Talk:June Mathis

Census
I found June Hughes Mathis on the 1910 Census for New York City along with her mother, and 1889 seems to be her correct birth year:

1910 United States Federal Census about June B Hughes Name: 	June B Hughes [June B Mathis] Age in 1910: 	21 Estimated Birth Year: 	abt 1889 Birthplace: 	Colorado Relation to Head of House: 	Daughter Father's Birth Place: 	Wales Mother's Name: 	Eugenie R Mother's Birth Place: 	Illinois Home in 1910: 	Manhattan Ward 12, New York, New York Marital Status: 	Single Race: 	White Gender: 	Female Neighbors: 	View others on page Household Members: Name 	Age Eugenie R Mathis 	40 June B Hughes 	21 James M Hawkes 	70 Emily J Hawkes 	58 John Kolvow 	34 Alexander Smith 	35 View Original Record

View original image View blank form up arrow Save This Record Stutzey (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

quotes
these would be better if integrated with the article rather than standing alone. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you do that? EraserGirl (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you might consider it intrusive? 86.44.28.245 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't use loose quotes. This isn't my article, I didn't write it. If I had it would be better. If you are going to follow me around commenting on everything I touch, which seems an awful lot like stalking, why don't you make yourself useful.EraserGirl (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think I am stalking you, a serious accusation, I have already directed you to the appropriate venue in which to raise your concerns. I simply did some unspectacular, totally benign little clean up edits, as I often do on what, three articles? It's an open project, and we are free to edit and hopefully improve things. Since it was nothing major I didn't foresee a problem. I certainly didn't expect you to start flipping out. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you perhaps saw yesterday I have a much lauded and wide-ranging reference work lying around. Tonight I had cause to use it  and it struck me that your contribs might be a ready-made list of further articles in which it could be of use. It wasn't, but I did some clean-up anyway. Terrible, isn't it? I suspect the source of all your animosity is the note I left you regarding your comments at various AfDs yesterday (none of which I was involved in.) Well, your comments were out of line, anyone will tell you that, and you should get over it and concentrate on improving articles, which you seem to be decent at. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The source of my animosity is the fact that you are anonymous and in my eyes, a nonexistent user. As I have said before I don't take reprimands or advice from anonymous accounts. And btw your big book is wrong. Just because things are IN a book, doesn't make them accurate. I have handled dozens of source books for 40 years, and they constantly contradict each other. Hell, the Library of Congress has Vera Caspary's birth date wrong and hence all other library databases have it wrong as well. I AM good at what I do and I don't like anonymous users sneaking around commenting on my work. Either log in or butt out. Then I will pay attention. EraserGirl (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence "FWIW", as regards my big book, rather than a bold edit. And a request isn't much of a reprimand! I can't log in because I'm not registered. Registration isn't required. Unless I'm missing something, you're more anonymous than I am. But this is all very off-topic, so I'll leave you to your editing, which is much more fun in any case. [sneaks off into the anonymous night] 86.44.28.245 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

revisions
So where did the quotes go? I didnt see them anywhere in the article. Im glad there was some clean up but I was morified at the new layout...it didnt make sense and seemed jumbled. I almost wanted to revert it but I didnt wanna do all the new sources and grammar...so I did my best to piece it so it flows better. I dont know about any stalker wars; just make a good article thats the point of Wikipedia :p.--Thegingerone (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked one quote into the article, and threw the other one out as it didn't link with any content. I really don't feel comfortable with some of your changes to my format and some of the excision of text. It was NOT jumbled it was quite linear, though I will admit there is a paragraph describing her that doesn't have a home yet.  A biography should flow like a story of a life. If the flow stops and bring up another topic and then go back to the original story line, it is badly written. I would like to discuss changes before they happen and find a consensus. EraserGirl (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well the original layout worked well for me; it just seemed the new one wasnt very encyclopediac and parts were moved where they shouldnt be.  She was simulationsly a screenwriter and an executive (technically filling other roles as well) so to split it off that way doesnt always work as some things she just wrote for, others were part of the executive role, some were both.


 * This is my idea here and maybe I didnt convey it well; I had trouble piecing some of the parts completly where I thought they belonged. It should go intro (a summary of her and her career which right now I think is good), early life, theatre.  Then the screenwriting began, she had some success with that (Camille, To Hell with the Kaiser), then she had Four Horsemen of the Apocolyapse.  This is where she discovered Valentino.  I dont know if he really needs a whole alone section or if he should just be in that part of the story.  If he has his own section I dont think their personal life stuff belongs in it; I think it belongs in her personal life section.


 * Four horsemen was MAJOR; it was one of the top selling silents and one of the top (and longest) selling movies of all time. She continued writing (a lot of it for Valentino, and a lot of those did well too) and then followed Valentino around to various studios hoping to help him out as he was having trouble with studio bosses.  Here's a good question that I dont see the answer to: WHEN did she become an executive?  I'd guess 1922 as thats when Ben-Hur started filming...but maybe it was earlier?  And was it at Goldwyn or before Goldwyn?  This may or may not be the place to start a new section (Executive).


 * As an executive she had a lot of press over it, and she had life insurance for $1 million called, 'The Million Dollar Woman'. I havent put this in the article because I forgot where I read it, but I think it was in the headlines in a genology search.  You added the 'Most important woman' thing so thats good it shows how major this position was.  She has Greed and Ben-Hur...but what else did she do as an executive?  Was it all flops?  I cant imagine those were the only two movies she had that power over.  Even if so I dont think they need new sections; they would be part of the executive career.  Also I dont know if I like the wording in the Greed section.  She did not edit Greed at all; she left it to someone else (the one AFG link is a citation for this).  She and Eric had worked together before, and I believe afterwards as well (dont quote me on that).  I dont think she would want to 'butcher' his 'masterpiece'.  Its really important to cite and source whatever the truth on this as its unfortanitly one of the things shes best known for.


 * Im curious on the Ben-Hur part too as her and Barbin did not get along. Is that the right spelling?  Also the star was George Walsh (she had wanted Valentino but he was unavailable) and it was rumored they were dating.  This I believe would be the end of her 'executive' section if it has its own section.  After that she didnt disappear, she worked on quite a few movies especially for Colleen Moore and Anna Q Nilson...and they did pretty well.  She died before she could do anything else major.


 * As for Valentino again like I said I dont know where/how to stick that even for continuity sake. I think there needs to be a section (be it in her personal life or its own thing) about the themes in her work; as its important to what she did.  She was a major spiritualist and had liberal views which came through in a lot of her scripts (have you ever seen Young Rajah?  Sums it up quite well!)  She was an early artist to have anti war, pro GLBT views, spiritualist views, and 'not all non white people are heavies' viewpoints.  Seems important to me...dont know ab out anyone else.


 * I think her relationships and descriptions of her belong in a personal life section. Dont know if it should be before or after her death section (or the death section a part of it).  I'd like to see a legacy section, as her films still survive and such.  She was also one of the first and very few women to hold the position she did; to this day there is only one major female executive in the film world (there were 3 about a decade ago but most of them dropped off like flies).  Thats kinda my opinion on the layout, other opinions welcomed.--Thegingerone (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

•I have a hard time reading your posts because of your punctuation and grammar, please try to be more careful it will promote clarity of thought.

There are recommended methodologies for compiling a biography. I wrote a biographical article in chronological order. It should read like a short story chronicling a life. It should not jump around in time and confuse the reader. Like all of the women who worked in Hollywood during that time period she had virtually no personal life. They worked with the people they loved. She had affairs with the men she worked with, she married a man she met on location and with whom she later worked with as a cinematographer. Her life and work are intertwined and cannot and should not be parsed. Yes, I read that same piece of trivia last night in an actual book. I have more material which I am compiling and will add to the article soon. Websites are not particularly good reference sources as they usually are reprinting material found on other websites. Your ideas about themes in her work may well be interesting but they must be quotes from citable reference sources. Please try to review some of the better written biographical articles they may help you understand structure. EraserGirl (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont see whats wrong with my grammar or punctuation. I find it legiable.  I have spelling errors every now and then but thats that.  I agreed with you; and I wrote out my thoughts on how it should be listed chronologically.  She did have a personal life though it was intertwined with her professional.  Look at Marilyn Monroe for instance, she still has a personal life section though she had a very public private life.  Mathis' romances, personal beliefs, and relationships seem to belong in another section...as mixed in with her career it sounds a bit fan styled.  I agree websites arent the best sources, however Mathis has very few WEB LINKS about her...let alone books.  To my knowledge (beyond Valentino books) there are no books about or on her.  The sources I have used where appropriate are verfiable (i.e. they arent blogs or edited by just anyone, a few are interviews with people very knowledgeable on the subject, etc).  Some of the quotes on her beliefs come from her herself.--Thegingerone (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont see whats wrong with my grammar or punctuation. I find it legiable.  I have spelling errors every now and then but thats that.  I agreed with you; and I wrote out my thoughts on how it should be listed chronologically.  She did have a personal life though it was intertwined with her professional.  Look at Marilyn Monroe for instance, she still has a personal life section though she had a very public private life.  Mathis' romances, personal beliefs, and relationships seem to belong in another section...as mixed in with her career it sounds a bit fan styled.  I agree websites arent the best sources, however Mathis has very few WEB LINKS about her...let alone books.  To my knowledge (beyond Valentino books) there are no books about or on her.  The sources I have used where appropriate are verfiable (i.e. they arent blogs or edited by just anyone, a few are interviews with people very knowledgeable on the subject, etc).  Some of the quotes on her beliefs come from her herself.--Thegingerone (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine we agree on a chronological order. I do not agree that there is enough to warrant a separate paragraph called 'personal life'. It removes information from the body of the article and tacks it on in some illogical place. Marilyn Monroe is not a suitable comparison to June Mathis. Her romances are not separate from her work, they are as a result of her work. BTW if you use Firefox, it has a plug-in which will denote spelling errors for you.  EraserGirl (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no mandate that a biographical article follow a proscribed layout fashion, although there are a plethora of bios that do. There also is no mandate that any bio have a personal life section. I am posting a reprint of an email I sent to a WP editor regarding this:


 * "There is a manual of style outline for biographies, but it's not so specific. How an article is laid out is going to be determined by what sources and information is available. ...in a lot of cases, ...a person's private life is significant and high-profile enough that containing it within a single narrative covering the lifespan confounds it too much. I guess a high profile example of this would be Angelina Jolie, whose non-acting life is notable on its own. I've run across some articles (and none come to mind at the moment) where there will suddenly be a mention of 'and then he married blah-blah' between two discussions of film work. My honest reaction is usually 'and so what?' When an article reaches a critical state where the by-the-way mention of issues in their personal life makes the article tangential to a high degree, I do support separating out the personal life. People are curious about that aspect of a notable person's life, and sometimes, that is all they are curious about. But with people whose work is all that is referencable, there is no problem with a linear approach including all of it. (Occasionally, a person's personal life is what establishes notability in film as well as notability, period. That's also as valid for someone for whom little is available.)"


 * In the case of this article, there is little to indicate that the personal life requires a separate section when it can be as easily covered in a linear manner. There's no point in chopping up an article which is well written in a linear fashion just in order to establish a personal life section. This is especially true when that section consists of one paragraph with a largely unreferenced combination of factoids that amount to trivia and two other sentences about personal relationships and a marriage. This comes off as looking, and reading, as arbitrary. Marilyn Monroe's article layout is one of those cases where the personal life needs to have a separate section because of the complexity her biography would have, much like Angelina Jolie's that I mentioned above. A June Mathis biography will not be remotely as complex.  Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One other note. One must be very careful in writing sections that address themes in a person's work. In the absence of very solid sourcing, it amounts to original research. At present, that section of the article isn't well-referenced enough to support some of what it is saying. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In previous articles, I have used direct quotes from references in order to include criticisms and commentary about the subject's work product. If there were any direct comments from film historians or perhaps one of her contemporaries that referred directly to her writing style, we could find a way to include it. EraserGirl (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AFI as a reliable source
American Film Institute - "The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate announced in the Rose Garden of the White House by Lyndon B. Johnson—to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage, educate the next generation of filmmakers, and honor the artists and their work. Two years later, in 1967, AFI was established, supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Ford Foundation."

The filmography in this article uses the AFI database as sourcing. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)