Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"Notes"

Um, I'm sorry, but why is there a section that has nothing but a dead link? I deleted it and it came back, so...is there a purpose to it? 70.132.14.86 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See "What to do when a reference link 'goes dead.'" The correct procedure was followed. -Shannernanner 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The sentences: "Some believe Bogart and Hepburn did not get along, but this is untrue. Bogart got along better with Hepburn than anyone else on set. Hepburn later said, "Sometimes it's the so-called 'tough guys' that are the most tender hearted, as Bogey was with me."[20] and attributed to Note 20 seem to be about Katherine Hepburn, not Audrey Hepburn. ---- 6 October 2006.

Archiving

I'm a little puzzled by the archiving of material that's new and includes unanswered questions. -- Hoary 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can bring back un-answered material, or just continue it here. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of biased non factual information here...it's more like reading a story than reading an entry in an encyclopedia.

Time to create a Name controversy section?

Despite the presence of a link to Audrey's birth certificate which confirms her birth name, we're still seeing people putting in the other names associated with her. I suggest one way to handle this is to create a "Name controversy" section where all different variations can be aired out. Otherwise, the name on the birth certificate (which I believe is also supported by not only Sean Ferrer but also Audrey Hepburn herself) should be considered gospel on this matter. 23skidoo 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography Infobox

I removed the "colon cancer" from the Biography Infobox. The cause of death is already discussed in detail within the article. Also, the infobox is like a headstone. Would anyone like their headstone to say "died from colon cancer" on it? Alan Smithee 19:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd better check to make sure that the Biography WikiProject doesn't require this information in the infobox, however... 23skidoo 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I did check the Biography WikiProject guidelines and templates and couldn't anything stating that the cause of death should be mentioned in the infobox. However, if someone can point me to the section where it is, I'll stand corrected. Thanks, Alan Smithee 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If they don't require it, I'm fine with that, although I know other biographical references that do list cause of death such as the IMDb. 23skidoo 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Count" Andrea Dotti

Re: the "Count" being repeatedly appended to his name, I believe I found the source of the confusion: according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia", Andrea Dotti was also a 13th-14th century Catholic saint, and the brother of Count Dotto Dotti. Dr. Andrea Dotti, the former husband of Audrey Hepburn, was not a count. -Shannernanner 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

GAP ads

I have removed the following sections from the article:

"Hepburn's popularity endures to this day. She is currently featured in a GAP commercial that uses clips of her dancing from Funny Face with the tagline "It's Back -- The Skinny Black Pant." The commercial is part of the "Keep It Simple" Campaign and will air on all major networks from September 7 to October 5."

"The new Gap Ads for the Skinny Black Pant feature footage from "Funny Face" as Audrey Hepburn dances to "Back in Black" by ACDC."

This information does not belong in a "biography" about Audrey Hepburn's life. If someone wants to create an article discussing television commercials which use CGI/special EFX to edit film images of deceased actors/actresses into selling products for them, it could go there. 71.113.37.152 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no need for the sarcasm. I put it in the trivia section, mainly to say that Hepburn is one of the more popular classic movie stars today. And GAP made a donation to the Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund so I'm cool with them. 67.161.26.190 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The sarcasm wasn't intentional. I haven't seen the GAP ads. It's just most commercials using special EFX to make dead actors such as James Cagney pitch for Coca Cola or Fred Astaire dance with Dirt Devil vacuum cleaners were little more than crass commercialism to make money rather than a tribute to the individual. If the consensus is to keep the GAP info, that's fine with me. The AHCF donation is an interesting point that you might want to add to the trivia. 71.121.134.108 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I also find distasteful and unappealing TV ads that appear to resurrect the dead and put them in scenes they were never in, in their movies. Such Audrey ads include one or two for a company in Japan that advertises tea. However, the GAP ads (which you can see on youtube) do not attempt to resurrect Audrey: rather they just use her dance moves straight from Funny Face. There is no implication in the commercial that she is being resurrected: rather it is the scene in FF that is being "resurrected". Given that, the use of AC/DC's "Back in Black" is a major turn off to a lot of people, including a lot of Audrey fans. We should also remember that the TV commercials are only part of the GAP campaign (variously called "Keep it simple" or "Hello Audrey") which also features large "cut out" posters of Audrey in GAP stores across the USA and Canada (literally from Toronto to Vancouver). Even though GAP apparently made a "generous" contribution to the AHCF, some have pointed out the possible hypocrisy of supporting a store that allegedly produces its products in third world sweat shops, although I think that goes far beyond the scope of mentioning the GAP ads. --Sp3lly 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree about the ad. My family saw it and there was quite a bit of discussion as to whether it was her image from an old film, and if so which one. Having a mention of it in the article would have been helpful and would improve the article. It might lead someone to make the effort to rent the film. Somenone's distaste is just that: his personal taste, so there's no disputing that he finds it distasteful, but he is not the Official Wiki Arbiter of Taste. Is it distasteful to quote the words of a dead writer or poet, or to play the music of a dead composer or musician in an ad? Their heirs sometimes get very welcome revenue if it is not in public domain.Edison 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A New Kind of Love

As the editor who originally put this item into the article, I feel it's important to note this erroneous piece of information because, while it did originate with the IMDb it has since been listed as fact by numerous Audrey fan websites. 23skidoo 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems important to me as well, but it would probably be good to cite at least one [reliable] source, if possible. -Shannernanner 00:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is true. If anyone can add a source, that would be great. At the same time the IMDb is still worth noting because the vast majority of people don't know (or care) about the fact that its reputation isn't the best. 23skidoo 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Filmography box

The filmography box is great, but the list needs to be reversed. Too many Wikipedia articles borrow the IMDb's format of listing most recent film's first. The list should start with the 1948 film and move down. I'll change it myself when I have time but I'll give first dibs to the editor who revised the box. I noticed some wikilinks were messed up by having the films in the wrong order so I went ahead and reversed the list. 23skidoo 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable roles

A recent anonymous editor again added Sabrina to the list of notable roles in the infobox without the requested discussion, so I thought I would bring it up. I pared down the long list of notable roles originally there, using the text of the article as a guide; Roman Holiday is stated as her "breakthrough film," and she was also awarded an Academy Award for her performance; Breakfast at Tiffany's is stated to be "one of the most iconic characters in 20th Century American cinema," and she was nominated for an Academy Award; Charade is stated as being a "critically acclaimed hit," for which she was nominated for a Golden Globe and won a BAFTA Award; and My Fair Lady is stated to have been "the most anticipated movie since Gone with the Wind," and speaks of the controversy of her being nominated for, but not receiving, the Academy Award. The editor who added Sabrina stated their reasoning as "Nominated for an Oscar for Sabrina + it's one of her most famous roles." She was nominated for Oscars, and other awards, for many roles, and I do not think they all should be added; however, if it is indeed verifiably "one of her most famous roles" I don't, personally, have a problem with it being there. I just don't want the infobox to include a reiteration of the filmography--I think the "Notable roles" section should be thought of primarily as a reference tool. Anyone else have any thoughts? -Shannernanner 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sabrina is considered one of her iconic roles. It's the film in which she was first associated with Givenchy, plus as noted she was nominated for her second consecutive Oscar. I support it being listed as one of her notable roles. 23skidoo 12:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think Sabrina is one of her most important roles. More important than Charade and less important than the others mentioned, in my opinion. I'm concerned that any selection of "notable roles" comes largely down to POV, the very thing we should be strenuously avoiding. We don't have a definitive set of criteria and a case could probably be made for others of her films too. Plus the infobox is too big. But yes, Sabrina is a notable role. Rossrs 13:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the "notable role" category shouldn't be included in the infobox, for the reasons indicated above. It opens things up to a lot of POV. For example it could just as easily be argued that her roles in Nun's Story, Two for the Road, Wait Until Dark and Charade are as notable as Roman Holiday, Sabrina and Tiffany's. Once all these are listed you're pretty well parroting about a third of her total film output. 23skidoo 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have had this discussion before re: other articles, and my opinion remains that the section has value as a reference tool if used properly. Yes, many roles can and could be considered "notable," but I think the section is for one's "most notable" roles--in general, the ones they could be recognized for, by someone not necessarily familiar with the particular actor. -Shannernanner 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
An objection was made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jake Gyllenhaal - "The information box currently has POV. It's not up to us to decide which of Gyllenhaal's roles were "notable". " I think that comment is absolutely correct. I understand that the infobox is a snapshot to provide quick, relevant details, and in theory having some notable roles seems like a good thing, but in practice we're interpreting information rather than performing the encyclopedic task of merely presenting the information. Also, the infobox for Hepburn is ugly, IMO. It's too big, and while we're on the subject of infoboxes - I can't imagine that anyone just wanting to skim Hepburn's article without reading it, needs to know how tall she was or who her husbands were. This is pointless trivia. How does everyone feel about the height and the husbands? Rossrs 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll take off height, since she's not an athlete and doesn't need a stat box, and husbands, since there is an entire section on that. As for Sabrina, any Audrey Hepburn fan will tell you that her most famous roles are in Roman Holiday, Sabrina, Tiffany's, and My Fair Lady. Charade may be critically acclaimed and in the imdb top 250, but Audrey Hepburn will always be known more for Sabrina than for Charade. Trust me, if you're picking 4, that's the 4 you want. I'll take off Charade. We already have a filmography. 70.132.1.97 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We're not "picking 4;" neither is this a unilateral decision. No, the "Notable roles" field is not another filmography, as I myself already pointed out, but consensus should be reached. If you want to remove her height or spouses per notability, take it up on the template page. As for this page, I think they're both notable as they're both verifiable and mentioned elsewhere on the page in context of the article. -Shannernanner 07:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your decision to restore this information. It has to be discussed more and it's being discussed at Template talk:Infobox actor, which is where we should be talking, so that all articles can be assessed uniformly. But a couple of questions first : Do you think there should be any limit to the size of the box as a whole? (aside from discussing what should and shouldn't be in the box) I can't see the whole box - is it just me? I have to scroll down to get to the bottom of it and I think it makes the page look unbalanced. I can kind of see the reasoning in including a number of the fields - I'd be happier to see them gone but I can see both viewpoints. I don't understand the significance of height though. Why is Audrey Hepburn's height notable? She wasn't particularly tall or particularly short. And just because it's verifiable - there's a whole lot of stuff about her that's verifiable but that in itself doesn't justify its inclusion. (this is stuff to argue on the template page, I know, but I am just wondering). I can see no relevance for height, but if height is relevant, how about weight? Hepburn was a notable thin person, her weight is more notable than her height. I really don't get it, I'm afraid. Rossrs 07:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've read parts of the discussion there. I do think it needs to be worked on, particularly (in my opinion) the parameters/phrasing of the "Notable roles" section. As to your questions, no, I can't see the whole box without scrolling, but the monitor I'm currently using is not very large, and I have to scroll to see the whole Wikipedia logo (okay, so that's a slight exaggeration ;-) ). Anyway, it doesn't bother me. I don't think one's height necessarily has to be unusual to be notable; her height is specifically referenced within the body of the article, not as a footnote as in some articles, but in context of her ballet career. (Whether or not it should be in the infobox otherwise in other articles, I'll not take up here.) Weight is a different story, as one's adult height is generally constant and therefore potentially verifiable, whereas weight can fluctuate even day to day. -Shannernanner 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
ok, fair enough. I still don't believe it should be in the infobox but at least I can understand what you're saying. I hope I didn't give the impression that I wanted her weight to be included - I think for an infobox it's equally irrelevant, which is what I was trying to say. I guess we'll have to see how this all pans out with further discussion. I think I'd be more able to accept the notable roles field if the parameters/phrasing, as you say, was more clearly defined. At the moment it's all too fluid. Rossrs 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I understood you. :-) Yes, it definitely deserves further discussion, I quite agree. -Shannernanner 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We could limit her notable roles to Princess Anne, Holly Golightly and Eliza Doolittle. I don't think we would find much disagreement that these are the "most notable" of her notable roles. --Sp3lly 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as husbands being in the box, my first thought was why not include "significant other" Rob Wollers, who was probably more a husband to her than either Ferrer or Dotti. I'm not saying include him in the box (he is in the article), it is just that if we mention husbands, then it leaves the impression that they were somehow more significant than Rob--which is up to debate. --Sp3lly 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If those three are acceptable to everyone else, they're fine with me.
If you don't want to include him in the infobox (which I don't think we should either, just because the field specifically says "spouses"), why exactly are you bringing it up? Not trying to be rude, I'm just not sure I understand your point. :-) -Shannernanner 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think those 3 are the most notable and I think limiting the list to 3 is a good idea. Roman Holiday is mentioned twice in the infobox and the repetition is not exactly desirable. I also think the Academy Award field is inherently POV - why not Emmy, BAFTA, Golden Globe, Grammy and Tony Awards? She won those also. That's a discussion for Template talk:Infobox actor, which I'll be sure to start :-) If the Academy Award must be included, could it perhaps be put in brackets after Roman Holiday so that the film title is not repeated?
As for Robert Wolders, I think this demonstrates the irrelevance that the "spouses" field has for some biographies. We're recording the names of two men who had failed relationships with Hepburn, and ignoring the one who had a successful relationship that ended only with Hepburn's death. Because Hepburn was old and wise enough and had learnt from experience that a marriage document did not make a marriage, the person that she spent her life with is overlooked. I don't think Wolders should be added to the infobox, but it reinforces to me, how unnecessary the references to Dotti and Ferrer actually are. Rossrs 14:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay; does anyone else have input about the notable roles? I understand your point about the Academy Award, and I agree, it's another thing to bring up on the template talk page. :-) I'm rather ambivalent towards leaving it in the current field or appending it to the notable roles section, personally; the Academy Awards field should probably be changed to "Awards won" (for actors with too many, it could simply guide one to the "Awards" section), in which case the Roman Holiday win would be repeated anyway. I agree with you about the spouses for the most part, but that goes to POV. It's an infobox, not a "down with marriage" box. :-) -Shannernanner 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If only she'd married Wolders! It would have made this much easier! What was she thinking?  :-) Rossrs 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Really! So inconvenient. ;-) -Shannernanner 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Robert Wolders deserves to be up there. Maybe list him as Significant Other. He sort of gets short-changed in this article which isn't really fair since he was a lot better to Hepburn than Ferrer and Dotti. 67.161.26.190 05:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam Levenson quote

Why include a Sam Levenson quote in the section of Audrey's quotes? This only perpetuates the misunderstanding that Audrey was the source for the words. Especially as currently written, it is even amibiguous to the casual reader what is attributed to Sam Levenson. I would say either take the quote out, or make it much more obvious that Sam Levenson is the source of the quote. It doesn't make sense in an Audrey quote section, frankly. If we just delete it, then we aren't perpetuating the misconception that she originated the words. --Sp3lly 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to make mention of the poem in prose as being often attributed to her, though actually written by Sam Levinson, so as to help dispel the rumour. -Shannernanner 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah I agree with that. --Sp3lly 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's valid as an "Audrey quote" if it's associated with her, despite the fact that they were written by someone else. How many politicians write the quotes they become famous for? But yes, make it clearer that Levenson is the source. Can the quotes be worked into the text so as to give them context? If not, they could (and probably should) be moved to Wikiquote. Rossrs 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
How it is valid as an Audrey quote when she never wrote it is beyond me. She may have referred to it a lot, even quoted it--but do we really know how often or even when? I agree that the quote might stay on this page simply to disabuse people of the notion that she originated the words, as long as it is made clear that she did not! --Sp3lly 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I did say "if it's associated with her". I don't know how strongly associated it is - I'd never heard it before. The way it's currently framed is an improvement, though why we need a quotes section, when we have "Wikiquotes" is beyond me.
The difference (to me) between a politician's quote and "her" poem is that politicians don't normally specify they didn't write their speeches, etc., and they aren't usually published prior to their giving them. With the entire poem quoted, and only the footnote regarding the original author, it doesn't seem to make the matter very clear to the casual reader. I'd prefer a sentence simply saying it was a poem she enjoyed, and often quoted. -Shannernanner 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikiquote:
"Occasionally, the poem 'Time Tested Beauty Tips' by Sam Levenson is wrongly attributed to Audrey Hepburn. Properly read, it should be 'By Sam Levenson Edited by Audrey Hepburn, because the original format of the poem was as a letter to his granddaughter in case he was gone before she grew up. Audrey found the letter and edited lines of it into a poem."
I cannot find a verifiable source for this, however, though many sites have copied it from each other. -Shannernanner 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and format it as suggested, since no one can find a verifiable source for this. -Shannernanner 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It could very well be her most famous quote, and it's not really hers. I felt it deserved at least a mention, though. Mostly to give Sammy Levenson his credit. 70.231.232.91 09:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is or was?

She "was" an iconic... or "is" an iconic... ? I'm referring to the first paragraph of the article. Even though she's passed away, it doesn't mean she isn't still an icon, and all that other good stuff.

It is a matter of the use of a "past tense" that still has present meaning. The word could easily be striken, since the very next paragraph demonstrates her enduring popularity. --Sp3lly 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction currently states, "She has often been called one of the most beautiful women of all time, most recently in a 2006 poll for New Woman magazine." I'm not sure this is the most relevant sentence to put there; it gives the impression that her beauty is what is important about her above anything else. Kinda like putting in Albert Einstein's intro "And he sure had weird hair." :-) I think it should be moved, perhaps to the popularity section. Also perhaps the other sentence re: the AFI should be moved there. Opinions? -Shannernanner 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Her beauty might not be the most important thing to say about her, and as it currently reads it puts too much emphasis on it and makes the lead section somewhat shallow, but it's worth mentioning in its proper context. (A New Woman poll is a very wrong context IMO) As the lead should be a summary I would suggest the first sentence identify her (as it does), then a paragraph about her career. Then a paragraph about what she achieved/how she is perceived. I think the 3 things notable about her would be the regard in which she is held as an actress (awards could be briefly mentioned), her style/beauty/fashion status (however you want to put it) and her reputation as a humanitarian. That should summarise the main points in the article. Rossrs 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed it. I agree that the beauty thing goes without saying, and who honestly cares about New Woman Magazine? I just tucked it into the popularity section.70.231.232.91 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Opinions on this change? -Shannernanner 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a great improvement, and perhaps over time it will be fleshed out a little further without straying off the point. It's good. I removed the word "iconic". I agree that Hepburn was iconic but (each in her own way), so was the other Hepburn, Monroe, Dietrich, Garbo, Crawford, Lombard, Harlow, Loy, Bergman, Stanwyck, Garland, Grable, Bardot, Bette Davis, Elizabeth Taylor, .... etc. It's either a long or a short list depending on your POV and the description applied to Hepburn isn't attributed to anyone. I also added the date for the AFI ranking. I think it's good to show that it's relatively recent, and certainly demonstrates that her appeal has not diminished since her death, probably the opposite in fact. Rossrs 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's a bit choppy, but I do think it's an improvement. Shannernanner 09:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Her dearest movie"

A statement like that needs to be sourced if it's going to be kept in the article. Different sources also cite Tiffany's, The Nun's Story and My Fair Lady as her favorite films, so we need a source to confirm that she did in fact name Roman Holiday her "dearest" film. 23skidoo 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do know that Sean Ferrer once wrote that she liked Funny Face and Nun's Story the best and there is a link to that article somewhere. I'm pretty sure Roman Holiday was the dearest to her, but I don't know of any source. Apparently she said it in a Barbara Walters interview, which I haven't seen and can't find a full transcript of. 70.231.252.53 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)