Talk:Mae West/Archive 2

Problematic passage in article under "Career"
This needs help:

woman.") Although during her entire lifetime, she surrounded herself with gay men and was appreciative that they comprised her hardcore fan base, Mae's concept of homosexuality as illness was in keeping with the popular notions of the early twentieth century.  Finally, West has been called an early feminist.
 * But while gays and lesbians began a decades-long embrace of West, or at least West's public persona, the love affair wasn't exactly mutual. Every reputable biography of West has her believing that a gay man was actually a female soul housed in a male body, equating transvestism with homosexuality, and referring to gays and lesbians in the long-defunct pathological term "inverts."  (West  once admonished policemen who raided a gay bar and beat up its male patrons, "Remember, you're hittin' a

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

Caption Changed
Please do not change the caption to the 1978 photo we have provided - thanx! EmilEik (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that once it has been released in the public domain, it is fair use. WP guidline is that photo credits should listed on the image page and not with the photo itself. I'd urge you to update the image page with all the pertinent credit information. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a special courtesy to the actual photographer, we would like his name to appear in the caption. Have now updated the image page with all the info needed to create understanding for this request (not a demand). Hope nobody needs to object in this special case. Thx EmilEikS (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd marriage controversy
I edited the section on West's alleged marriage to Deiro. Three recent biographies of Mae West state that the two were never married. (I have only read those three, so I don't know what other, out-of-print biographies say.) What I read on the internet on the topic gave me the general impression that Deiro admirers are all certain that the two were married, and West admirers are not even aware of this possibility. Anyways, I changed it to reflect that this is a controversy and added the "they didn't get married" POV and references so that the more mainstream POV is also represented. If there are any better references for their marriage, it would be great if they could be added. Because the only evidence is a document archived at CUNY, which would constitute original research and is not very accessible; Variety Magazine of 1913 mentioning a "Mr. and Mrs. Deiro performing"; and a self-published book not listed on Amazon.com but only at a specialty online accordion store. This all smacks of original research but I am pretty new to Wikipedia so I am reluctant to delete the whole reference to her supposed second marriage.Ivesiana (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't original research if one can formulate a citation for the material. If there is a divorce document at CUNY, it can be sourced to there, and it may be possible to get a scan of the original document that can legally be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Self-published books are an issue, but the Variety source isn't particularly so. Sources need not be available on the internet, and in fact, are often used, especially in articles covering historical events. Since there is a dispute between the pro-Deiro marriage and the con-Deiro marriage sides, it should be covered. More sources may be to be sought at some point, though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. My understanding was that Wikipedia information is not supposed to be based on primary sources.  I view the divorce document as a primary source and the self-published book as the only secondary source.  The Variety article is good, my concern is that an article listing them as "Mr and Mrs Deiro" is a weak proof of marriage, since it could have been a mistake, stage names, a joke, etc.  If out of thousands of articles written about Mae West during her lifetime this is the only one citing the marriage, I am a bit underwhelmed.  Anyway, don't worry, I am not trying to suppress the controversy.  I will look for other biographies of Mae West which are out of print and see what they say, because if it is the case that all of Mae West's biographers agree that the two were never married, I would like to include that information.Ivesiana (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In most cases, primary sources are a problem, but WP:RS also says that primary sources can be reliable in some situations. I've seen scans of legal documents used before to verify certain facts, such as birth records, marriage records, court findings - basically, for verifying legalities. I think in this case, a scan of the divorce record archived at a major university would qualify as a reliable primary source for the statement that Deiro obtained a divorce from West on such and such a date. On the other hand, a self-published memoir would be questionable. There are gray areas in most things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, respected editors.

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

Sincerely, Henry Doktorski

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


 * Many thanks for your recommendations, Wildhartlivie. We have ordered copies of the Laurie & Grandlund books. Will add citations soon. Henry Doktorski (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should comment that while it will be perfectly acceptable to present sourced material that supports that such a marriage occurred, there is also sourced material that disputes its existence. Both sides should be covered in the article, since all we are able to do is report what sources say, and whenever there are two viewpoints, in the interest of neutrality, both should be considered as having equal weight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag Restricted - No Way for Mae?
Though I agree emphatically about a tasteless overuse of flags, I was shocked to learn of English Wikipedia's exaggerated flag icon restriction through Wildhartlivie's recent edit. Two comments: 1) For the first time, I feel Swedish Wikipedia (sv:Mae West, sv:Camilla Henemark, sv:Ayesha Quraishi etc) has a much more intelligent and educational policy in this detail than English Wikipedia. 2) Mae West is about the most appropriate kind of subject there could be for citizens of the Unites States of America to be proud of, and the inference that it could be inappropriate to use the the Star Spangled Banner in any context to honor her is absolutely ridiculous. Narrow-minded policy like this does a lot of damage to Wikipedia! For over 50 years West did more more to further a good impression of America in the rest of the world - though her world famous and much admired American sense of humor - than all the U.S. sports stars put together. Wildhartlivie made poor old Mae turn over in her grave, extremists in the religious right are happy, and it's a sad day for English Wikipedia. Somebody, preferaby a reasonable administrator (like Wildhartlivie, who seems to own this article) lease put the flag back, in this case, regardless of overly picayune policy! I'm just askin' and I'm just sayin', and please be nice: I have a right to my opinion. Sincerely, Fiandonca (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I copied the above (started by User:EmilEikS) from User:Wildhartlivie's talk page and expounded on it here. Mr. Eikner had replied well there himself. Fiandonca (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * It's a bit disengenuous of you to imply that there is something dishonorable in the removal of an icon per policy to the memory of anyone, save perhaps a fallen military hero or leader. Please review WP:NPOV. Editors are supposed to approach articles from a neutral and unbiased perspective in order to create a balanced and unbiased product. Articles don't exist to honor anyone. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are talking very very very much down to me Mr Wildhartlivie (for lack of a personal name to write to). I share Deputy Chairman Eikner's opinion in this case and your comments about my not having my own opinion to share with him (and others), and add my own 2¢'s worth to, are nothing but insulting. I ASK YOU NOT TO CONTACT ME OR WRITE TO ME EVER AGAIN, unless you want to apologize for being supercilious and rude. If you feel I was rude to you in any way by expressing my frank opinions, then I apologize sincerely. Fiandonca (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: This poor article really needs some work! All those templates at the top are a real embarrassment. To Wikipedia, not to West or to me. So many articles like that on English Wikipedia. Did you have a look at sv:Mae West? Gorgeous! Here it looks terrible and all these templates all over the English project, for month after month, make a very bad impression on newcomers. Investors? Hah! Looks like Kindergarten or something. Why don't you spend some time on the article itself, so those awful templates can be removed sometime, instead of all the masterful arguing and nitpicking (as documented on this discussion page) about a whole list of items of minor importance? The only references needed are the well known biographies about West. Why don't you stop being an occasional breeze-in lecturer or policeman or guard of some kind and roll up your sleeves? Just a constructive suggestion. Some real editing, by a real editor, is needed here. This is one of the few articles (of 88) in the English and Swedish Wikipedias where the humble wishes of this image contributor were not respected, by you, through your speedy edit of the caption. Twice! One can only get the objective impression of you, from this page and its edit history, that that kind of pouncing is all you do. Stop trying to teach me and everyone else, so very haughtily, how their opinions "would carry a lot more weight" (above) etc etc etc etc etc! I, for one, am totally uninterested in your personal advice about such things. Once again, sorry if you find me rude. I mean well. Truly. Fiandonca (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I have made no effort to contact you, I have responded to something that has totally been blown out of proportion and have been subjected to a flurry of inane attacks over my attempts to explain and follow policy. Stop making this flag issue personal. Please direct your attention to the "Please note" section below the editing box which says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mericilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. You have accused me of ownership, and yet at no point have I jumped up and down and cried foul because someone edited a caption. I find it interesting, however, to discover that you have never edited this article, so I'm at a loss at where I "disrespected" your wishes. In fact, you've only made 17 edits to mainspace articles since you registered a week ago. And at no time on this page, was being talked down to mentioned, so you seem to be responding to something someone else wrote. As far as the other entries I've made on this page, they have been in response to questions and issues posted by other editors on a talk page that few people monitor or bother responding on. One such was a discussion about what or what is not original research, one was over photo captions, and now the flag. Two out of three of the issues were raised by the same group that is now mad because policy doesn't allow the use of a flag icon. Saying you're sorry if you seem rude all the while being so is counterproductive, as is this inane discussion. Like I said, if you don't like the policy, raise it at the page where the policy exists and stop making a personal issue of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The flag item is far more important that you think, in principle. The right to publish the U.S. flag, or restrict its use according to unworthy polices, policed by people like you, can certainly be questioned legally. I will deal with it in other ways, if and when I have time. If I felt competent to improve the West article I would. You obviously are. Since you must have missed that you are not to reply to me again (or you wish to prove yourself totally disrespectful), I have now emboldened and capitalized the text above so nobody can miss it. You have written things on Eikner's user page and have now insulted him and their board too. Thank you for not invading mine (yet?). Talk about personal! How about your word inane!?!? Twice! What an unbelievable hypocrite you appear to be! Any further attempt of this kind by you to hurl snotty insults at us will be reported as harrassment. And you will find out that we do know where to report it. I have obviously only reacted to your doings, and rather naturally I feel. Fiandonca (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On behalf of my Board, I would like to say that I am deeply sorry that Fiandonca has been subjected to insulting language like "jumped up and down and cried foul because someone edited a caption". Will someone capable please finish this Mae West article? Soon? EmilEikS (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fiandonca, you brought this discussion here, so you must expect, when you attack another editor, that the editor in question will likely respond.  I also removed the caption from the images because it is not the way the captions are recorded on en-wiki, and I have Mae West on my watchlist, so if I'd noticed the flag icon added, I would also have removed it.      sv.wiki has its own policies and guidelines and if they are different, they are different.   I'll take your word for that, and also that some articles there are better than their en.wiki counterparts, although the opposite would also be true for other articles, wouldn't it?   en.wiki has over 2 million articles and you've mentioned three.  Discussing this article, the purpose of the flag is not to "honor" Mae West any more than the article itself is to "honor" her.    There is no issue of patriotism involved.   The flag icon is/was being used decoratively.  The first sentence says she was American and the consensus on en.wiki is that this is enough.  This is established as a guideline at Flag and it has been discussed over a period of time by numerous editors, with differing viewpoints.    The guideline is the result of these discussions. It is perfectly acceptable to use that guideline as rationale for removing flags from this article, as it has been used as a rationale for removing flags from other articles.   Rather than attack the editor that removed the flag, you should perhaps discuss the guideline at the Manual of Style guideline page, and see if there is support for rewriting the guideline.  And yes, you have commented there too attacking the guideline with words such as "assinine" and "sickening"  and "ethnic arrogance".   Twice in one paragraph you've restated your right to express an opinion, and we certainly get that, but you might have taken a more persuasive approach.  The purpose of the guideline is to ensure consistency and accuracy as much as possible,  with the knowledge that it, like all policies, won't work in every individual situation.  It's not reasonable for other editors to agree that the guideline should be applied to all of the articles on en.wiki but not Mae West's.   You've made several comments about the quality of this "poor article", and the need for a real editor to get in and do some work, and that may be true, but you seem to think that fixing the article is someone else's responsibility, and not your own.  I'm not sure exactly how you think that mocking the article and its editors is going to gain you any support. I notice that you've made no edits to the article itself.   I also notice that you've twice apologized for being "rude" although you have not been accused of it.  The responses you have received have been about as courteous as you should expect considering the personal nature of your first comment, and the editor Wildhartlivie has attempted to explain procedures that you clearly either don't understand, have not read or are refusing to accept.  I don't know, or care, which applies. If you see this as talking down to you, that is entirely your own perception.   You have the right to your opinion, but the manner in which you've chosen to express it is usually not tolerated here for very long.  Your comments are among the most mean-spirited and unpleasant that I've had the misfortune to read, not to mention that the view expressed is completely unsupported by anything relating to Wikipedia policies or guidelines.   Whatever your views of en.wiki, its policies, its guidelines, the Mae West article, and the editors that have contributed to it, you are mistaken if you believe you have behaved in an appropriate manner.   There is no reason for turning a simple disagreement into a personal attack against an editor who has conducted herself within en.wiki's guidelines, and who has responded to your intitial comments with an explanation of her edits.   On the other hand, there is nothing in anything you've written that suggests a good faith attempt at discussion, despite your assurance that you mean well.


 * Also, if you request that an editor does not comment on your user talk page, that will be respected by most reasonable editors.  It's more effective if it's done politely, but if you feel that common courtesy is beneath you, then I suppose you should continue taking the impolite approach.   Also, if an editor posts a message on another editor's talk page, and then forbids them the opportunity to reply, it does not suggest good faith (just the opposite, in fact) and could not be construed as a serious attempt at communication (again, just the opposite, in fact).   It seems more like a bullying/harassment tactic to me.  Why do you think you can bold text a note personally directed at Wildhartlivie,  telling her not to contact you, while in the same edit you continue to attack her?  This page, by the way, is open for anybody to comment, and comment I will, but it goes without saying that I won't go anywhere near your user talk page. Rossrs (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At risk of breaking another rule or two, I am copying here my recent comment from above as it is even more appropriate here. Fiandonca has started out very nice and has only reacted naturally to the extremely condescending and increasingly sarcastic language used by the editor in question. We are starting to realize, quite sadly, that such language is commonplace at EnW and that we have to like it or lump it when talked down to like that. This kind of language seems to be defended vehemently (by it being called normal) by many EnW regulars and old-timers, and those who are offended are attacked if they say so. I was warned emphatically about this and told not to contribute before securing permission from my Board to do so anyway. Fiandonca hasn't attacked anyone, that I've seen. From what's on her talk page now, it looks like Fiandonca has really been frightened. That's what can happen when someone is ridiculed in public, which is the worst kind of insult. That's when it starts getting scary.


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


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

Fully Referenced now?
This article now has 49 references. There are so many footnote markers that it is almost disturbing to try to read the text. If there is a Wikipedia award for a maximum amount of references I would like to nominate this article for it. With all due respect to anyone who watches this article, I am now removing the template at the top regarding sources. If anything else needs references please tag specific items, or better yet, remove any unsourced material. The tone of the article is still too personal and too gushing in some places. Remove or edit that too, anyone who has time. I will try to get to it later if not. EmilEikS (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Typo corrected EmilEikS (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the article having 48 references, no, it is not fully referenced which is why I didn't remove the tag the first time I did a clean up. I didn't accidentally leave it up which is why Wildhartlivie restored it the first time it was removed. The "Career" and "Motion picture" subsections are largely unsourced and those sections (among others) need to be addressed before the tag is removed. I would also discourage tagging that amount of unsourced content with a tag. Those are only used for small amounts of unsourced content or one point that is the source of contention. That is not the case here. Once the article is fully referenced, rest assured, I'll be the first to remove the tag and make a note on this very talk page that the article has been cleaned up and fully referenced. This article is watchlisted by several editors including myself and we're not going to miss anything. We're also not working towards a deadline, so there's no rush to remove the tag until all the points are properly referenced. That said, if you feel the article is too "gushy" or "personal", you're free to remove that content yourself. Telling other people to do it is unlikely to get a positive response since we're all volunteers, we're all free to edit the page at any time, and most of us do work in other areas of the project.  Pinkadelica  Say it...  02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support what Pinkadelica has noted about the references. As I noted in my edit summary, sufficient referencing does not depend on the number of references included, but on the statement of facts and quotes the article may contain. You might take a look at some featured articles (Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie, Bob Dylan - which has 265 citations) to see how extensively an article might need to be referenced to reach featured article status. This article is no where near that sort of status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, a Refimprove tag is no longer necessary here. Seems like tags would be better now, as per Help:Footnotes. But I am not going to challenge your opinions to keep the Refimprove tag; however I did edit the tag a bit. I reverted the date to the original date listed (April 2008) and I added a link to this talk page. It would be especially helpful to create a list on this talk page of what areas are in need of citations. Kingturtle (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As was requested, facts and quotes needing citations (including statements about box office failures/hits, references to convictions, pen names, claims about things done, felt or stated, blanket statements about controversy, etc. etc.) have been added and a few POV comments edited. It is unproductive to compare this article with one on another WP version. That copious references are needed is an issue with the article's sourcing. Finally, I've twice corrected the section title "References & Notes" as not in accordance with MOS. Removing templates and fact tags/citations need tags doesn't improve the quality and verifiability of the article. Adding adequate sourcing does. As it states below the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have overdone to an extreme the amount of tags you just put in. Almost everything you question is well known about West, facts supported by all the books about her cited in the "Notes" section. Perhaps you know how to reference them thus so the article won't look ridiculous like it does now? I don't. That would be very nice. How about a "Bibliography" section for example? EmilEikS (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please put the detail back in about her being world renowned because of her sense of humor (the whole book I referenced that to is built specifically on that theme). I am tired of arguing at every turn, so I won't be touching the article again, even though I would have loved to take some of the gushing out when I have time. EmilEikS (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Emil, the fact tags I added are all legitimate points of fact, quotes, references to box office/stage flops and successes, allusions to West's thoughts, statements, etc. etc. If the books cited support these things, then citations should be given from them. Like I said, look at the examples I noted above, well-referenced articles have had up to and over 200 individual citations, depending on what the article says. The article isn't written for people who are well-versed about West, it is written for someone who has never heard of her. Meanwhile, WP policy requires verifiable sourcing for these things. Some examples that need sourcing and citations: None of this is unreasonable in needing referenced. It is frequently controversial and again, WP policy requires that such material be referenced. The books that are cited with inline referencing don't require a separate listing and a Bibliography section for West's own books is already present. This is not a contentious thing. These are all facts that would have been tagged some time ago had not other issues, such as a flag icon issue, hadn't arisen. These issues had already been under discussion before you came onto the page, none of it is new. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Her family members didn't support her career choices
 * Age at which performing began and prizes won
 * "Her trademark walk was said to have originated..." Where does one verify this?
 * According to West, her mother thought everything she did was fantastic
 * Citation that she used a pen name
 * Sourcing about arrest and jail time
 * The statements in the paragraph about The Drag all needs citations
 * Anything alleging censoring, controversy or banning needs a source
 * Comments that she was old for a new screen star, etc.
 * Quotes and more quotes all need referencing.
 * Statements alleging income
 * The statements about her issues with WC Fields
 * Citations supporting the dates and facts about her first marriage
 * Citation that supports that she fired Mickey Hargitay after he married Jayne Mansfield
 * citations about the musical recordings
 * Definite citations in the section about her problems while filming Sextette
 * You are getting sort of personal starting to call me "Emil" several times now when you write to me, though you know I do not know your name, first or last, so I cannot return that courtesy or however you mean it. Would you please stop that? Thank you! I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye, though everyone can see I have tried, so why don't we just stop corresponding altogether as I suggested above? It will all only get worse, I'm afraid. This was my last entry on this page, in any case, since this isn't really constructive input about this article, like it should be. EmilEikS (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No personalness to it, does your username not start with "Emil"? Regardless, I will respond to discussion on article talk pages, I am not personally corresponding with you. You claimed the fact tags were overdone, I simply responded regarding that very issue, and covered the scope of the tags that were added and what needs to be sourced with proper inline citations. You are perfectly free not to respond. However, the tags and requests for reference citations is specifically constructive in terms of the article. Despite your protests to the contrary, it is not personal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A check list for references
''Note: When a proper citation has been added, simply place a ✅ tag beneath it.

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


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

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


 * I was happier with the non-cropped image. It provided depth of field and relationship. The cropped image gives no indication of location or size. Kingturtle (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It provides depth of field and relationship of a man in front of what could be construed as a wall. The objection to removing it completely was that "the image is useful, because it is of her grave." The problem is, one can't easily tell that. The uncropped one does not clearly show what this is, the crypt writing is difficult to read and the emphasis and lighting from the flash is more on the person in the image, not the crypt itself. (signed late) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the cropped image isn't useful either. You cannot tell it is her grave. It could be a plaque on the walk of fame or something else. Kingturtle (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the photo is viewed in full size one can see the West name in at least two other places, on top of the family grave, and for one of the people interred below Mae West. I have changed the caption again for even more clarity. /Thurgood Rosewood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is appropriate to feature people in photographs if they don't have any relevance to the subject. It looks like vanity to me, and an attempt to insinuate a person into a biography to somehow imply association.  I don't doubt that it is a genuine homage but that's not appropriate.   I'd be happy to see the image cropped to remove the person.   Mae West may have significance to the person, and perhaps the photograph would be appropriate in his article if Mae West has been an important influence to him, but the person really has no significance to Mae West or her article.  And before anyone dismisses me with the comment that I am not an administrator and I am an associate of Wildhartlivie, this is an opinion I hold which can be evidenced by my editing history.  I have cropped and uploaded images in the past to remove people who have no place being there, most recently Joan Allen and Yasmine Bleeth.  I understand that a larger view of the grave is appropriate but not the person, though I would be interested in any comments. Rossrs (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a valid point. I'm half kidding here, but half serious: maybe we could place a black bar across the person's eyes to obscure his identity? Kingturtle (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which half of you is kidding? Rossrs (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be cropped to eliminate most of the fan looking up. Hopefully, Mr. Rosewood/Eikner/Anonymous wouldn't object to that. Because people agree doesn't make it wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be cropped to remove the person entirely. You know my views on sloppy cropping.   It drives me insane to see that someone has taken time to crop an image but still leaves behind a random bit of head, a robot and a friendly old woman or most of Angela Lansbury .  Seriously, a straight line up the left side of the gate, and perhaps a little bit along the bottom so that it still has a basic portrait shape, and it will do the job -in my opinion ... but I won't do anything today, pending possible further comments. Rossrs (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh now Rossrs, you know good and well that little bits of Angela Lansbury crop up everywhere!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What we need is someone who lives near Brooklyn to go take another photo that doesn't have a person in it. Kingturtle (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed we do. I have someone in mind who lives in New York who might just do that. He is an active member of Wikipedia. Shall I ask? Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be good. If it's taken specifically for use here, it may be possible to get a clearer representation of the names. I tried cropping it, but it turned out that it looked better in my head, than it did on my computer, so I didn't upload it.  Rossrs (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I just realized another positive thing about the image is having a human figure in it tells the viewer how large the wall is. Kingturtle (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but still, it is barely legible, especially in the size it has to be for the article. I've contacted a Wikipedia member who lives in the New York City area to see if he could possibly arrange a trip to Brooklyn to take a more legible photo. He said he was planning a cemetery trip for photos soon anyway, and would be more than happy to visit Mae. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I am going to remove this - "West became a legendary American entertainment personality.[1]" - from the lead section. I don't doubt that it's true, but it's too broad a statement to be cited/attributed to one source without being explained in context. I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could pick just about any random celebrity and find something in writing to say that somebody has referred to them as a "legend". The way it's written, it's an opinion presented as a fact, but it's not supported by anything stronger than this one reference. Rossrs (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life
May (pardon the pun) the phrase about her marriage to Frank Wallace be changed from "...her relationship was never one of man and wife..." to "...one of husband and wife..." (or something similar)? Aprilkissel (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed citation template
This article is clearly one of Wikipedia's better-cited articles. The template that appeared on it is generally applied to severely underreferenced articles, and with respect for the discussion above it no longer applies here. So I've removed it. To the editors here who put hard work into the page, thank you. Best regards, Durova Charge! 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture
The "MAE-West" internet node may not belong here. It strains credulity to believe that whoever named it did not intend to reference the actress. But we have no citation to document it one way or the other.

My comment ("not documented") simply makes that point. I suggest either deleting both sentences, for lack of a citation; or leaving both in place, as an almost certainly legitimate reference from popular culture. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always leaned toward the "doesn't really belong" on that item anyway. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fond of it, particularly since it's both an example of a legitimate acronym that manages to use her whole name and it doesn't simply reference either her figure or her tag line ("Come up..."). But this is WP: Feel free to edit! Jmacwiki (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Incongruous Date
This person died in 1980. But the info box lists a domestic partnership as having lasted until 1999. This needs attention.Oliver9184 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That date seems to be for the lifespan of the partner, rather than the duration of the relationship. So he outlived her by 19 years?  Durova Charge! 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right Oliver that this is a bit confusing. There was a better format from the beginning in this detail. Novak lived from 1923-1999 (as you can also see), lived with West from 1954 till her death. If I could figure out how to specify that in the info box, I would. But they are tricky, those boxes, and I don't want to screw thing up. Cheers! 217.209.96.84 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable person should or should not be named in photo caption?
Having watched this article for a couple of months, I don't understand why an edit made by User:YeahManSwed was reverted today. Seems I'm walking into an old hornets nest here or a still simmering edit war from last year. But so be it then. Whew! Have tried to read up on the whole enlarged drama and found that just about everyone involved was rude and unfriendly to everyone else, so it's hard to know how to make a constructive suggestion here. (The most striking entry of all - above - suggested "half kidding" that we put a black bar over somebody's face! Just an example, for the uninitiated.) It seems "consensus" as cited today in this article's revision history, did not in fact reply clearly to the question above (heading here), but was more about photo size, cropping and a rather verbose wording of the caption that isn't necessary. Anyway, it actually seems more editors (5-6), from the time the photo was placed here, were for having the name in the caption per se. Maybe I'm wrong (and missed something?), but here is my constructive proposal, so that we can try to get a clear consensus on that specific question:

Proposal: Swedish-American writer Lars Jacob's linked name should be in this photo caption (as added today by YeahManSwed) since he and his many years of work regarding Mae West are notable and relevant and his name in the caption adds quality to the article. Suggest a two month discussion to end on Mae Day - woops! - May Day.

Of course, as usual on Wikipedia, all reasonable points of view are most cordially welcome, but please let's stick to this question only, all try to lower our voices (and font case) and be nice this time around! 217.209.96.65 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: It seems obvious to me that his name should be in the caption. 66.102.142.247 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, to begin with, this is an old issue, once again bringing up source tags and the person in the photo. The person in the photo may have been a fan who, according to his article, "Demitz [Lars Jacob] hosted a formal celebrity dinner at Berns on the Mae West Centennial in 1993". That is all his article has to say about Mae West. Neither article asserts any connection between the two beyond that event. She was important to him, there is no reason to assume that he was relevant or notable as being important to her. The consensus on the page was that a different image will be obtained that shows the lettering on the crypt in better contrast - it is not highly readable even when viewed in full size - and without anyone in the photo. That has been initiated and a Wikipedia editor who lives in the general area of the crypt agreed to take a photo when conditions and weather allowed. To insert Jacob into this article because he visited her crypt and took a picture really means nothing valid in regard to the biography of Mae West. Beyond that, there were three people who wanted the name of the person in the caption. Two of them were confirmed as sock puppets here, and is associated with the person in the photo in real life, according to the reams of discussion all over the site. It isn't clear what the third person wanted. However, I would reiterate that while West was important to the life of Lars Jacob/Jacob Truedson Demitz, there is no indication that he was important to hers. It seems more a vanity thing - to have the photo bear his name in the article. Finally, where would the precedent to have a two month period for a discussion? That's beyond the norm here. It's interesting to me that within 20 minutes of the posting of this comment section, an IP from a range that hasn't edited here before shows up to endorse the suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am aware of your involvement with these issues. Questions for you:
 * What time limit if any do you feel would be appropriate for this discussion?
 * Do you support or oppose the proposal and what are your specific reasons, in one short sentence if possible?
 * I have (and thousands of others have by now) read Wild Side Story and found that, among much else, there is enough specific mention of West in the sourced text and source references there, and also in those of the Demitz article to related material and publishings, to support what I put in the proposal. Reading both articles and checking on the relevant photos at Commons gives a pretty clear picture of how West's and Demitz's paths crossed. It can easily be figured out, so to speak, based on reliable material presented. Your opinions may be based on earlier unsourced versions? Re: the photo itself I have been able to check with a person who knows about Demitz's visit by special appointment to Cypress Hills. A bit of hoopla was involved. People are normally not admitted to the Abbey. Because Demitz had worked for the City of Stockholm and its Cemeteries Authority, and because of his known work with West's material (a New-Yorker who knew this from 1973 on, and works in Maspeth a few blocks from the cemetery, was present) it seems the Manager at Cypress Hills gave Demitz's party a map that normally is not given out. It's probably fair to say the photo is a rarity and that its release to Public Domain is remarkable. Your use of the word "vanity" seems unwarranted, looking at the facts today (and not very nice, by the way, if you can pardon my saying that). 217.209.96.65 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how long a formal request for comments runs - a week or maybe two? Also, please don't lecture me about manners, that is beyond this discussion and it is not bad manners to express my opinion that it is vanity. I outlined my reasons that the name isn't relevant to the article above - Mae West may have been important and relevant to Lars Jacob, but there is no indication anywhere that he was important and relevant to her. That he produced a show that used her character does not make it relevant to her. There is no material in her article regarding this person. Lars Jacob took a very fuzzy photo of West one time. That doesn't qualify as their paths crossing being relevant, anymore than it would mine if I uploaded the photo of myself and Leonard Nimoy sitting in his limousine while he signed an autograph for me. He's a huge fan of her work, that is obvious, but there are no articles that I can recall that include photos of a minor celebrity visiting the grave of another whom he or she admired and leaving flowers, although I'm sure that has happened once or twice in the world. My opinions are based on what is now present. Finally, it doesn't really matter how that he obtained passage to take the photo. It still does not qualify as relevant to the career and biography of Mae West. Finally, please don't start a discussion and then direct those that answer to give a response of one sentence indicating agree or disagree. You're initiating a discussion, it needs to be allowed to be discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Another editor who has quite strong opinions regarding this photo is Rossrs, who is currently away on holiday. I would confidently say that he would endorse my comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't fight! It is my opinion that your use of the word "vanity" is not nice in this case. That is not lecturing you about manners. I have seen input where your manners are excellent. But you would seem to anyone to be higly judgmental and hard to get along with if people don't agree with you. I apologize about asking you to reply in one sentence, but I saw somewhere that an administrator asked you that too, I think it was Hochman, so I fell into a trap there. Sorry! I'm really trying to be objective here, but all this you keep adding would lead anyone to the reasonable conclusion that you have a personal agenda in this case. You obviously haven't cooled down one bit since last year. What is your personal interest in controlling the West article - the photos, captions and text tags - and in calling Demitz (who according to Wikipedia got special permission from West's L. A. lawyers to use her stuff in 1977 and special permission from her estate's B. H. agency to use her songs in 1993) a "vanity" case and a "minor celebrity"? Why is this all so important to you, seemingly far beyond just doing good work with Wikipedia? I would really like to understand how this benefits this project. Can you please explain that in a relaxed manner without continuing to fight with me? Sorry about a bit of criticism here! I am really asking you as nice as I can and without any intention whatsoever of offending you out of spite or malice. 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not going to respond to any of the personal comments you've made and would admonish you that you started this discussion with the express wish that "let's stick to this question only".  I object to the insertion of Lars Jacob on this article because beyond his fandom of West and doing the show with her as a character, he is not notable in the life and career of Mae West. It borders on coat-racking. I haven't piled on more points, I keep reiterating the same ones. Every person who uses or borrows from a deceased person's work has to obtain permission to do so. That doesn't make it notable content to include in the deceased person's article. In fact, each time a clip of Mae West is used in something, or her songs/content used, it requires permission. It's a standard condition, it isn't special and isn't notable. Beyond the very small smathering of Google hits that search for both West and Jacob/Demitz that come from here and other similar user-donated content, I found no content that connects them. Look, it's nice that he likes her so much, and he did the show that used part of her work, but it really isn't related to the biography of Mae West herself. I've said that multiple times now, and it is the basis for my objection on including his name on a photo caption. It's more coat-racking than it is a notable connection. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:41, 3 March Previous editor as clearly explained. Opposition clearly posted by 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous editor clearly explained opposition 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that this is the correct course. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am new to this article and this particular issue here, but I am with Wildhartlivie, there is absolutely no reason to derogate from Wikipedia guidelines that image attributions/credits belong on the image information page and not in image captions - I remove them whenever I see them. If anyone wants to see the guideline itself I will dig out a link. To be perfectly frank I don't see what the image of the family vault adds to the article in the first place, but then I am not a big believer in the adulation of the dead body and its burial place. Cremate me and sprinkle me on the compost heap. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ukexpat misunderstood. This is not about image attributions/credits but about the name of a notable person, with his own article on Wikepedia, who appaers in the photo at the grave. The grave is of obvious interest to readers of an encyclopaedia. The photo is rare. 217.209.96.87 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: If a person is notable and linkable at all, and in the picture, isn't that enough to mention his/her name in any other notable persons caption? I thought so anyway when I did it. Swedish radio, television and press have mentioned a number of times since 1993 that Demitz met West and talked to her when on Managers duty at The Beverly Hills Hotel. People who worked there then have confirmed that. It was also very rare that anyone ever got permission like he did to use so much of her material. She was known to always say "no" to "protect her image" and so was the Richman agency after her death. Practically unheard of I understand, but apparently they liked his manuscripts. YeahManSwed (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: Obviously notable 217.209.96.87 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: In case I had not made that clear. Also folks, please note, consensus is not about a vote count, it is about the quality and strength of the arguments presented. As I said before, it is not unusual for someone to get permission to use material written by someone else. It happens all the time. Meanwhile, as Ukexpat said, it is not Wikipedia practice to put attribution in an image caption. If it is credited on the image page, that is sufficient. It also is not notable that the person in the image met and talked to Mae West while he was working as a hotel manager. If that is the case, then we would have to allow that distinction in tens of thousands of articles. This simply is not about whether Mae West is an important and notable person to Lars Jacob/Demitz, it is only and simply about whether he was important and notable to Mae West and her career and biography. He had no effect on her life or career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has ever professed, I think, that Demitz was "important" to West; too many exaggerations and twists in here all the time; he knew West; she knew who he is; he worked a lot with her material from 1973 to 2004, according to articles and references in Wikipedia; he is important to the photo and obviously notable enough for his name to be included in the caption, since he is in the photo and there is his own very highly referenced article. The stubborn struggle to get him out of the caption and even to cut him out of the photo or put a "black bar over his face" is not reasonable or neutral editing and does nothing to enhance this article about a film star. The whole issue is grossly overblown. In Sweden, anyway, we who follow it do not understand why this is going on here. 217.209.96.87 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's time to file a checkuser request. First of all, do not change postings that others make. This is completely against policy. The refactoring of the comment (which is struck out above) seems to me to imply that the post was made by me ("Previous editor clearly explained opposition") and by changing the post, you have removed an opposition opinion. Secondly, this is the second time I've been attacked about my opposition to this caption and this is unacceptable. Thirdly, it is inappropriate to canvas for "votes" as was done here and then come back and write a disclaimer to the person's post who was canvassed, explaining why his opinion is now  inappropriate. Now, there has crept into the conversation very familiar references to "we" and "some Swedes" on the post for ukexpat - implying a group of persons who are collaborating together. There is the comment in response to Durova's question that references being asked if the poster was EmilEikS as being "creepy" and issues related to anonymity that have surfaced in the past. I don't think all of Sweden would have the basic response complaints. Finally, the argument that all of Sweden has IPs that begin with 217 may be true, but There is little to no doubt in my mind that two IPs that differ by only the last numbers, 217.209.96.65 and 217.209.96.87, originate from the same place, as did the IP 217.209.96.57, who removed the posting to User talk:EmilEikS concerning the findings of a sock puppet investigation posted by Jehochman as well as many other posts regarding this in November and December 2008. Actually, I'm not actually sure if a checkuser needs to be initiated, just a sock puppet case. My good faith has run out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A formal checkuser request has already been filed, and endorsed by the clerk. You may wish to add comments and diffs to it.  See Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS.  Durova Charge! 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: the checkuser request confirmed the relationship of the 217.209.96.* accounts here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignorant! These IPs are in the same general area of Stockholm, Sweden, a city of 1 million people. A lot of people live here. That doesn't mean they know each other or are all engaging in "disruptive behavior", just because a worked up Wildharlivie is accusing them of it. For the facts: see their histories! Nothing but constructive and valuable input. But they don't agree with Wildgartlilje about a photo caption and her excessive tagging. Result: stalking (see "Comments by the Accused" here and "Likely"... below) and never ending persecution. 217.209.96.212 (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with ukexpat's rationale and I personally don't see why the picture is included at all. I've never pressed the issue because, as it stands, it's not too much of a distraction, but it adds nothing to the article. Considering that sockpuppetry and votestacking is going on, I question the motives behind this and other proposals made by the same user(s). As far as the photo being rare, I had no trouble finding a Demitz-less photo of West's crypt elsewhere so I've no idea how the picture featured in this article is rare. Pictures of what made West notable, her career, are what should be included. The fact that another notable person, who by all accounts had no effect on West's career, is in the photo has no bearing here. I suggest that if people who follow this don't want the situation overblown, they should stop trying to push their agendas using various accounts that are obviously related.  Pinkadelica Say it...  10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Likely" is not confirmed sockpuppetry and even confirmed sockpuppetry is not a problem unless is it disruputive. These Swedish editors have done no such thing. Wildhartlivie's campaign of persecution continues from last year and will probably never end. She and her always sympathetic friends have already scared several valuable editors (IPs and others) away from this project. When it comes to "EmilEikS" (or "Emil" as she used to call him when always being personal, nasty, condescending and scary) and Mae West - an article she bascially owns, she immediately becomes an angry mastodon and a fanatic, gets everyone involved in a literally sickening mess and indulges in massive disruptive behavior. She has started all this again now though it is totally unwarranted this time. People have gone out of their way to be fair to her. To no avail. For a larger picture, the only thing she really does on Wikipedia is edit the biographies of famous people, where her username is extremely high profile, and clamps down very hard on anyone who does not agree with the control she wants to exert every time. This is her own claim to fame, of sorts. She never writes an article herself or contributes an image of her own or does anything exceptionally constructive. On Mae West she put 20 source tags in the text of just one section making the article look horrendous (see next heading on this page). Note: of course it's the most important part of the article, about West's movie career. Something for us editors to be proud of? Her whole act on Wikipedia is control, particularly the control of the biographies of celebrities, past and present. Look at her history! Her talk page, and the talk pages of others she writes to, are chock full of the most disgusting sarcasm, cruelty, nastiness and vulgarity - like calling one film she doesn't like a "stinking pile of poop". Reading (wading?) through all this, as many of us stunned users (with similar IPs) have done on the Southern Isle Södermalm of Stockholm, Sweden since this started last november, can literally make you sick. Her friends want "only half kidding" to put black bars over people's faces so that folks Wildhartlivie doesn't want in pictures will be defaced. The time has come to report her. There is more than enough evidence. And to stop ungrounded IP probes that are going to backfire on the people breaking the strict rules about when they are allowed to be conducted and when they are not. One situation when they are not allowed to be conducted is when Wildhartlivie is upset about "EmilEikS" (who quit last year!). She has now stacked the votes here again by entering two "Opposed" for the 2nd time under her own name (I am removing one of them as somebody else did last night.) She's edit-warring to stack the votes here as a matter of fact. Be constructive everyone! 217.209.96.212 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: Of course the name of this person should not be excluded from the photo caption just because one editor has a biased campaign going on against it and gets a bunch of other people involved who agree with her (out of fear of being persecuted themselves?), people who e g want it "Demitz-less" (quote from above) for anything but neutral reasons. Ukexpat walked right into their trap, said something totally mistaken about photo credits (irrelevant here) and is now being quoted as the big guru by one of the old Let's-get-that-Emil-and-that-Demitz cronies. 217.209.96.212 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many source tags in the text?
In my opinion there are far too many source tags in the text of this article making it practically unreadable in some parts. I have never seen anywhere near so many anywhere else (and I have seen a lot). I welcome all opinions on the proposal below, especially those of people who know the material really well (have read about West) and can help us say whether or not the biographic sources in there now might be enough.

Proposal: Many of the source tags should be removed and/or such items they refer to should be removed if deemed to be unsourced material of no value that is not likely to become sourced material of value. Suggest a 2 month discussion to end on May Day. 217.209.96.65 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to take such a tight stand on matters. Most of the source tags can be removed and the verifiable information can be retained.  This isn't a biography of a living person.  The tagging is excessive.  Durova Charge! 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When you removed the refimprove tag, you didn't indicate that it was your opinion the tagging was excessive. Again, the argument presented above is an old one which also used a similar argument - fact tags make the article unreadable. There are about 20 tags in the article; when a point that is unsupported is in an article, I find no policy that says it's okay to remove a fact tag. The majority of them are in one area. Fact tags for quotes, that she wore built-up shoes, statements regarding censorship of her work and her response to it, that she wore silk panties while in jail (which could reasonably be removed), and similiar claims. Perhaps it would improve readability if someone who objects to the tags would add the references. Beyond that, again, two months for a discussion is excessive and not the norm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How would we go about just sourcing the whole article to the biographies about her? What is the big deal, if you'll pardon my asking this way? Everything that allegedly needs sources is in those books all the way down to the panties, or so I understand (not having read them all). I have read almost all her obits in major American press, and its all in there too. I think the claim that she was a gay advocate is stretching things, and wording like "productions plagued with controversy and other problems" is childish. Why don't we just remove those things? Any constructive suggestions? 217.209.96.65 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't endorse sourcing the entire article to a group of biographies. It endorses inline citations to the specific works from where the content came. That is why the cite tags were put in, to indicate the content that is questionable, quotes, or possible points of dispute, in order to validate them. The way to source them is to find the specific content in whatever source it is in, and cite it to that, as Pinkadelica did for a large portion of what was tagged. There is nothing invalid with those tags. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question was: why can't we remove the material that has been tagged for so long? 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be removed. It needs to be cited. The tags have been there for about 3 months. In Wikipedia time, that isn't very long at all, and since it isn't a biography of a living person, we aren't compelled by policy to remove it. Like I said, what's so wrong with finding the references to support it if someone is objecting to the valid fact tags? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Presuming you might agree with me (!) that the article is long enough, would you mind if I take a little stab at removing a few things that I think we can safely say should go and won't be getting sourced ever? 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did indicate that the tagging was excessive. This is one of Wikipedia's better-referenced articles, and it's inappropriate to place a 'citation needed' tag after every sentence. Might it be in some cases that a citation later in the paragraph documents the statement? Did the tagger check? Two months would be plenty of time to obtain interlibrary loans and document most of the tagged statements, which would be better than stripping the biography of a deceased person of verifiable material that is probably uncontroversial. Durova Charge! 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for myself, I cannot drive due to vision problems and don't really have access to obtaining interlibrary loans because my library books are delivered by an outreach program once a month and that doesn't allow me to get materials from other libraries. I actually wish I could or I'd have worked on some very obscure historical bios. It also speaks to the weather the last couple of months and no impression that providing the references was a time-limited thing. I looked at what was available or obtainable in the references that Pinkadelica added, and while I won't speak for her, do know that if the content was also in the materials she used, she would have added them. The original intent was to try and work this up to a good article, but intervening issues sort of soured us on doing that right now.


 * To the IP - may I suggest you post the content you are considering here for discussion? (Although I wouldn't necessarily characterize the article as long enough or too long. It's 51 kb, which is somewhere around the average/recommended/usual length.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * May I remove just a few things that I really think you might agree won't be missed, and leave all the tags wherever we can hope Durova's suggestion could work in getting the items sourced? (Surely you aren't the only one that should have to do that and strain your eyes and delivery sources. I think I am beginning to understand that you really feel a bit responsible for this article, somehow in a commendable way, and frankly I find that agreeable and a bit touching.) If you then want to revert my edit, I won't mind, or you can change some of it back. I won't do any damage, I promise. 217.209.96.65 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IP editor, are you EmilEikS? Durova Charge! 02:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he quit in December as far as I have seen, but still contributes to Commons. Don't think he would want to get into this again, do you? His user pages is still there at User:EmilEikS. I am located in Sweden though. Several of us here are interested (constructively) in some of these articles now, as I just explained here. Why do you ask in this context re: tagging of Mae West? I have tried to read up on last year's problems after I saw the caption reversal today, to be prepared (for just about anything it turns out). Do you think I seem to have become biased on these issues? RSVP! 217.209.96.65 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS With all due respect, since when is it appropriate to ask an IP editor to give up his or her Anonymity if there is no serious problem doing damage to the project? If I was EmilEikS could you force me to tell you? Has he ever been blocked? Is he on a blacklist? Am I not behaving in a constructive and civil manner? How upset should I be about your question? Starting to get the creeps here, I think I'd like to know exactly what is it you are curious about and would like to know and how it relates to this talk page? What if anything am I suspected of? I think I have a right to know. 217.209.96.65 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when I removed the tag from this article I received a thank-you, along with an account of some unusual POV editing that had been occurring here. Then I noted similarities.  It's straightforward to ask up front.  Now this article is being managed in an unusual manner (overtagged, with suggestions to delete all untagged material that appear more interested in removing material than in seeking verification).  Perhaps a content request for comment would be the appropriate path.  Durova Charge! 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for replying so swiftly. I have now had a look at what you mentioned above (it was on your talk page some time ago) and can see some similarities myself. First of all I think (but am no expert) that all Swedish IP's begin with 217.... As I explained to Kingturtle, several Swedes seem to be active now with constructive input on things they've found through the Commons category, but all I can see is good work and decent behavior, plus people learning editing format med en rasande fart, which means in a raging speed. It feels a bit foolish, pardon me for saying so, that all Swedish IP's are assumed to be working together in some sort of a conspiracy just because they obviously read each other's input out of interest (and copy format). I did read what EmilEikS had written above on tagging. That's why I asked you if you think I seem biased. I have not seen that anyone with any connection to Sweden has been involved in the overtagging, on the contrary. I have seen complaints about it by people from Sweden, not neccessarily conspiring in doing that though, but I do not think anyone wants to remove anything of any value from the article (except from one image caption :), see previous section). Since your input now has led me to believe that I should vote against my own proposal above, as it was worded, I have now rewritten it to make the good intentions much clearer. My misunderstanding has been that unsourced material even about dead people should be removed if the sources never seem to come in, and that just seemed to me to be a legitimate way to cut down on the overtagging. Make any sense at all? Thank you for helping me get this straight in my own mind in a most effective way! Another good thing is that the most concerned editor seems to be warming up to the idea of letting me try to fix things a bit, perhaps further forums will be superfluous. Sincerely, 217.209.96.65 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Per Sockpuppet_investigations/EmilEikS, Requests for comment/EmilEikS, and action at WP:ANI, archiving this talk page. A sockpuppeteer has been disrupting this article for months. Suggesting the editors work out a way to regularize the excessive fact tagging in this article. Durova Charge! 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why has this whole talk page been archived in the middle of a constructive consensus discussion? I have read all of this now and invite anyone else who is fair to do the same. There is no proof in anything one can find here of any disruption by those accused of it, so those accusations look to me like they are completely arbitrary. No proof, only accusations. It is very unusual to see this kind of utterance of speedy, one-sided power in the Wikimedia communities. That is not supposed to be possible here. Is this kind of thing really allowed? (Comment by previous ed restored 217.209.96.211 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)