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)

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


 * 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. Rodhull  andemu  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. Rodhull  andemu  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. Rodhull  andemu  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 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 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 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 Non-free content review 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 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)