Talk:Sextette

Neutrality
The complete lack of neutrality in this article is absolutely appalling. I've started to work on it a little, but am not familiar enough with the film...some help? --CWSensation 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the same is true for the Mae West page. It's probable that the same person/groups of people wrote both articles. Unfortunately I'm not well-versed on either topic, so I wouldn't be much help either. Metathesiophobia (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And you'd argue correctly. Have tried to bring a bit of balance to the "Critical..." section and removed the bias template. SoCoColl (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How old was she?
So was she 83 during filming or 85? The article claims both. - 71.169.145.223 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Her biographical page states that she was 85 and this would be true given her year of birth (but maybe she was 84 when it was filmed?)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

West photo
A photo of West arriving for the opening of the film was removed recently. Seems relevant. Also see Commons. Restored it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was just reversed by an editor who does not discuss and is very active now reversing edits, re: images by certain contributors, for what looks like personal reasons. It is hard to find good faith in these actions, starting to look a lot like hounding.


 * The image has been considered of good enough quality here and was added originally by the editor rendering his opinions there. I am restoring it thus. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SergeWoodzing is edit warring. The photo has very poor quality, and it looks ugly in this article. As User:Wbrz noted, it is not from the movie. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal comment
A personal comment was made 02:42, 27 November 2011‎ by IP 24.158.80.28 I moved it here from the article text: SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I worked on Sextette with Mae West and had a scene opposite her. Yes. She did have an earpiece, but it was mostly unnecessary. In fact, the director, who seemed not to realize the charm her presence exuded merely by being on the set, was in a soundproof booth shouting at her while she was on the set. Ms. West was spectacular in her composure and refrain. As the director yelled and screamed, she looked around at the cast and gave the most wonderful smile, as if to say, "Who cares, I'm Mae West and I'm on a film set." I will never forget her aura from the moment she stepped onto the set. She brought something very intangible and beautiful with her, in spite of her age and somewhat weakened condition. My line with her was as a marathon runner. After she finished talking to a sprinter, she stood by me and smiled, "A marathon runner - I like a man who can go the distance." Who would believe an eighty year old could still pull off what she had done more than fifty years earlier. Any fault with her performance lies more with the director than Mae West.

Removal of sourced info
This has been edited down again to unrecognizability as far as corresponding to the wording of the sources given, and the reasons why this was added and those sources were given in the first place.
 * West was deeply moved when she appeared in her large diamond tiara and necklace at the openings of the film there and in San Francisco and was greeted by thousands of young fans.

If the source explicity states that West was "deeply" moved, I see no reason to remove that interesting and pertinent adjective.

And if it says that she was wearing extremely unusual and flashy jewelry, which may or may not have influienced the fans there, how is that clearly "irrelevant" as per rm editor's summary?

And why would it be a good idea to rm the fact that the same thing happened in San Fransciso, where the sources also say her welcome was "nearly a riot" and that the fans called out to West as "Queen of the World"?

These details are a pertinent part of entertainment history.

I would like to see those well referenced items restored. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Deeply moved" is POV wording. The fact that she was reportedly moved by what I assume was the fan support is conveyed in the current wording. She was moved - we get it. As for the bit about West wearing diamond to the premiere, it is irrelevant because the sentence doesn't state anything about the fans being "influenced" by shiny objects. As such, the mention of the diamonds seems irrelevant and tacked on. I removed the bit about the Queen of the World comment because it appeared to be completely unsourced (see this version where the comment has no citation). As for the "unmistakable confirmation of her indestructible position as an American show business icon" part - that is completely out of place in the context of an encyclopedia, source or no source. No one person is in an "indestructible position". Like it or not, actors lose their popularity at some point and West did as well. She may have had her loyal fan base but no entertainer stays on top forever. Bear in mind, "interesting and pertinent adjective[s]" don't belong in an article that is suppose to be neutral. That is covered in WP:EDITORIAL.  Pinkadelica ♣  20:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: the diamonds - if West's biograpers felt they were relevant to the scene and worth mentioning in that context, why should you be allowed to 86 them?


 * Re: "unmistakable confirmation of her indestructible position as an American show business icon" - I haven't defended or discussed that wording so it's unclear to me why you brought it up. All I can say about "icon" is that one of her more recent cited biographers (2003) titled her book An Icon in Black and White, but that obviously hasn't moved you.


 * Re: Like it or not, actors lose their popularity at some point and West did as well. She may have had her loyal fan base but no entertainer stays on top forever., which you wrote, it is a complete mystery to me why you are arguing such obvious things. I certainly haven't. Do you really feel I need to learn that? Are you against Mae West in particular in some way, or do you wish to excercise (undo?) control here over the reputations of famous dead people? I don't know what to make of it, but I hope not, because that, as far as I know, is not our objective here. Unsolicited educational overkill comments like that tend to look bias-related to me.


 * More of the same (?) re: "interesting and pertinent adjective[s]" don't belong in an article that is suppose to be neutral - I really don't think WP wants us to take out all such well-cited adjectives for the sake of neutrality.


 * Re: San Francisco opening - you either chose not to reply or you don't wish to. I think you should. I wrote to you quite civilly on your talk page about this.


 * To sum up why I started this section:
 * the adjective "deeply" should be restored;
 * the facts about the usual jewelry worn on these particular occasions should be restored;
 * the San Francisco opening should not be omitted.
 * Regards (and sincere thanks for all the good work you do too)! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SergeWoodzing, I think you need to pull back and stop attempting to make this personal. It doesn't matter if I'm the biggest Mae West fan or if I hate her - that has no bearing here at all. Just to be clear, I typically edit things I have no interest in whatsoever so there is no chance that I am editing in a biased manner. In short, I have no strong feeling about West, the movie or anything related to West. I think this point was raised once before when we had dealings on the Mae West article some time ago.


 * As for the rest of your points, I did answer about the San Francisco opening. I also brought up the bit about the "indestructible position" bit because you asked why that along with the Queen of the World content was removed. My point about how entertainers are not in an "indestructible position" was to show why I removed that consent. In other words, such statements can be easily refuted because it is an opinion, not a fact. Opinions do not belong here. Lastly, the fact that a biography uses such adjectives or includes trivial bits does not mean it belongs in the context of Wikipedia. Biographies published through traditional means can convey author opinion and contain such words. Wikipedia articles should be neutral and contain un-flowery wording.  Pinkadelica ♣  21:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Like it or not, actors lose their popularity at some point and West did as well." just doesn't look like you are editing things you "have no interest in whatsoever", nor that you don't have your own strongish POV on Mae West. No matter how much I'd like to believe you, and I really would.
 * I have no memory of anything else but cordial dealings with you before and being in agreement.
 * Can't find a word about or referring to San Fran in your input above.
 * And I have never "asked why the 'indestructible position' bit along with the Queen of the World content was removed" (neither one). Don't know where you're getting that from, and hate to have words put in my mouth unfairly. I only originally adressed the three points made - and you, not I, have then added things I never specifically questioned, to this discussion.
 * Let's let someone else look at this now! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I respect your opinion.
 * The biographer in question was present in S F and also knew West quite well. Have you read those books?
 * "Compelling" no, but I still think the fact that she chose to wear that extremely unusual, expensive and impressive jewelry on those 2 particular occasions is relevant, partly because she chose to wear it then to honor those particular evenings, partly because of the impression that made on her fans. You missed that reasoning above.
 * Respectfully, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're saying. You admit that there's no compelling reasoning given, yet still want the content included?  The reasoning you said I missed doesn't seem to be reasoning at all.  You are describing what happened (she chose to wear jewelry, and it made an impression on her fans (is there a source for the impression her jewelry made on her fans anyway?)), but no reasoning was given for why an article about a movie should talk about what one of the actors in the movie chose to do on the night of one of the movie's openings. Millermk (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think the fact that she chose to wear that extremely unusual, expensive and impressive jewelry on those 2 particular occasions is relevant - that's my final word on that, and I believe I have the right to my opinion (?).
 * This looks to me like it's turning into an unpleasant argument now, and I don't want that. I'm just going by the actual meaning of the word " compelling" as per dictionary. It is not my opinion that we are restricted by WP to include only facts with "compelling reasons" in the articles. Relevant and interesting is what I go by. I don't feel compelled to do anything whasoever, except eat, sleep, go to the bathroom and eventually die, nor interested anymore in interacting here, after your latest (un-3O-like) reply. Argue with somebody else! I don't care anymore. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevant image?
I believe this image is relevant to this article, but since I know the person who took the photo, I probably shouldn't add it myself (?). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi I was the editor that originally removed the photo and replaced it with a screenshot of the film. The photo is of poor quality and the only recognisable notable person linked to the film in it is West herself. It doesn't really illustrate the article it is only the caption that suggests this has a link to the film. Had De Luise or Cooper been recognisable then I would say yes it is relevant but taking into account the fact that they aren't and it is of poor quality it does nothing to enhance the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to have an opinion or two from a previously uninvolved editor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, all opinions are welcome whether the editor previously edited the article or not. That said this article may not attract many new users as it is a pretty low profile article. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't really remember I may have been refering to the 2009 discussion above or maybe I was refering to a deletion discussion that has been courtesy blanked at the request of a participant. SergeWoodzing has expressed a desire not to interact with me over this subject as he was distressed by the deletion discussion of an article concerning a person that he has declared knowing personally, maybe the photographer in question. This photo was amongst a number of photos added and articles that were created and edited by a certain number of editors with a declared COI to the subject of the deleted article and his various activites notably a cabaret in Sweeden. Myself and other editors went through the very large number of articles and photos to remove potentially promotional material and create deletion discussions for non notable subjects. A certain number of photos were left in place when they were of encyclopedic interest. This particular photo had originally been used to illustrate the Alice Cooper article but was removed once and the COI request to add it again was contested here. It seems to be more appropriate here than there even though the quality is relatively poor. The screenshot actually in place is a fair use of non-free images and as such the resolution must not be too high as per WP:IMAGERES and the size was automatically reduced to comply with this requirement. Despite the fact that I personally uploaded the still from the film I really do objectivly believe that it adds to the article and shouldn't be removed but it really doesn't bother me if you want to remove it. I am less convinced about the other photo but not rigourously opposed to it. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. I didn't know the COI went beyond simply being acquainted with the photographer, but my opinion remains the same. I think the image is just fine for this article. Sro23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My COI, in this case, is just that "simply being acquainted with the photographer" and nothing else. "distressed by the deletion discussion" does not reveal why, i.e. how that discussion was conducted, to which several of us, including administrators, objected. "a certain number of editors with a declared COI" = me and only me, no conspiracy, no cabal. All of that irrelevant here, yes, but once again, my character is questioned and needs defense, and WP:AGF is still out the window as far as my WP work is concerned. Has been going on for 6 months now. Sad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From the uploader of the file in question's last edit (directed to you): "You, if anyone, are now to represent the interests of image contributor Southerly Clubs according to the wishes of that organization's Board of Directors." Seriously, WTF. Seems pretty COI-like to me. Sro23 (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This was one of the other editors I was talking about and I think there is another with a similar name to his. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)