Talk:Louise Brooks/Archive 1

older comments
Wikipedia is not a repository for links. Wikipedia is a place for articles to be written about various subjects. Please, rather than simply post many links (which are useful, but not primarily), try to write the article yourself. You can use those links as references to build your article. But please, focus on writing, rather than building a large list of external links.

We can keep the links in here, so we can refer to them, and maybe add them to the article later. Kingturtle 06:20 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Wrong date?
"In Europe" states Pandora's Box is from 1928, "Filmography" states it's from 1929. Which one is correct?


 * The authoritative Louise Brooks Society lists it as 1929. The movie was still be filmed when Brooks turned 22; there's a picture of cast & crew celebrating it on the London attic set.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.5.55 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy
I remember reading in one news article about this individual, it was brief and cryptic, concerning pessimistic aesthetics philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. There seems an unnerving concentration on the film persona (particularly with the one from "Box", which I do not think is the best image to dwell on, given that it is one of dehumanization and objectification for varyous fetishistic obsessive types). I have a strong intuition that there was infact ALLOT more to this person then what is being focused on by what appears to be a majority of her fans. Is there any further detail in any of the Seven Seals concerning her philosophy, ideology, and maybe even politics (and at best, religion)? Given her scholarly nature, I strongly doubt any real resemblance to the character of that film. Seek the Forms --IdeArchos 08:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tone?
Hi all, glad to read this article, & I think Louise Brooks is way cool, but I have a quibble: Here & there, it tends to read like a fansite (i.e., a bit gushy) instead of an encyclopedia article. Does anyone else have this impression? I think a few word changes might help. I can take a shot at it. Z Wylld 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeh I have. That and the fact that there is a marked lack of any of her philosophies. I see her, first and foremost, a scholar, who wrote film reviews and seven esseys (their subject is not given in this artical), or even any philisophical works (though, they may have been very, very diluted, given that Shopenhauer was a major influence on her, he held a nihilistic perversion of Neo-Platonism that would lead to social anarchy, followed by dictatorship by the Nietzscheans). I have bumped into this recently and was somewhat impressed, though, not satisfied with a lack of insight into her potentially more important contributions (if any). The secret here is, I suspect most of these people are just obsessed perverts (fans, like you said). Thanks -- IdeArchos 00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

IdeArchos: Given that most Wikipedia entries are by those interested in the subject, ie: "fans", then you are implying a form of perversion that is offensive on the face of it. In Ms. Brooks case, she is almost exclusively associated with film and acting, with its attendant followers and critics, most of whom would take issue with un-informed statements regarding this entry on Ms. Brooks.

Z Wylld: As for "gushy", all the descriptive word selections have been used elsewhere in much more scholarly articles regarding Ms. Brooks and her life. If one wishes to correct anything, feel free, but everyone edits, remember.

IdeArchos: Had one read more on Louise Brook's career, one would have been apprised of her overriding "philosophy" for much of her life - an un-abashed sexual hedonism, which resembled the character of "Lulu" in "Pandora's Box" to an uncanny degree, with the exception that Louise, contrary to Wedekind's Erdgeist, was well aware of her sexual influence on men, and women, for that matter. That she survived a self-destructive, alcoholic youth and middle-age is nothing short of miraculous. Her deus-ex-machina for her entire life were wealthy men who were using her or had used her at some point in her existence, and even Louise was well aware how much her looks meant in the scheme of things. Even late in life, she was not above using the memory of what was to influence the present.

As for Schopenhauer's "major" influence on Ms. Brooks, it is an unknown factor, and as Louise never gave a concrete explanation of her philosophies, you are projecting your interpretations without foundation, especially the use of the words "major influence". Louise was highly intelligent and very well read, Schopenhauer's writings being only one of many philisophical works she undoubtedly read. Lotte Eisner's profile of Louise with a book of Schopenhauer, to which you must be referring, was in no way cryptic - unless you're trying to read more into it than just a film actress profile. She was an irreligious person for most of her life, although for a number of years late in life she attempted to become a practicing Roman Catholic; this was eventually ended by Louise of her own accord, so God rarely came into the discussions she had before and after this period, which can only be viewed as an abberation in her otherwise wide-open lifestyle.

She thought of herself first and foremost as a dancer, and as such her artistic expressions were primarily influenced by movement; as a writer, her primary influence was Proust, whom she strived to emulate in her writing. Ms. Brooks never wrote a film review per se, altho she claimed to have ghost-written one once for an inebriated Herman Mankiewicz(!), and never really examined any films in the classic critical sense in print. As for her essays, where she wrote exclusively about film, Hollywood, its people and its influences, there are no real philisophical discussions at any point, as Louise believed in brevity of writing. Her contribution to arts and letters are her film performances, her fashion stills, and her film writing - nothing more, and certainly nothing less. You could look it up.Vanwall 15:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanwall. Well, OK, I didn't mean to insult anyone.  I don't really understand IdeArchos' reference to "obsessed perverts"; I myself am a fan, which is neither here nor there.  So please don't be offended if I change a few words.  --On another note, in the section on European interlude, the reference to Pandora's Box was a bit jarring, because it gives away the ending.  I just saw this movie recently (before reading this article), and maybe I was just thickheaded, but I didn't anticipate the ending.  So maybe there should be a plot spoiler warning.  Thoughts, anyone? Z Wylld 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Z Wylld. No offense taken at anything you said - a well edited article will have some give and take, and evidently the word choice has seen general acceptance. I was offended somewhat by IdeArchos' choice of words, which isn't the first time this person has failed civil discussion on this page, and seems to be looking for something that isn't there. I'm not sure about the spoiler comment being necessary; to be honest, I've never seen that before in a reference work - one does come here to be informed in a reasonably full manner. Thanks for your input, and if you have something new and relevant regarding Louise, by all means - edit! ;-) Vanwall 20:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing that annoyed me here & there was the use of her first name only, in various sections. This seems a bit "familiar" in an encyclopedia article, and generally seems to happen in references to women, but not to men.  So I might change it to her last name here & there, although you can see this is more of a "quibble" thing than a major issue.  --Re. the other question, I've only seen the plot spoiler warning on articles on specific films, in the "plot" section (appropriately enough).  I think it's part of the Wiki film project format.  I don't know if it would work logistically in an article on an actor, in sections re. her various films, but it seems fair to include a warning here because the Jack the Ripper scene is a "shock" ending for Pandora's Box.  Maybe someone knowledgeable about the Wiki film project has an idea? Z Wylld 20:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guilty of perpetuating the "familiarity" aspect myself - I've run across it on other articles as well, and didn't give it another thought. Hmmm. "Ms. Brooks" would certainly lend it a more scholarly tone, but I like Louise - that's just me, tho. ;-) I wasn't aware the Wiki film project was going to format related articles, but I see the point about the surprise being vitiated by too much information. Throw in a spoiler warning, I say, and if someone feels it's superfluous, they'll edit it out - not that I think that'll happen, 'cause you have a good point! Go for it. Vanwall 21:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OMD Song

The synth pop group OMD had a hit song 'Pandora's Box' about Louise Brooks
 * Good call - I added that and also a bit on Soul Coughing's "St Louise is Listening" Vanwall 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

American Gods by Neil Gaiman references Louise Brooks extensively in two chapters of the novel. It's what brought me to this article. I think he uses her as an example of a passing age (the Silent Film era), forgotten in modern times.

Prix de Beaute
The article lists "Prix de Beaute" as a silent movie, but I saw a film clip of the murder scene that included dialogue, ominous music, and even a song. Brooks' singing voice was obviously dubbed and I don't think she had any wpoken lines in the scene, but that scarcely qualfies as "silent". CharlesTheBold 10:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like many others films of the period, two versions of Prix de Beaute were shot: one sound and one silent. Both versions are available on video. --Franz 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed quote
"She had little breasts, like pears – Charles Chaplin. Information found in a documentary about Louise Brooks on Youtube" What a demeaning, nonrelevant item to add to such an accomplished artist's bio piece. I see some sort of quality control effort here but why did this little gem of sexism make the cut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.200.157.177 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not sure this was demeaning, it looks rather unencyclopedic to me so I've removed the quote. It was indirect anyway, a Mr. Diamond apparently quoting Chaplin. Avb 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous
The article calls Brooks' haircut "eponymous," but doesn't actually say what her nickname was. The haircut was called a "bob," but I think it was better known by a two-word name, perhaps "bob cut" or "bobby cut." Can anybody contribute Louise Brooks' nickname? I think it may have been "Bobs," "Bobsy," or "Bobsie" -- and she may have been called the "Bobby Girl" or "Bobsy Girl" in the press. Unfree (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The eponymity is explained at the article on eponymous hairstyles, and is referred to in this article on Brooksie under Modern influence. The line you've brought up could be changed to "...haircut, which Paramount made eponymous as 'the Louise Brooks bob,'...".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.4.218 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Certainly with such an old subject with a wealth of photo's taken of her, perhaps another, more closeup picture of her is called for?Philatio (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We had a much better picture in place not that long ago; I'll reinstate it (no idea why it was changed). Avb 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice Philatio (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Twas I who made the earlier change. The portrait used here now again doesn't do her justice.  Where are the penetrating eyes, the trademark bob?  The two-shot I posted -- still up on the more discriminating Português & Finnish language sites -- shows her at work lighting up W.C. Fields, which is illuminating.  So ... how about a better closeup? 71.192.4.218 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find a better close-up, go for it. Maybe the pic with WC Fields (& caption) can be used elsewhere in the article? Avb 09:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to post photos from other sites, but I took your second suggestion ... and put it under "American film career," a change from Hollywood because she didn't start making movies in California until 1927.71.192.4.218 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see she's pictured in her role as The Canary, which is a pretty funny compromise. And W.C. Fields has been axed.  **sigh**  ... I also see the IP address for the public computer I use has changed (from 71.192.4.218), presumably due to a change in carriers. 71.192.13.8 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I hate to precipitate the removal of the one decent image of Brooks to accompany her Article, the quest for accuracy demands that the image heretofore described as a still from Pandora's Box instead be identified as the Eugene Richee portrait that it is. See the central image at http://www.pandorasbox.com/galleries/kimono.html 72.8.44.19 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed the caption to indicate its function. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see it! 72.8.44.19 (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (Formerly 71.192.13.8)

LGBT project banner
Brooks was married two times and had an affair with other men, which would seem to argue against this bisexual allegation. Is there any actual, verifiable source to show she was a bisexual or lesbian? Or doesn't accuracy matter? Britneysaints (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've stated on your talk page twice now, you are assuming that the LGBT Project claims this article because Brooks is bisexual, but you don't know that for a fact, because you never wait to hear from anyone at the project about why the banner is here, and under what reasoning they claim Louise Brooks under their project's auspices. It could be that she is a gay icon, and not because she was not straight. Why don't you calm down a bit, and not get so worked up over this, and wait to see what kind of answer you get from the inquiry you made on the LGBT talk page?  After all, even if the LGBT Project has made a mistake and claims, erroneously, that Brooks is bisexual, to do so is not an insult, it's simply a mistake, one that can easily be cleared up. Chill out a bit. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And may I comment that being a bisexual means being sexually attracted to people of both sexes, so being married and having an affair with other men doesn't logically preclude being bisexual. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From this article comes a reference to this:"Louise Brooks--the silent-film actress famous for her bobbed hairdo as well as her role as Lulu in Pandora's Box (1929)--became outspoken in her later years. In her memoirs and conversations, she reminisced about affairs with women, including a tryst with Garbo."This is from Film actors:Lesbians on glbtq.com. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And Ed Fitzgerald may be a transsexual. Britneysaints (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be, after all - "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog" Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Many articles on wikipedia are scrubbed - for whatever reasons - of minority sexuality references. It seems Brooks was either bisexual or at least there was prominent speculation she had affairs with women as well as men. A well-written and neutral biography would include at least some mention of this. Here's over 50 books that touch on the subject. -- Banj e  b oi   11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the bisexual tag - it's quite clear in Barry Paris' biography that while Brooks enjoyed being a tease on the subject and did do some experimentation, she got nothing out of it, definitely did not self-identify as bisexual, and in fact did not agree with the concept of bisexuality. This is from page 394-5 of my edition, quoting from Brooks directly: 'I had a lot of fun writing 'Marion Davies' Niece' [an article about a friend who was a lesbian], leaving the lesbian theme in question marks. All my life it has been fun for me.

When I am dead, I believe that film writers will fasten on the story that I am a lesbian ... I have done lots to make it believable [...] All my women friends have been lesbians. But that is one point upon which I agree positively with [Christopher] Isherwood: There is no such thing as bisexuality. Ordinary people, although they may accomodate themselves for reason of whoring or marriage, are one-sexed. Out of curiosity, I had two affairs with girls - they did nothing for me.'

Her inclusion under the LGBT project banner as a gay icon is definitely legitimate, but if every person who experimented a couple of times were given a bisexual tag, the category would be a LOT bigger - but a lot less meaningful. --Ravenclaw (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great quote and if you haven't already, you may want to cite that in the article to help clear up the issue. However, we don't remove a category because a subject doesn't believe in the label. By Wikipedia standards Brooks is considered bisexual even if they didn't beleive in the concept. We write for our reader's understanding of the subject. A category is just an organizational tool. -- Banj e  b oi   03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the issue in the article, but the fact remains that by most objective measures, Brooks was not bisexual. Wikipedia's entry sets out a criteria of someone who `can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex'. As someone who would have had the opportunity to sleep with as many women as she liked, and is on record as receiving plenty of offers, she nevertheless never expresses any interest in pursuing long-term relationships with women, and emphasises that her experiments were unsatisfactory. If the tag is to have any meaning, it should not be applied willy-nilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenclaw (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Canary Murder Case.jpg listed for deletion
A user talk page notification:

"An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Canary Murder Case.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)"

Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

nude modelling
Couls someone say, when the nude images were made and who made them? Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ,  and  --Britneysaints (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Canary Murder Case Image
User:Britneysaints keeps attempting to remove this image on the false grounds that the result of an IFD discussion was that it should be removed frrom this article. I've posted the total discussion below, so that all can see that, in fact, 5 people participated in the discussion, and of those, 4 said that image should be kept, while one (Britneysaints) said it should be deleted. One of the four "Keep" votes, said that it should be removed from this article, but that opinion was not part of the finding of consensus by the closing admin, who merely found that there was consensus to keep the image:

Canary Murder Case.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: keep. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Canary Murder Case.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Adrianwagstaff ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete 1) The photo does not “significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic” (WP:NFCC ). 2) No minimal usage per WP:NFCC. - Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Britneysaints (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The claim that an image of the star of the film, in costume, does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the film seems pretty unreasonable. Also, it should be noted that the only other image in the article is a poster, so it's not like the article is swimming in images making this one redundant and unnecessary. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - An image of the second billed star as the title character of a film, on an article about the actual film, used to illustrate where the film gets its name, doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the article? This reasoning makes me fear for all images on all film pages. It makes no sense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the comments of User:Ed Fitzgerald and User:Wildhartlivie - I believe it complies with all points regarding the use of unfree images. This is the only image being used from the film itself.  The film poster is not particularly representative of the film itself, rather its marketing, so this image conveys something distinct and unique from it.   It seems to me that it is being used in an appropriate manner equal to the use of many other images in many other articles. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove from Louise Brooks as failing NFCC1. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

In other words there is no consensus to remove this image, and to keep removing it while citing the IfD discussion as a reason is both misleading and false. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it extremely difficult to understand why User:Britneysaints would be so strong in his/her determination to remove one unfree image although he/she has recently uploaded a new version of the Pandora's Box image which is equally unfree, and I would be interested to know why this is. Clearly the discussion of the Canary image was to keep.   On a slightly different track, I don't know that the Pandora's Box image should go in the infobox when there is a suitable free image.   The fair use rationale for Pandora is that it is used to support discussion of the film, but placing it in the infobox rather than with discussion of the film, weakens that fair use claim.   The purpose of identification is served by the free image.    Rossrs (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, my fault. I knew there was a reason why we had the layout we had previously - its so disconcerting to finally "let go" of an article, stop watching over it, and come back to find it's been worked on in a way that doesn't much help it. Anyway, I've got the portrait back in the infobox and other images in better places now. I thought we had one other, but I can't recall what it was - maybe time to his the history. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture
Is this really relevant? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to point out that, to take just one example, "Singer/Songwriter Taylor Aidibi-Dotson of Portland, Ore.'s "The Quiet Years" [30], whimsically claims to be the reincarnation of silent film actress Louise Brooks." I would suggest that the whole section is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjwmartin (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image changes
Please discuss what you think is wrong with my application of Manual of Style and Image Use Policy guidelines to the images in this article. Address each change individually, please. Yworo (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response on Talk:Flapper, no need to have two conversations about one issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Image placement and sizing are individual, so each needs to be discussed on its own talk page. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have fun discussing it among yourself, then, because I'm talking on Talk:Flapper - both issues are exactly the same, your slavish adherence to MoS without consideration of what's best and what's not. And considering that you just Templated me for edit warring, I'm not so sure I'll continue to talk to you there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You did revert three times on two articles. You know that's wrong, and if you didn't, now you do. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialists of America?
"She was a lifelong member of the Democratic Socialists of America.[24]" Impossible. DSA wasn't founded until 1982. She may well have been a member late in life, or have been a long time member of a different democratic socialist organization but the statement as it stands is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.197.76 (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out. Both political and religious disinformation removed.Parrotistic (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is more likely she was a member of DSOC (Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee) and joined DSA later on. If anyone cansource that we can add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Tynan
As I recall, it was Tynan's New Yorker piece that really made her familiar to a new generation. I think that should receive more emphasis in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwanderinby (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rediscovery - nonsense text
At some point between the 29th of January and the 15th February 2012, the Rediscovery section of this article was added to, I think.

Much of the additional material is interesting.

But the fourth paragraph now opens with this nonsensical sentence: "Known for her great stage name Bugs Bunny stage unless she felt compelled to, and although the majority of her publicity photos show her with a neutral expression, she had a dazzling smile. "

I don't know where the Bugs Bunny defacement came from, but it appears to replace a rather more interesting start to the sentence.

I would love to know, now, what it was that Brooks didn't do "unless she felt compelled to" - was it just to smile?

Would anyone who knows a bit more about Louise Brooks care to re-edit this section and make sense of the fourth paragraph.

Thanks,

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Colvin (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

High school picture caption
An editor is attempting to change the caption on the picture of LB in high school to say that she was a sophomore. My impression is that he is doing this because of her age (15-16), which would normally be that of a sophomore -- but, of course, people get held back or skip a grade. I've asked if the editor has a source for LB being a sophomore when the image was taken, but I've yet to get a clear answer. My feeling is that without a source which specifically says that she was a sophomore at the time, assuming that she was a sophomore from her age is WP:SYNTH, and therefore not allowed. I'll ask again: is there a source which explicitly says that Louise Brooks was a sophomore at the time that the picture was taken? BMK (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is silly - I told you it was in the yearbook, copies of which still exist, and reminded you that Louise dropped out of high school, so any indication that it was from her senior year (information you blindly accept as the gospel truth) is impossible. I'm sure we all have better things to do. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (who is not a he)
 * This is not "silly", this is required by Wikipedia policy whenever a fact is disputed or questioned. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Do you have a copy of the yearbook so that you can verify that it says that she is a sophomore?  If so, that's great, so ahead and re-add "sophomore" to the caption.  If not, then you either need to find another reliable source to verify that fact, or you cannot say that she was a sophomore, it's as simple as that. BMK (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is extremely silly. Putting that she is a sophomore in the caption is important as the original cruddy scan was incorrectly tagged as her being associated with the senior class (which, again, you didn't have a problem with even though it's impossible!). No, I don't have the yearbook anymore. You don't have to continuously own a book to scan an image from it/cite it. Even so, what else from the book needs to be verified before you accept it as accurate? Do you require a notarized copy of the scan along with witness statements who were there when the photo was taken? Why is this caption disputed? Unless you can present any sort of plausible reason to contest that she was NOT a sophomore in that photo, beyond "I want more proof" then there is no reason to continually challenge this and waste other people's time. This is so dumb. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed your re-insertion, as it is unsourced, per WP:V: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Your recollection of what the yearbook says is not a reliable source. Continuing to re-insert unsourced material without providing a source may get you blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you simply reverted my deletion of your unsourced material with the edit summary "It is sourced". Where can that yearbook be found?  When did you last have it in your possession? How did you verify its authenticity? BMK (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a third opinion. BMK (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL! It's at the Wichita Public Library. The downtown branch. I think you should ask for fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth opinions! In fact, I think you should devote all your time to this important issue. PS I think you should also ask for a ninth opinion, just in case!!!! —Мандичка YO 😜 17:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion requested
A third opinion has been requested. The simplest resolution would be to remove the "sophomore" from the caption and to indicate only that it is Brooks in high school. Is there any dispute that the picture is from high school? (However, why is the issue so important? This article isn't subject to the policy on biographies of living persons, an extremely strict policy, only to the policy on verifiability.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only as important as anything we present as a fact on Wikipedia, Robert, whether in a BLP or not. BMK (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref based on the information provided above which, unfortunately, was like pulling teeth to get. BMK (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I added it is because the original scan implied it was from her senior year (When you click the image to look at it, you see the original description, "The senior class of 1922 of Wichita High School..." below). Apparently the Very Special Wikipedian who is creating this drama accepted this as uncontroverted, indisputable canonical fact. As you can see I uploaded a much clearer scan and clarified that she was a sophomore that year. I think it's an important enough clarification to make, as Louise Brooks dropped out of high school before her junior year, so this could cause some confusion. It's extremely extremely minor, but it's a legitimate edit, and I'm not going to be bullied over this. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted "sophomore" and then re-added it. Find some other article to edit-war about.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Hey since you apparently have shackjit to do, why don't you head on over to Category:All articles needing additional references ? Since you're so concerned with things being properly referenced of course. I'll keep reloading to check on your progress! You can do it! PS Maybe you should tackle that after you go through every Wikipedia article and challenge every sourced citation from a book and demand to know when they last had the book in their possession and what the weather was that day. Hmmmm, I actually think that may be more important, but I might have to request a third opinion.  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You cut me to the quick with your rapier-like wit. BMK (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Whitney Houston sang it best: "You're a WINNAR for a lifetime. If you seize that one moment in time. Make it shine!!!!" You haven't wasted anyone's time at all. It's PURE HEROICS!!! HEROICS!!! Have you gone to the Wichita Public Library to check the book yet to verify I didn't just make it up? Will you seek a third opinion on what time you should go? HEROICS!!!! —Мандичка YO 😜 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't hear you, I was busy checking some stats. Let's see ..... Beyond My Ken/Before My Ken, #1 and 2 with 126 edits to this article, adding 2,291 bytes to the article, not a whole lot, but decent enough .... looking down the list now .... looking .... still looking .... Ah! here it is, Wikimandia, #35 with 5 edits adding 69 bytes to the article.   Congratulations on your stellar contribution to this article,  it certainly improved it substantially.  Not only that, but it added 59 edits to bring your article edit totals to a whopping 5,211!!  And in only 9 years!!!!  Oh my, congratulations again, you are indeed a very valuable addition to our editing corps, a veritable jem of an editor, a diamond in the rough, perhaps, but surely worth the attitude and attendant bullshit you bring with you to the task.  Three cheers to you! BMK (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you!! This isn't useful.  Read the talk page guidelines yet one more time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Get off your high horse, Robert, you're not an admin, you didn't qualify to be one, so stop acting as if you are one. In any case, no one with only 11.9% of their edits to article space and 46.9% to Wikipedia space is in much of a position to take a superior attitude towards actual content editors. I suggest you perhaps re-orient yourself somewhat more towards improving the encyclopedia -- the thing we're all supposed to be here to do, if you recall -- and less towards commenting on User talk pages and article talk pages (39.6%).  I'm surprised you haven't learned by now that no one really respects a commenter who doesn't have any real experience in the trenches (and certainly not one who changes their opinion at the drop of a hat) -- but perhaps you feel that becoming a Arbitration clerk will lead to your becoming an admin and then an Arb.  Good luck with that, I think you know how  my  vote will be cast. BMK (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Grammar
There is a dispute between myself and another editor about some writing in this article. The other editor appears to believe that his version is grammatically correct, and mine is not. My own opinion is that grammar is more similar to a Wikipedia consensus then it is to scientific fact, and that there are few (if any) absolutes in grammar, especially since the change in writing involved a change in tense. In any case, I believe both of our examples are grammatically allowable, but the original is better. I have invited the editor to make his argument here. BMK (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll open by giving BMK credit for opening a discussion about our dispute rather than descending into the dysfunctional dynamics that too often prevail when Wikipedia editors disagree. I hope the tone and some of the content of BMK's comments in the revert-box and on my talk page were made in jest.


 * BMK highlighted the crux of our disagreement in his/her statement: "My own opinion is that grammar is more similar to a Wikipedia consensus then it is to scientific fact, and that there are few (if any) absolutes in grammar, especially since the change in writing involved a change in tense." That statement indicates: (1) s/he seems to have forgotten both the existence and content of the hard-and-fast rules of English grammar/mechanics/usage taught in school, documented in books, and easily accessed online (for example, at http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/act/chapter5section2.rhtml and in resources such as this blog and the books this blog post cites), (2) his/her desire to block efforts to correct violations of said rules within the article, and (3) his/her adoption of an erroneous and unfortunate belief that grammatical/mechanical errors that are commonly made throughout Wikipedia are acceptable merely because they are commonly made.
 * So, what's at issue here is not actually a clash of personal preferences or opinions, as BMK has characterized it. Rather, it's a debate about whether or not the Wikipedia community should permit editors who do not recognize fundamental grammar/mechanics errors to prevent other editors from correcting them, which copyediting task I submit is a necessary function of Wikipedia's editorial talent pool.Froid (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are obviously commonly accepted rules, I didn't mean to say that wasn't the case (for instance, I have no problem at all with the two edits Froid just made), but the rules are not hard-and-fast, they change over time, as reading anything written several hundred years ago will easily show. Anyway, let's not get all theoretical about kit, let's look at the two examples:


 * The original text: "By her own admission, Brooks was a sexually liberated woman, not afraid to experiment, even posing fully nude for art photography, and her liaisons with many film people were legendary, although much of it is speculation.Brooks enjoyed fostering speculation about her sexuality, cultivating friendships with lesbian and bisexual women including Pepi Lederer and Peggy Fears, but eschewing relationships."


 * and here is Froid changed version: "By her own admission, Brooks was a sexually liberated woman, not afraid to experiment, and even posed fully nude for art photography, and her liaisons with many film people were legendary, although much of it is speculation. Brooks enjoyed fostering speculation about her sexuality, and cultivating friendships with lesbian and bisexual women including Pepi Lederer and Peggy Fears, but eschewed relationships."
 * I'd actually write this as:

"By her own admission, Brooks was a sexually liberated woman, not afraid to experiment; she even posed fully nude for art photography...Froid (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Before anyone says anything, I will admit that the differences are minimal, but I still think that the original is more direct and easier to read. The first sentence of Froid's version, for instance, has too many "and" clauses, and the "and" in the second sentence is completely unnecessary.


 * Froid? BMK (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I came across one of Froid's grammar edits a while back and since then have tried to make some sense of where they are coming from. I've had to correct a couple of outright errors introduced by their changes, but the other problem is they don't seem to understand certain grammar rules, so they make arbitrary rephrasings like the ones cited above, under the heading "grammar correction" or "copyedit", that are not necessary. Yes there are absolutes in grammar, but a bar on phrasing such as "Brooks began her entertainment career as a dancer, joining the Denishawn modern dance company in Los Angeles" is not one of them. Replacing it with "Brooks began her entertainment career as a dancer; she joined the Denishawn modern dance company in Los Angeles" is not a grammar correction or a copyedit but simply an alternative phrasing, and not necessarily a better one.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide examples of grammar rules you feel I do not understand. Froid (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Brooks began her entertainment career as a dancer, joining..." is a common phrasing but is grammatically incorrect. Its common usage doesn't make it right.Froid (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify the "rule" of grammar it violates? Thanks, BMK (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think you just provided your own example.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Popularizing bobbed hair?
Article states she was known as popularizing the bobbed haircut. Maybe from our present day perspective, but back then credit was generally given to Irene Castle for bobbed hair in general (1913-1914 when Louise was age 7-8) and Mary Thurman for wearing it straight on stage and in public (1920 when Louise was age 14). The reference is an article from Photoplay magazine April 1924 when Louise was age 18. JetMec (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states that (1) Brooks had worn that style "since her childhood" (the cite is to an encyclopedia of hairstyles) and that (2) she "helped" to popularize it; so there is no conflict between the sources, but (3) the source you cite does not, as far as I can tell mention either Irene Castle or Mary Thurman at all, and gives credit primarily to Colleen Moore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Expanding the lead section?
Currently, as of January 2020, the article's lead section is 4-5 sentences which is quite short. In contrast to four sentences, the Manual of Style/Lead section suggests "four well-composed paragraphs." Does anyone object to expanding the lead? -- Flask (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Disrespectful
I was really thrown and had a bad taste in my mouth after reading “ In 1925, Brooks sued the New York glamour photographer John de Mirjian to prevent publication of his risqué studio portraits of her; the lawsuit made him notorious.” and yet directly above this text is one of said photos. In her bio. For all to see. Which would clearly go against her wishes should she be alive today. I find it very disrespectful and harmful. 142.120.114.104 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * She's dead -- how can it be harmful? Dead people frequently have to endure the indignity of having their private lives made public in the most invasive way. This is why the aphorism runs nil nisi bonum de mortuis, because they can't sue and anyway, in Law, you can't defame the dead. But as they're dead anyway, they're long past any harm that might've resulted.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Photos being used as clickable links?
Instead of expanding to larger images, some photos in this article inexplicably link directly to Wikipedia articles about the films of which they are stills. This is not usual in Wiki articles; and furthermore, it's bloody irritating! Nuttyskin (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know when that snuck in, but I've removed those links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)