited it to Miklós Hargitay on 27 December 2006 (here). User:JackofOz edited it back to Mickey Hargitay on 9 June 2007 (here). Aditya Kabir 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

i changed "decapitation" to "death" in the introduction, since she wasn't actually decapitated (though it's a common misconception), and even if it was true, it would be unnecessarily dramatic for the introductory paragraph. Sebs26 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated suggestions

Factored in from Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/August 2007

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Can't, didn't, Can't, Can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Was she actually a Satanist and member of the Church of Satan?

According to the Church of Satan, and I believe that article makes this claim as well, Jayne Mansfield was a card-carrying member of the Church of Satan, and thus a Satanist. A Google search brings up a number of articles stating this as fact, as well as a photograph of Mansfield with Anton LaVey. Honestly, this all seems a bit suspicious to me. Any thoughts as to the veracity of these claims? Bill Jacobs 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The satanic claim has been removed from this article some time back as it couldn't be verified. I see no reason why the claim should be on the Church article, if it can't be verified. In fact I am a bit worried of the category of methodist people that includes this article, too. Religion is no small thing, and even discreet claims without citation can make for wrong impressions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on comments here I have removed the name from the list and tagged the sentance as needing verification. I don't have time to do it myself. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence / Languages claim

She billed herself as having a 163 IQ - this is hard to believe, since most standard tests top off at around 150, unless intelligence tests were different in the 40's/50's. She would have had to take some pretty specialized tests to get a score that high - when would she have done this? When, where, and how would she have learned 5 languages? Is there any proof to these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.16.11 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She had taken a test while at the University of Texas at Austin. She had a document in her scrapbook showing her score. She later told her score to countless reporters and those interviewing her, including Edward Murrow on Person To Person. (Hilljayne 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Is it possible to cite an acceptable source for that? Scrapbooks and one-on-one talk doesn't look like reliable sources. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"A SIDE BAR TO JAYNE MANSFIELD"

AS A SIDE BAR, I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT BRUNO VESOTA ( STAR OF STAGE, SCREAM, AND T.V.) WHO FOUND JAYNE MANSFIELD AND STARTED HER CAREER WITH "FEMALE JUNGLE" IN 1955. HE WENT ON TO DO RODGER CORMAN PICTURES AND LATER THE NIGHT GALLEY AND KOJAK. HIS WEB PAGE IS BELOW.

THANK YOU

ROBERT JONES

http://brunovesota.barrybrown.info/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.254 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not write a separate article on that person? Is there any third party reliable source to support the claim? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Locus of control

"With her role in this film she attempted to move away from her "dumb blonde" image and establish herself as a serious actress." It seems to be common in this kind of commentary for fans to write as if they believe that the star had been implementing their own master plan to achieve their future destiny. But in truth, wouldnt she just have done the work she was given? I'm against ascribing super-human abilities to stars or celebs. 78.146.190.80 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well whether they achieve their destiny is another matter entirely but Actors and Actress have been known to turn down work similar to what they have done before because they wanted to move their image away from what they are currently best known for and have even been known to take a reduced fee for a movie because it is a type of role that is totally different from their previous work.

Call that a master plan if you want to and of course they may not succeed but an actor can at the least try to move their image . Garda40 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Publicity stunts" or not: Opinion

I notice that in the section "Publicity stunts" various events are referred to as "publicity stunts". IMHO it is frequently a matter of opinion (or WP:OR) whether something is or is not deliberately a "publicity stunt" (as opposed, for example, to simple extroverted behavior). Although this section does contain some cites, I think that we should cite reliable sources for the rest of these to avoid the appearance of OR. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the objection is more about the title. Can you propose a better title, please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Find a death

The citation leading to findadeath.com was removed upon the argument that it's a non-expert website. That it may be. But, if it's reliable, then there's little need to be an expert. In fact, most of the school textbooks around the world are not written by experts (do not expect Einstein to write a school textbook on relativity). The source looks quite reliable,as it was used by quite a number of publications as a reference. Examples:

• The Hollywood Book of Extravagance by James Robert Parish, John Wiley & Sons, 2007, ISBN 0470052058
• Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis by Ed Sikov, Henry Holt & Company, 2007, ISBN 0805075488
• Sylvia Plath: Tightropes Walk Between Genius and Insanity? by Jeannette Nedoma, GRIN Verlag, 2009, ISBN 3640315774
• Suicide in the entertainment industry by David K. Frasier, McFarland, 2002, ISBN 0786410388

Many more examples can be provided, if needed. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The requirement is reliability, not expertise. Looks reliable enough. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead image

There seems to be ample confusion about the lead image. As far as I can see, it meets all the NFCC criterion. Someone claimed the copy is misplaced. May be. But, that's easy to fix, and that's no reason to claim that the image doesn't meet NFCC criterion. Can you people bent on removing it explain why you want it removed, with appropriate policy support? I believe, even if you guys are right, a point or two can be made to keep it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright policy is rarely negotiable. In particular, using a non-free image is subject to criteria, the first of which is WP:NFCC#1- "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The purpose in the infobox is to show what Jayne Mansfield looked like, and for recognition. We have a free image already that satisfies this purpose, and unless a very strong case can be made that the image in question overrides NFCC#8, e.g. by giving significantly different visual information from an image free of copyright, I don't think the image satisfies fair-use requirements. However, it is for the editor seeking to add content to justify it, so over to you. Rodhullandemu 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, generally speaking, the lead image is about showing how the subject looks/looked like. But, I'd believe that an imahe with historical significance serves the purpose better, and their is no guideline against that in our already policy-ridden Wikipedia. I have just put down the first part of the copy, which already shows the historical significance, though there has to be a better place to put the copy and a possibility of expanding it further. Currently I am under the impression that historical significance is kind of difficult to replace reasonably. I may be wrong on that though. Please advise. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not this image belongs in the infobox, I don't think it's a violation of the nonfree image policy to place it in the article. This article is about a person who was noted for being photographed in various poses. Thus, to illustrate commentary on those photographs, I think that nonfree images are acceptable. I don't see any copyright or Wiki policy violation here. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The important considerations for valid use under WP:NFCC are replaceability and significance (#1 & #8 thereof). Clearly, if we are merely illustrating Jayne Mansfield's appearance and we have a free image that does so, no issue of fair-use arises. Conversely, any other (non-free) image must be justifiable in providing something to the reader that text cannot; I don't see how a specific image from a film in which she is wearing some costume does that. Against that, if she had appeared in some form wholly different from the normal, and that fact is worthy of mention, then a non-free image might just be arguable. In the present circumstances, I don't see any historical significance in that image in itself, because it is not uncommon of its type. As for commentary on those photographs, that is the only reason non-free images are allowed when no free images exist - but the commentary on that image was not on the image itself but on the circumstances surrounding, and tangential to, the image itself. Hence, in my opinion, it fails WP:NFCC but any editor is welcome to seek a different opinion. Personally, WP would benefit from many more images, but given our copyright policies, it just ain't possible given that those policies are intentionally stricter that most "fair-use" provisions, both in the USA and the UK. Rodhullandemu 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But there's precedent for using infobox photos for more than identifying the subject. For instance, as you may recall, a photo illustrating the motion picture Weddings and Babies was put up for deletion, and the closing administrator decided that it should stay, but that it should be used in the infobox. Here we have Mansfield in a particular pose, whose significance is explained in the caption. While I'd prefer that this photo be integrated into an appropriate place in the article, given the informative caption providing critical commentary I don't think it's a problem. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If irreplaceabilibty (an image from her last publicity campaign by Fox) and significance (and it's historical significance thereof) are the problems, then both are already amply covered in the text which also covers the impact of that particular campaign. If you believe it needs more, though almost every NFCC on Wikipedia has way less, please state. And, remember, no matter you and I believe, Wikipedia still has space of NFCC, though in a narrow band of scope. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The sticking point appears to be use of the image in the infobox. I'd suggest placing it in the body of the article amid appropriate critical commentary. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true. One of the sticking points is the use in the infobox, and for identification purposes the free image is satisfactory. I agree with User:Rodhullandemu's comments. I would also like to point out that in addition to the image being discussed, there are 6 other unfree images in the article. How many unfree images do we need to understand what is written here about Jayne Mansfield? 7? To put it bluntly, after looking at all those images, we've got more than a good idea of what she looked like. There is nothing unique in the image being discussed, and I don't think adding it to the article would achieve anything but further overload the article with unfree content. I support the use of unfree content when it falls within our fair use policies, but I don't think it's in the spirit of our policies to look for reasons to include more and more unfree images simply because there is a degree of discussion in the article that addresses the image. Our fair use policies have a wider purpose than just this one article, and ultimately they're in place to protect the integrity of the project. If that means making difficult choices, and sometimes removing unfree content that we would actually prefer to keep, then that's the price we pay for participating in a project that is based on the aim of creating free content as far as possible. This is not copyright paranoia, by the way. We can't just keep adding and adding unfree content and making justifications for this picture and exceptions for that picture. Not everything needs an illustration. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What she looked like is not even a point. Anyone who has access to Wikipedia also has access to google image search, and a quick search will give you thousands of image that shows you how she looked like. One little question, which policy makes it cast in stone that non-free images can't be used in infoboxes? Usage in infobox is not even a criteria. It needs irreplaceable significance and respect for the commercial use authority of the copyright holder (both described in further detail as part of WP:NFCC). There also is no restriction to the number of non-free images per article, as long as these images meet the guideline. Fly-by invention of rules and regulations aren't exactly the way to deal with this. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox issue is something of a red herring; image policy applies to all parts of an article. There is a limitation on the number of images and it is WP:NFCC#3 if the images are not giving unique information which text is incapable of. In other words, non-free images should not be used for mere decoration, and community consensus on that point is of long-standing authority. Rodhullandemu 11:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not keep repeating the red herring or other red herrings then. NFCC#3 says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Do you really believe that there are other images that convey "equivalent" information? If you do, can you please elaborate on that point? There are quite a few good essays, already much circulated, on the way this debate is prodeeding (i.e. WP:SHOPPING, WP:LAWYER, WP:GAME and so on). Can we, please, cut to the chase? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The main thing that is being shown in each image is Jayne Mansfield herself, and in each of the 9 images in the article, she looks basically the same. The differences in each image relates to location/setting/context. The average person could read this article with a couple of images and still understand what is being written. The additional images are not necessary. The problem is in different people having different definitions of "equivalent". Rossrs (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aditya asked me to come and take a look at this as a neutral party/self-important commons admin, so...

I don't believe there's any real issue about a non-free image's use in the infobox, as long as such fair use is justified to begin with - its use is justified for the article, not a particular place in the article. However, there do seem to be a fair few unfree images here, possibly more than should be in such an article. I fully admit I haven't read the article, so can't state about the importance of each image, but what strikes me about the image in question is the caption last campaign for 20th century fox. Now, if it was her last campaign, eg the final one before she died, then yes, I can see a fair use rationale there. But unless this campaign was especially significant, it's probably best just left on that film's page, and a different image moved to the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mattbuck. I'll definitely try to make sure that is was the last campaign from Fox (though I believe, there were be non-Fox campaigns since that one). But, Fox made her the star, and ever since Fox dumped Mansfield, her career dwindled to almost nothingness. Well, significance is a pretty subjective criteria already, and so is the amount of critical commentary that amplifies significance. Anyways, I have already incorporated text to support the claim, along with sources. That, I hope, should count for something. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone, including Mattbuck has said "yes, let's put it back". You are talking about consensus in your edit summary, although you seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no consensus. We don't seem to be making progress. Constantly reverting each other's edits is not productive so I won't waste more time on that, but as you know, the image has been nominated for deletion, so we could also just wait for that to be determined by the reviewing admin. I believe the article is overloaded with unfree images and should be referred to Wikipedia:Non-free content review where it can be looked at impartially by editors who are more actively involved in this type of review. Rossrs (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons" (per Wikipedia:Consensus). If you have any reason to put forward, please do. It is fine, as "even policies and guidelines should be thought of as statements that have broad consensus in the community; it is certainly possible to question them, but any such questioning should be a matter of discussion aimed at amending or changing that consensus" (per Wikipedia:Consensus). But, unhelpful comments can hardly lead to reason or consensus. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's right. But it seems to me that you are describing comments as "unhelpful" because you don't agree with them. I've given reasons, and User:Rodhullandemu has given reasons. Are you dismissing it all as "unhelpful"? You haven't said anything to convince me that the need for this image outweighs the need to maintain free content, so I'm confused. Does this mean that I should consider your comments unhelpful? Please don't be so ready to categorise others' comments. Talk about what is actually said and challenge the content of the comment. To say they are "unhelpful" is unhelpful. Rossrs (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know we are all volunteers here, and asking people to go through long discussions is still just request. It doesn't really matter if I agree to what is said, and neither do you. It also doesn't really matter if you're convinced, or if I am. At the end of the day, this is the Wikipedia, and things will be decided anyways. And, if you're really questioning good faith then, please, take a look at the acts of reverting and not responding to a discussion, or doing it when re-reverted. I believe I have answered every single issues raised. If you really want to question the stand, please, tell which part went unanswered. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Images used at Jayne Mansfield Rossrs (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I nominated File:Jaynemansfield2.jpg, File:JayneFamily.jpg, File:Jaynemansfield4.jpg, and File:ShakChaikMe.jpg for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 27. This should get some closure on this discussion. I did not nominate File:Jaynemansfield.jpg as I expect it to be speedily deleted as replaceable. I also did not nominate File:Vbt30j.jpg or File:Sophia and jayne.jpg as I expect they would be kept by FFD. —teb728 t c 07:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)