Talk:Tyrone Power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tyrone Power article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Ancestry

Tyrone Power is related to Evelyn Waugh through his great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth (Eliza) Lavenu, who married again after the death of her husband, Lewis Lavenu (great-grandfather of Tyrone Power II), to an Italian violinist, Nicholas Mori. Elizabeth's daughter by Nicholas, Elizabeth Maria Mori, married Reverend James Hay Waugh, great-grandfather of Evelyn.

[edit] References Needed

I don't know that Tyrone Power at this point has any great-great grandchildren, so the line about these children living near Cincinnati was deleted. If you have a valid reference for that, please give it. He possibly could have greatgrandchildren by his daughter Romina, but her children are Italian born, and I don't know why they would relocate to Cincinnati. His cousin Bob's wife Madge still lives in Cincinnati. Power does have relatives in Arizona. Please give clarification.Chandler75 00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Actor

Tyrone Power,was the most accomplished screen,And stage actor,In the last Onehundred Years,He had It all,Total screen-Presents,Outstanding Speaking Voice,also-Strikingly-Good Looks,He could Act,Check him out, in the moive,called "The RAZOR'S EDGE" All,Actors and Actresses,Should study this motion picture,Excellent-Cast! Thank You, A.L

"Tyrone Power Jr." is the wrong name to use for this actor. Tyrone Power Jr. is his son. RickK | Talk 03:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is an issue of real names vs stage names; the actor whose page this is was named Tyrone Edmund Power Jr., but didn't go by 'Jr.' in films in his later years. His son, who does go by Tyrone Power Jr. when acting, is actually Tyrone William Power IV. If/when the son gets a page added, this can get clarified better in the text. MisfitToys 04:25, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Someone has added of mostly Irish descent, I have detailed ancestry information for Tyrone Power, only his great grandfather was born in Ireland, so he was only 1/8 Irish. He actually had more French ancestry. Arnie587 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am in possession of the following family trees: The Power Dynasty, beginning with Tyrone Power, born circa 1789, married to Maria Maxwell that goes through to Valentina Sales, born in 1984, daughter of Taryn Power; The Ancestry of Anne Gilbert, Great Grandmother of Tyrone Power (Film Actor) and the Link to Laurence Olivier; and Ancestry of Eliza Lavenu, Grandmother of Tyrone Power (Film actor) and the Link to Evelyn Waugh. These are referenced in the Power article. Reference to Huguenot descent comes with Lewis Lavenu, whose granddaughter, Eliza Lavenu married Harold Littledale Power. Eliza Lavenue and Harold Power were the parents of Tyrone Power's father. Lewis Lavenu was a French Hugenot descendant. As far as I can see, the rest of the family is English and Irish, though Power's mother, Patia Reaume, was apparently French Canadian. The Lavenu family is related to the Mori family, who were famous Italian musicians; Elizabeth Mori married into the Waugh family. If Arnie587 can supply any more information, it would be wonderful. Chandler75 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photo

I do not believe the photo shown was taken in 1946; I think it was closer to 1956. I have many photos of Tyrone Power; he was 32 in 1946 and this is a photo from a later time.

it says c.1946 on the Canadian archives website here, but it could be wrong. If you think it is you could contact them to ask them to check it. Arniep 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but it appears I'd have to visit the collection. I have pictures of him in 1946 and this is definitely later.

[edit] Bisexuality

I understood he was known to have had sex with men as well as having a string of wives. He appears in List of bisexuals, with the comment "this has been confirmed through several writings, including a best-selling novel entitled The Secret Life Of Tyrone Power written by ." Is this enough to include a line in his own article? JackofOz 04:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I believe that the "confirmation from several writings" all stem from one writing, the badly researched, sloppy, highly incorrect "The Secret Life of Tyrone Power." I don't think anyone knows the truth. The book was written 22 years after Power's death and had anonymous sources and also Tyrone's thoughts while he was alone - just to give you an idea of the writing. The book received, and still receives, a great deal of criticism. This I believe started the trend for a series of horrendously inflammatory books about dead celebrities, many of which have been disproven. According to the libel laws, the dead have no rights and their families cannot sue on their behalf - so when you call Errol Flynn a Nazi spy, or claim to have interview tapes with Audrey Hepburn, or that you're a hairdresser that slept with Humphrey Bogart, there's nothing anyone can do. I worked for a very famous actor that many people say is gay - I worked very closely with this man for a long time, and he isn't gay. So where do these stories come from?

As a writer, interviewer, and researcher myself, I have spoken to many people who knew Power, including his stand-in, people who served with him in the military, people who dated him (including the aunt of a friend of mine), gay men who actually worked in Hollywood, colleagues of his in films, and family, and I have read a great deal about him, going back to right after his death. I've seen his will - so I know a good deal. The following is true, verified by these various people and also verified in studio and personal papers. He had affairs with Lana Turner, Judy Garland, Anita Ekberg, and Mai Zetterling, for starters. These can be verified. Lana Turner had an abortion of his baby. Judy Garland claimed to, but probably was not even pregnant. Linda Christian bore him two children, but miscarried three others, one of which was a boy. While working on Jesse James, he got an extra pregnant. She gave the child away and when he found out, he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to locate the child but never did.

For excellent books on Power, I suggest "All Those Tomorrows" by Mai Zetterling, whom he was seeing when he met his third wife, and who devotes an entire chapter to him; "North Star Over My Shoulder," by Bob Buck, a pilot, who devotes a chapter to him; "On Sunset Boulevard," a biography of Billy Wilder; "Linda: My Own Story" by Linda Christian, "Lana: The Lady, the Legend, The Truth" by Lana Turner; and "Tyrone Power: The Last Idol" by Laurence Guiles.

As to whether or not he was bisexual, there is every chance that perhaps he was. I think a lot of stars certainly dabbled in it at different parts of their lives. But it's so difficult nowadays, when everyone (especially if they're good looking) is said to be gay. As one star today put it, when you're called gay or bi, that's when you know you've made it. He most definitely did not sleep with even half of the people it is said he did, or he would not have had any time to make movies. Several strange things happen - if you're a male and you have a gay friend or friends, people assume you're gay, though anyone in show business will tell that is absolutely not the case. Secondly, over time, the stories get wilder and wilder. In Power's case, anyone known to be gay is now said to have had an affair with him. So at this point, the truth is difficult to ferret out. Laurence Guiles' biography of Power probably comes closest. Thank you, Chandler 75.

And thank you, indeed. JackofOz 08:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to object to the part of Tyrone Power's biography in Wikipedia that speaks of him as being "homosexual." This is an outrageous distortion of the truth. My mother was involved with Mr. Power from 1954 to 1956, in fact, we lived with him on Madison Avenue in New York City.I remember him very well. All of the publications listed in the biography were published after the publication of the Arce book, which is terrible and filled with inaccuracies and fabrication. Are we to believe Lana Turner, Linda Christian, Anita Ekberg, Loretta Young, Evie Johnson, Billy Wilder, Mai Zetterling et al., or are they all liars and the only person who told the truth was Hector Arce? If, as it is said, Tyrone Power was so traumatically closeted, how is it that everyone seems to have known about it but it never came out until 1979 from someone who never met him? How is it that William Haines, Tallulah Bankhead and others were outed years and years before? Whisper Magazine, one of the "Confidential" Magazine ripoffs published "The Secret Life of Tyrone Power" in 1954. The article had to do with his involvement with Anita Ekberg during "Mississippi Gambler" and how it destroyed his marriage to Linda Christian. These rags were so willing to "out" Rock Hudson that the studio had to trade another story for it. Mr. Power was a free agent by then. There was no studio to hush it up. These same magazines outed Lizabeth Scott. Seems odd that they would not have jumped on such an obviously known story.
Power could have been bisexual, but he was not homosexual. As to whether he was actually bisexual, during my involvement in the theater and my association and friendship with many gay men, and bisexual men, I do not think that he was. My mother laughs at the notion. So did Lana Turner. I think the comment below says it all when it refers to Arce's book as "a best-selling NOVEL." - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorrobhen (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 February 2006
Your statement is only based on original research which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:No original research. Are there any secondary sources which state that Power was 100% heterosexual? I have rewritten the passage. It now reads:
Apart from his relationships to women, there is some evidence that Power may have quietly lived a bisexual life. According to Hector Arce, The Secret Life of Tyrone Power (1979) and William J. Mann, Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, the actor had homosexual leanings. In his book, The Evening Crowd at Kirmser's: A Gay Life in the 1940s, Ricardo J. Brown confirms that he had heard in New York that there were "a lot of queer people in the theater and the movies", among them Tyrone Power and Tallulah Bankhead. In Oops, I Lost My Sense of Humor, Lois M. Santalo writes that "many stars of the silver screen, dating back to Tyrone Power, had been gay". In Robert Aldrich and Garry Wotherspoon's Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day, Power is listed among the "Top box office stars who were gay or bisexual". However, the star never outed himself. Only insiders in Hollywood seem to have known the bisexual Tyrone Power. Onefortyone 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting comments. I'm not sure a person's sexuality has a place here but it's not for me to decide. I think (or hope) that the goal is accuracy. If indeed it is true that Tyrone Power was so deeply closeted, it is very sad for someone to have to live that way, and thank God there has been some progress. I just have a problem with the evidence for this. There is a reference to "Hollywood insiders" knowing he was bisexual. I worked in Hollywood in the business for 30 years. It's true, everyone knows who's gay and bi. This includes people who have recently come out or have been "outed" and many who never have. One lesbian has gone to incredible lengths to hide her sexuality for years. The public has no idea but anyone in the business knows. In all my time there, and all my time actually working with material related to Power for a project involving many actors and speaking with people who knew him well, I never heard Power's name mentioned nor saw anything written or suggested about bisexuality. I'm not sure it's possible to be so deeply closeted. It seems to me that every year, the stories become more and more absurd and very contradictory as they do with Errol Flynn. Flynn has now slept with everything. It seems very sudden that all of this was common knowledge when in fact, it wasn't, probably because most of it didn't happen. Flynn, of course, has been hit with everything from homosexuality to Nazi spying. His spying has been debunked. Here's a contradiction example from Power: Sources state he and Cesar Romero were lovers; another says Romero procured for him; another says that they were "committed." It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that Romero didn't procure for him, leaving both of them open to blackmail or a sale to the tabloid magazines. And, if Power was so sexually active, how could they have been "committed?" And it must have been quite a celibate existence at that, with Power spending most of the 1950s in Europe and Romero working in Hollywood as his credits indicate. My problem is this: We know from the recent Oprah debacle of "A Million Little Pieces," if we didn't already know, that editors couldn't care less about the veracity of any claims. The more sensational, the better. I have no problem believing that Tyrone Power was bisexual but not totally gay. He once said that sex got in the way of friendship so it was better to have sex and get it out of the way. I would venture to say, however, given his work schedule, his romantic entanglements with women, and his marriages, that these activities were nowhere near what they are now claimed to be. Not even close. It's fine to list primary research but I maintain much of this so-called "knowledge" these writers suddenly have is spurious.Chandler75 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to Marcus I think only your IP address showed and one of the posters thought you were what they call a sock puppet, i.e., posting under another name. I have been on the Clift page, the Sal Mineo page, etc., and they have only one line. On some people's pages - there is nothing, though in print, Gary Cooper and Errol Flynn as well as others have been "outed." I agree, this is very long, but we were asked to provide references of Power's heterosexuality. I would like only one line but right now, we are focusing on the photos and have dropped the bisexual discussion for now. I, too, find it strange that a man who told Mai Zetterling he couldn't live without her breasts and bottom and wrote such passionate letters to his wives has suddenly become bisexual, but it's the age we live in especially in publishing. The Arce book was the first and made a huge splash. The strange thing to me is that I have known hundreds of gay men in my lifetime and I have known exactly 3 who were bisexual. Suddenly, everyone in Hollywood was and is bisexual. It's quite a phenomenon. Also, I distinguish experimenting with the other sex - which Marilyn Monroe admits she did - as being different from being bisexual. And I'm betting just about everybody did that.Chandler75 20:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough positive proof stated by anyone, anywhere, to merit the length given to Tyrone Power being bi-sexual. His information sheet is very long to begin with, This length, without interesting confirmed stories on Powers makes for boring reading. This is why I commented.Marcus9 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


I strongly believe that the creators of those books that slander a member of my family in such a way were totaly disrespectful. It should not matter if Tyrone was gay or not because it has nothing to do with the way he conducted his profesional career. Someone previous wrote that the dead nor their families have rights when it comes to such slander and I believe that statement to be totally true. Tyrone can't defend himself now. That is why a said "79" book reported this so late because the accusations can't be personally denied by Tyrone. The only people that could were the people who knew him intimately. But as I am led to believe even those words were not enough for some. The only people that should know about Tyrone's most intimate life are the people who he had relations with. If they wish to tell secrets then its up to them but isn't it obvious to people that he wasn't gay as all the women he knew and loved all denied this accusation. (I mean they should now) wouldn't you if your partner had the same accusations thrown at them? I'm sure you would all see the tell tale signs. There are some things about stars that should be kept private, and I belive this to be true of this subject in ANY stars career, we all have things that we keep close to our hearts that are never revealed, so the same should be said for stars. After all, they are only human, and are not totaly perfect as some people believe. There is no such thing as a perfect ideal, especially in this day and age but unfortunately, todays society encourages this 'perfect ideal' to be apart of our daily lives be it in the media or in our own lives. --Fairy.dust 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

To the user or users who keep reverting the image of Power please read Wikipedia's policies as follows : Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page. The aim of Wikipedia is not to create something that is first and foremost "pretty". The main aim is that wherever possible our articles contain free information and images that can be used by anyone. Public domain images of celebrities are very hard to find, but even ones that are not particularly attractive, should be the first choice. I agree that the Karsh image of Power is not very good - it's certainly not flattering. The Jesse James one on the other hand is excellent, and conveys Power as he is remembered. There is no problem with using the Jesse James image in addition to the other one and I think an excellent fair use claim could be made for it, simply because the other image is so unrepresentational - please read Wikipedia:Image description page about how to do this, and then update the page. It's important to remember that this is not a fansite, and we are obliged to follow copyright laws to the best of our abilities. This means we should be thinking about what is best for Wikipedia first, and our own preferences or tastes are secondary. If the Jesse James image is used with the Yousuf Karsch image, that is ok. If the Jesse James image is used instead of the other one, and we dispense with a Public Domain image for no reason other than we don't like it - that is not ok. There are many articles that have only publicity photos or screenshots and in many cases fair use could be claimed but if a public domain image is available it takes precedence. Articles like, for example Bette Davis or Henry Fonda use screenshots etc because no public domain images have been found. Take at look at Fredric March, Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh or Joan Crawford for examples where either public domain images alone, or a combination of public domain images and other fair use images, are used. Please stop reverting the Tyrone Power images, and make an effort to understand the policies and guidelines that we as editors are required to abide by. Please let me know if there is anything you don't understand and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction of any more policy information that might help. Thanks Rossrs 15:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see anything wrong with the Karsh image at all. It just shows him when he was older, sometime in the 1950s (the 1946 date is probably inaccurate). Arniep 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh image is not representative of what he looked like even on the day he died. It's dreadful. I wish there were another public domain but obviously, I understand why it's there. In my work I've probably seen a thousand photos of Tyrone Power, hundreds taken in the '50s, and I have to say, the Karsh photo is awful.Chandler75 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see something terribly wrong with the Karsh image. It looks nothing like many of the photos taken of him from 1957-1958. I have done extensive research on Tyrone Power for the last couple years, and nowhere have I seen such a horrible picture, in the 100's that I have come across. And, if the copyright information is no more accurate than the date given, then who knows if it is really copyright free. The picture obviously wasn't taken in 1946, as any person who has seen pictures of him through the years would know. It was most likely taken in 1957 or 1958, on a day where he was stressed out and extremely tired. In the last year of his life, his health deteriorated rapidly, and he looked great on some days, while the stress showed on others. Yet, no picture is as bad as this one. I think that it would do no harm to have a decent picture of him --- a representative picture --- rather than this. I checked the policy on wikipedia before I spent three hours reviewing movies; taking screen captures; and uploading them to decide on one to use. What I read was that screen captures were okay. I didn't analyze the fine print about the order in which photos take precedence. I uploaded the photo, in good faith, and with the idea that it would replace the dreadful photo. Wikipedia wouldn't fall apart to allow the use of the photo as the main photo. I am new to wikipedia, and I would like to be able to contribute. However, I feel that I'm wasting my time because no matter what I do, it will be reverted within an hour, even down to the last comma. goldenerafn 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it! The picture is well lit, Power doesn't look ill or unhappy, really I cannot see what you are seeing. Perhaps it does not show him in the way you prefer to remember him as the macho swashbuckler or something? Arniep 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with having different pics to show him at differet ages- the Jesse James one shows him at 25, and the later one at maybe 44 so we need a few from the earlier 1930s and 40s. Arniep 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who has seen a lot of pictures of Tyrone Power, even those taken in the last couple years of his life, will see that this picture is nowhere nearly as good as others taken around that time. It has nothing at all to do with how I prefer to remember him. I treasure many of the photos that I own from his last years. I am a fan of all his movies, from the very first, to the very last. But, in the photo in question, he does look ill to anyone who is as familiar with his photos as I am. I could take a screen capture from one of his later movies, The Eddy Duchin Story, and the picture would look so much better than the professional photo. No wonder it's copyright free. It probably was one of the discarded negatives from the photographer's photo shoot. Who would want to claim a copyright on it? I have plenty of screen captures that I could use from different eras, but I'm not so eager to put them on a site where they are constantly moved around like pieces on a checkerboard. I really don't understand why someone is so intent on pressing this issue, when screen captures are allowed on wikipedia and when more people would be happier to see a better picture useed. goldenerafn 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but what you have said is pretty much inaccurate. The photo is part of the Yousef Karsh collection which is owned by the Canadian National Archives. Karsh was one of the most respected portrait photographers of his time and the photo in question here is a high quality high definition work. Any screenshot would be of much lower quality. The reason he may look different to you is that he probably was not wearing makeup (which he would have done for the movies). Arniep 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much that he wore makeup in candid photos, and there are stunning ones taken at the end of his life that show that this is a very bad representation. It doesn't really matter how well-respected Karsh was. This is a bad photo. Also, I have seen many photos of Tyrone Power taken by makeup people before doing a makeup test, and sorry, he never looked as bad as this photo would have you believe. I do not think this is represenative of Karsh's work, either.Chandler75 20:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What I have said is inaccurate? You mean everything that I said? Or can you be more specific? I assure you that I have done thorough research on Tyrone Power, with respect to his entire career, and this is the worst photo that I've seen. I realize that the photo is part of the Yousef Karsh collection which is owned by the Canadian National Archives. That fact doesn't make me appreciate the photo any more. Neither does the resolution, the high definition, or whatever other fine qualities the photo might possess make me appreciate it any more. I agree that Karsh was one of the most respected portrait photographers of his time, and I have seen beautiful work that he has done. This photo is just not one of his better works. goldenerafn 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but it doesn't matter whether you don't like it. Free images should have prominence in articles and we aren't going to change the ideology of Wikipedia to suit you. I have removed your Eddy Duchin screenshot as it is it of too inferior quality and replaced it with a Carl Van Vechten image of Power in John Brown's Body from Wikipedia Commons. Arniep 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether a photo is too inferior in quality is merely a matter of opinion. Please refrain from stating opinion as fact. The Eddy Duchin photo was not of too inferior quality, in my opinion, or I wouldn't have put it there in the first place. However, I love the image of Power from John Brown's Body, which I found myself earlier today at the Library of Congress site, and I thought perhaps it was something that we could use. I was going to check with wikipedia administrators, however, before I placed it on the page. It looks to me like it is copyright free also, but I wanted to make sure. Why could that picture not be moved to the top, if it is also free? Anyway, thank you very much for at least putting it somewhere on the page. Perhaps you would be willing to compromise on its location. It's a beautiful photo.goldenerafn 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the Karsh photo is still the best photo on the page and should stay at the top. The Van Vechten photo is unfortunately somewhat blurred and is of course black and white. The Duchin photo had reflections on it, I presume from a TV screen? It would be better to use actual publicity photos which you'll find on one of the fan sites. Arniep 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well do the opinions of any other person who edits this page count? Or is your opinion the definitive one? goldenerafn 28 February 2006 (UTC)
All opinions count so here is mine : Wow! The John Brown's Body photo is excellent. It actually looks like Power and it's public domain. I like it very much, I don't think it's significantly blurred, and for Power, a major star most often seen in black-in-white, the use of a black-and-white image is quite appropriate. I'd be happy to see it become the main image and we would no longer need the Karsh image, which I agree is not representative of Power. Now that we've got a PD image we can use, I'm in favour of removing the Karsh. The screenshots are good too. Nice work! The image description pages need to be correctly attributed but I'm happy to do that and fix them up, unless you want to. They need to be correctly tagged and fair use rationales applied. If you aren't sure how to go about it see Wikipedia:Image description page for directions and the images on Vivien Leigh for examples. I don't have much time today to devote to Wikipedia (but I may have a bit of time later...) Rossrs 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support regarding moving the JBB picture to the top. I would love to see it moved, and I'm hoping that someone will move it. Also, thank you for your comment on the screenshots. I would be extremely happy if you would fix up the image description pages. I took the screenshots, but I wasn't sure how to include that information. I'm also hoping to get a better screenshot of the Eddy Duchin screenshot that was removed. That picture was taken a couple years ago, and I now have a different camera, which takes better screenshots. goldenerafn 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I love the John Brown's Body photo as well and hope it can be the main photo. As far as whose opinions count, all of our opinions have equal weight, and the important thing is to discuss changes and compromise if necessary. I understand perfectly about needing to use the Karsh photo - but there is an alternative now. I'm new to Wikipedia, and it has taken me a long time, I admit, to figure out the rules and what you can do and what you can't and along the way I did some things incorrectly. But I've caught on. There is no boss on this page. We're all in it together and it's up to all of us to see that the page is within the rules of Wikipedia and is representative of this man. I still believe, and I will always believe, mainly because of my background, that an instrument like Wikipedia is no place to encourage the use of books that have been inferiorly researched. As we have learned from writers like Charles Higham et al., they write what is going to sell books and are encouraged to do so by their editors, i.e., the now debunked Danny Kaye-Olivier relationship. Having worked in publishing and with celebrity books, I know this. And now the country knows it due to "A Million Little Pieces." However, if it is accepted by Wikipedia, fine, as long as there's a balance.Chandler75 16:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Today I took a stab at fixing up the description pages for the screenshots that I uploaded. I know that I have improved on what I had done before, but I am still not sure that it is entirely correct, so would appreciate corrections to make the descriptions in compliance with all the rules. goldenerafn 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and updated them. Rossrs 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I must admit I was slightly puzzled as to why people disliked the Karsh photo but it now seems quite clear what the real reason for you and your friends' objection to the Karsh photo is. As that photo is clearly of a higher quality than the Van Vechten photo it should be replaced at the top. Arniep 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't run with packs, and nobody speaks for me. I don't think the picture is very good, and I wanted to see something that was more representative of him. As I have stated before, I understand if it has to be used, but I don't have to like it. And please don't refer to people who don't like this photo as "my friends." If you want to check computer addresses, go ahead, but I have disliked that photo from day 1.Chandler75 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much object to the picture because I have seen hundreds of photos of Tyrone Power, and I dislike none as much as this one. I request that posters please do not lump me with a group, as I speak solely for myself. I do not like anything about the picture. Let me list the things I dislike. 1) I hate the garish red background. 2) I dislike the extremely hard lens used for the photograph 3) I dislike the fact that the photo was taken on a day that Tyrone Power was apparently suffering from fatique and stress (apparent from the eye that droops. After the war, he had an eye that was was weak. On days that he was feeling under-the-weather, the weak eye was more noticeable). 4) I dislike the fact that the photo is not representative of him. Why have a photo at the top which is not representative? Your first objection to our moving that photo was because it was a public domain photo, and those were preferred at top. I looked into the rules and, though I didn't care for that rule, I could understand the rationale, and I, of course, didn't want to violate rules. However, I decided to look for another public domain photo that would be more representative of Tyrone Power. I found the photo from JBB at the Library of Congress site and was waiting to put it on the page, pending checking with administrators before I did, since I didn't want to violate rules. But, when I saw that you had put it up as public domain, I saw no reason that it shouldn't be at the top. Yesterday, you seemed to be willing to abide with the consensus of those discussing the matter. If I'm reading the history of edits correctly, you actually placed the Karsh photo down on the page, where others left it. But, today, you decide to move it up --- and, I might add --- enlarge it to 300 px, rather than the 250 px that had been standard for the main picture. I don't know what to make of your determination to force your will on everyone else. goldenerafn 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ArnieP, I think you are wrong in this case. If we are choosing between a fair use and a free use image, the free use image will always win hands down. It is completely clearcut and this is why I initially supported the Karsh image. If, on the other hand, we are choosing between two free images, as we now are, it should be a matter consensus. At least 4 users including myself have indicated that we prefer the black-and-white image and you are the lone voice in favour of the Karsh. Saying it's better quality, whatever... is a valid enough argument but it is only your opinion that you are stating. Can you please accept that in this case the consensus is to use the other image. I understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy, however I also understand that it is not a dictatorship. Please stop forcing your own POV. Thanks. Rossrs 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ross but I don't think you know what is really going on here. All these new users arrived here to complain about the bisexual allegations being mentioned in the article and for some odd reason associated the Karsh photo with bisexuality (which to me seems ridiculous). The photo is of a very high quality and Power actually looks happy and has a smile on his face! Arniep 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, because I disagree with you about the image does not mean I don't know what's going on here. I've been watching the edits for far longer than I've been commenting. Only one user is associating the image with bisexuality. I don't understand the connection either. Even so the other users have given clear reasons for their preference to the black and white photo. Whether they initially came to the Power article to complain about the bisexuality comments, does not mean they have no right to comment on other aspects of the article. ie the images. Rossrs 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't at first understand everything Wikipedia was striving for. Now that I do, I see that the bisexual section is relevant, and I think it's okay now and I love the other additions. I have been on other pages and the sexual discussion goes on and on regarding some of these pages. One person made an inappropriate remark that does not, at least, express my feelings. I've always hated that photo. Now, I understood if according to the rules, it had to stay there, but since I have learned that it does not, I don't see why it's there anymore and bigger than ever. You are alone in insisting on this photo, and frankly, I don't understand your love for it. I've done a tour of star pages, and they all have wonderful black and white photos at the top. You question the motives of other people - I wonder what yours could be in wanting a very bad representation of a movie star of the classic era on top of his page.Chandler75 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, it is a generalization to say that "all these new users arrived here to complain about the bisexual allegations..." If you check the history of edits on the Tyrone Power page, you'll see that, for someone who only wanted to complain about what was already on the page, I've done a great deal of work writing up biographical sections. goldenerafn 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, I know that you have made some great contributions to the page but you also tried to remove or rubbish all the allegations of bisexuality (as per the note I left on your talk page). I find it unlikely that it is a coincidence that you all suddenly arrived just after the bisexual allegations were added. I presume you are members of the Tyrone Power fan club and in contact with each other. Josie's comments indicate that there is some misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It does not exist to the purpose as Josie said "We want him presented in the very best light possible" or "I thought this site was put up to show respect and honor to one of America's actors of screen and stage.". Arniep 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I am asking you for the last time not to lump me in with someone else. Additionally, I don't think there is a Tyrone Power fan club. There is an Elvis one, though, and fan that I am, I don't even belong to that. I have made every effort to understand the purpose of Wikipedia references, verifiability, etc. If it's not to honor and respect someone, which I understand, then it's also not to deliberately put anyone in a bad light, which I believe that pictures does - literally. Why are you taking this discussion off of the photo and back onto a section that is on the page and will be staying there? And you act as if no one ever, ever gives an argument re bisexual allegations. Tell that to someone who hasn't seen the pages with huge arguments on them.Chandler75 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Chandler you told me yourself your disquiet over the bisexual allegations were what drew you to this article in the first place! Arniep 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Arnie, you know, if you don't want to get it, you just won't. It didn't draw me to the page because I had no way of knowing about that section before I saw the page. I didn't like it - no, I didn't. I don't like unsubstantiated information on anyone's page. I'm off it now that I know more about Wikipedia. That's like, what, the tenth time I've said that? I've moved on to another subject. I don't know if you noticed, but the title of this part is IMAGES. One person made a comment and somehow, you still want to accuse me of making it and golden person of making it, when one person made it. I'm sure you found it offensive. I did as well. The bisexuality has been discussed, gone into in detail by me, oneforty..., you, others -is it that you still want to discuss it? I am a film historian, I have written three books, I have researched dozens of biographies for some excellent biographers who use things like source notes. I know bad research when I see it, I know some of these authors personally, and I complained because I didn't realize that Wikipedia wants published sources no matter the quality so that people can use them as references. But if you want to keep harping on this, go ahead. That section is fine as far as I'm concerned. I never liked the Karsh photo, going back to when I registered. If a timetable matters, I'll attempt to put one together.Chandler75 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, the issue here is the photo. The bi-sexuality section is totally irrelevant. If you want to continue that discussion, then I would suggest putting it in a separate section from this one, which is supposed to be for discussion of the image. As far as a Tyrone Power fan club --- If there is one, please let me know. Didn't realize there was one. goldenerafn 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's right. The images are being discussed here. Not the bisexuality, not the users - only the images. I think there is probably no solution that each of us is going to be 100% happy with, so the closest we can possibly achieve is a reasonable compromise. I've arranged the images so they alternate and also so that the subject looks into the article rather than out of it. I've also put them into chronological order. No major changes, it's purely cosmetic. Are we beginning to reach a compromise that we can all live with? Rossrs 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I just thought I'd point out it wasn't me who connected the bisexuality to the Karsh photo it was User:JosieB (who has now removed all her comments including "I thought this site was put up to show respect and honor to one of America's actors of screen and stage. I find no homage paid in the Karsh photo. None. It's not even a good fag shot to represent bi-sexualism. If your going to represent bi-sexualism, lets find something that everyone would like to date, not run from. JosieB"). Arniep 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the comment. I'm not sure I would have interpreted the comment that way - I just think he/she was saying it wasn't an attractive photo and no one would want to date him. And if I'm really honest, I actually didn't understand the comment. If he/she is new to Wikipedia, understanding what Wikipedia is about and the purpose of the photos takes time. You're the one who then lumped everyone together and said everyone was connecting that photo to bisexuality. I never once looked at that picture and said, wow, how bisexual he looks. I thought wow, does he look worn out or what? It's possible JosieB took out the comment because he/she thought it didn't belong on the board - I don't know. Evidently he/she had second thoughts, which is too bad to take all the coments out as it was an opinion. This is probably a woman, but in case I'm wrong, I'm saying he/she which is cumbersome. Perhaps they wrote in haste and didn't like what they wrote. Anyway, it's obvious they had no love for the photoChandler75 04:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
04:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale and choice of screenshot images

I've updated the image description pages for each of the screenshots with information about copyright and fair use rationales. I would like to include a screenshot from Witness for the Prosecution as it was his second last film, a notable success, and unusual in presenting him as a villain. I think we may be close to have too many screenshots, and one more would push us over the edge, so to speak, so I wondered if anyone would object if one of the existing screenshots was removed to make way for it. I'm thinking that the Blood and Sand and Mark of Zorro images are similar in that they are both "costume" films so if one of them was removed we would not lose that particular "image" of Power. Also the King of the Khyber Rifles is a nice, brooding shot but I don't know that it particularly adds to our understanding of his film career, so once again it could be the one to make way. Any suggestions? Rossrs 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have considered your thoughts about the screenshots on the Tyrone Power page. I think that the idea of having a screenshot for his last film is an excellent idea; however, if we are to have one from the very last picture that was released, I believe that it would also be good to have a screenshot of the very first starring role, Lloyd's of London. That way, we have both ends of the spectrum. To make room for these two additions, I suggest that we remove the King of the Khyber Rifles (because it is one of his less famous roles) and The Eddy Duchin Story (released just the year before Witness for the Prosecution). The Mark of Zorro, is the only swashbuckler screenshot on the page, and Power is probably best remembered as a swashbuckler, so I would think that one should stay. The Blood and Sand image is such a famous one, too --- seen over and over in the documentary 20th Century Fox - The First 50 Years. I have taken some screenshots of both Lloyd's of London and Witness for the Prosecution, but I'm waiting for the go-ahead to upload these and put them on the page. Please let me know your thoughts. goldenerafn 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that sounds excellent and I agree with your reasoning on each point. I like the idea of covering both ends of the spectrum. I've also found what I think would be a good Witness for the Prosecution screenshot. It's from near the end where he is in the dock waiting to hear the verdict, he has his mouth open in dread or anticipation, and his face is dotted with perspiration. It's quite a dramatic closeup, certainly not a glamour shot, but he does look very striking, and I thought it would be suitable as an "actor" shot rather than a "movie star" shot. Do you know the scene I'm referring to? What part of the film did you take your screenshots from? Rossrs 01:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I took a screenshot from the most famous scene in Witness for the Prosecution --- the scene where he's on the witness stand (the middle part of the movie). I think it's quite a good shot, and I could send to you. I'm not sure which shot you're referring to --- Is there a way that I can see it? goldenerafn 02:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded the image here so you can see it. If you could do the same we can decide between them, and then whichever one we don't use can be put onto images for deletion. Rossrs 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well if people claimed the Karsh photo made Power look bad, this one makes him look half dead! Arniep 02:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that's what people will say. It's a question of taste. I think he looks ok. But this one shows him acting - he can't be expected to look completely glamorous or at ease in the middle of a big dramatic scene. He's playing a man in the dock waiting to hear whether or not he'll be executed - he's not expected to look "his best" although in a posed portrait by a notable photographer such as Karsh, it would be reasonable to expect him to look "his best". I think that's the difference between the two images. It's a suggestion only and I'll be the first to recommend its deletion if other people don't like it. Rossrs 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
We could use some pictures from http://www.tyrone-power.com/menu_photos.html or http://tyforum.bravepages.com/stls-h.html (the website owner's don't own the copyright for the screenshots). I would prefer we show him with other actors in a scene rather than just him. Arniep 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, some of these would be suitable. Not all of them are screenshots unfortunately - quite a few are promo shots so the copyright would belong to somebody and working out exactly who would not be so easy. Great images, and very good websites, I must say. I particularly like the one of him in the window with Madeleine Carroll in Lloyds of London but I've seen it before and it's definitely a promo shot rather than a screenshot. I also like the idea of including other actors in the scene - I hadn't thought of it before but I guess it's good to show him interracting with other performers, so that's another plus for this particular image. Maybe we should have a look at what we have to choose from and then decide. Rossrs 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Promo shots are usually owned by the movie companies so its much of a muchness really. Arniep 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
True. Rossrs 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of these are quite good. Arniep 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
OK I have uploaded this one Image:Tyrone Power Luck of Irish.jpg. Arniep 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a very good image. The main reason I was thinking of including a Witness image is because it was his last role, his was against his usual casting as the hero, it won him considerable critical acclaim, it's still highly regarded, and it's discussed in the article. The Luck of the Irish is a very good image, but the film itself is not one of his most memorable nor is it discussed in the article. I've uploaded a second Witness image here where he looking merely pensive, rather than "half dead" and although he's not interracting with other actors at least his is not the only face on the screen. I'll come back later. I have other things I need to do for now. Cheers Rossrs 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's better, he stills looks pretty ill though. Are you able to get a wider shot that replicates the first one on this page http://www.tyrone-power.com/photos_witness.html with Charles Laughton in frame? I'd like to keep the Irish pic as it is very good quality, if necessary I'll add some info on the movie. Arniep 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could see the photos you're speaking of, but I think I probably have seen them, and it's a great idea to have it represented as it was his last. The Luck of the Irish is a very nice shot. A lot of people are very fond of that film. I'm sure something can be worked out.Chandler75 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw the Witness photo, the one with the sweat. Don't be angry - I kind of liked it, and I actually did think he looked ill in the movie. That's actually one of the better photos. It's strange because after the movie, he actually looked much better - fine, in fact, so who knows what was going on.Chandler75 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's strange. I've seen the film numerous times but it was only when I went through it trying to find screenshots that I discovered he does look ill and slightly bloated throughout the entire film. I hadn't noticed it before. In fact he looks very much like the Karsh photo except in black-and-white. Also, interestingly, he seems to be wearing the same ring as in the Karsh photo and it's especially prominent in the court scene where he has his hands on the bench. I'd say the Karsh was taken around the same time. I wonder if it was to promote Witness. Rossrs 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Rossrs, I believe that ring was an heirloom - it is in photos going back to the '30s. Yes, it could have been taken around either The Sun Also Rises or Witness. After that, he grew a beard for a play, got married again, and kept the beard for Solomon and Sheba. By 1958 he was much more rested.Chandler75 01:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Better minds would know more about this, but I know in publishing the use of promo shots is a hot button issue with most authors, and most of them won't give the studios any money. David Stenn (Harlow, Clara Bow) actually went to court and won. The point was that the studios gave these photos out and begged people to use them, and they were told they can't just decide now that people have to pay for them. Studios also lost a case in court regarding the use of trailers as film clips for the same reason - they were meant to publicize a film. So a show like Mysteries & Scandals on E! Channel used trailers for film clips. But there may have been other cases.Chandler75 05:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a sticky area and by that reasoning we should have no fear in using genuine promo shot. Wikipedia's policies err on the side of caution, however, which I think is for the best. I think the problem on Wikipedia is that a lot of people don't understand or distinguish between a genuine promo shot, made by the studio for wide distribution and a commissioned portrait where the copyright is owned by the photographer or his/her estate. Also a lot of contributors here take the easy road and just call everything "promo" without checking further. All the wonderful George Hurrell photographs for example are owned by his estate and as fine art fetch very high prices but from time to time they pop up on Wikipedia with a "promo photo" tag. Clearly they are not. Same with the Kobal images. Rossrs 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I just now uploaded a Witness for the Prosecution screenshot here. As I mentioned, I thought that it would be a good idea, if we're having a last movie screenshot, to also have a screenshot from the first starring role. Click here to see the Lloyd's of London screenshot that I have. Whatever is the consensus is fine with me. I would not, however, take images from another site without asking. Just courtesy. I think it's very nice to see people working together to come up with a good resolution. goldenerafn 05:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that The Luck of the Irish is an excellent photo, from a very good light romantic comedy. Not one of Tyrone Power's really big films, but I wouldn't see why it wouldn't be okay to include it on the page somewhere, if there is room for it. Tyrone Power made several romantic comedies, and his earlier ones, especially with Loretta Young, were quite popular when they were released. I still like the idea of having the first starring role and last movie up. But, you know, The Luck of the Irish came along in 1948, so if we used it, instead of Blood and Sand, there would be the advantage of having a wider spread on the years. You would have Lloyd's of London (1936), Jesse James (1939), Mark of Zorro (1940), Luck of the Irish (1948), Witness for the Prosecution (1957). You would also have a variety of types of movies --- drama, western, adventure (swashbuckler), comedy, mystery/ courtroom drama. And, you would have really big movies and one smaller movie. goldenerafn 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK to tidy it up : here are the images we're discussing just to make it easier to find them.

  1. Lloyd's of London, with Madeleine Carroll (Goldenerafn)
  2. Lloyd's of London, with Madeleine Carroll (Rossrs)
  3. Luck of the Irish (ArnieP)
  4. Witness (Goldenerafn)
  5. Witness (Rossrs) similar to the one above
  6. Witness - Sweaty Tyrone (Rossrs)

new images:

  1. MarleneDietrich, Power and CharlesLaughton in the empty courtroom
  2. Charles Laughton and Henry Daniell interviewing Power at the jail.


I like Goldenerafn's suggestion of using five images to give a wider sweep of his career and a wider range of types, especially including the first and last films. This would be my preference (click here and scroll down to see an experimental edit I did, to show how these images would look.)

  1. Lloyd's of London
  2. Jesse James
  3. Mark of Zorro
  4. Luck of the Irish
  5. Witness for the Prosecution - I like the one with the beads of sweat, but I can see it being unpopular so I'm happy with the non-perspiring image - my image is very similar to Goldenerafn's but I think it's slightly higher resolution. I also think ArnieP has a good point about including other actors, so the inclusion of Madeleine Carroll in the "Lloyds" shot is good. I'll see if I can find something suitable from "Witness" showing him with Charles Laughton or with Marlene Dietrich (there might even be some good ones of him at the party with Norma Varden) and if I can find something I'll upload it for your consideration.

Rossrs 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Lloyds of London - I knew I'd previously seen the image on the page ArnieP found. Sure enough, it's in a book I have called The Movie Makers, printed 1974. The preface to the book makes it clear that images used are promotional photos and cites copyright status. I've scanned it from the book, and have added it to the list of options. Rossrs 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with using the photos as listed by Rossrs, except I actually like the sweaty photo better than the "pensive" one from Witness. I can't say that I find the one with sweat particularly flattering, but I don't think that it shows him in a bad light. It isn't a posed photo, but rather a capture of him acting out a scene. goldenerafn 16:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the close up is we don't get much impression of what is going on. I think it would be nice to have a wider shot with Charles Laughton in frame. Arniep 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. Rossrs 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well that was easier said than done. Very hard to get a good shot where he either doesn't have his eyes closed, or is grimacing or standing with his back to the camera!!. I could not find anything suitable in the courtroom scene other than the previous images. In all of the longshots the focus is on Charles Laughton and Power is well in the background. I also found a number of shots where he was smiling and charming - well I think that we've covered smiling and charming. So, two shots to be considered MarleneDietrich, Power and CharlesLaughton in the empty courtroom and Charles Laughton and Henry Daniell interviewing Power at the jail. Both are quite dramatic and I think either would be suitable. cheers Rossrs 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Any would be fine. I like the one at the jail - I had noticed that one before and thought it might work. We'll see what the others think.Chandler75 15:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I prefer the court shot with Dietrich- you can see more of Power's face and it has plenty of drama to it. Arniep 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the one in the jail. Just a question for Rossrs --- What type of equipment do you use to take such crisp screenshots? Most screenshots that I see are not nearly that clear. goldenerafn 16:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You need software for your computer such as PowerDVD. Arniep 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The one I use is "Nero Showtime". I think I prefer the courtroom one also - Power is the centre of the image while in the other one he's not the focal point. I think it also nicely demonstrates the unlikeability of his character. Dietrich is clasping him but his hands are firmly in his pockets and rather than look at her he's avoiding eye contact completely. I think that's quite dramatic and more revealing of the character. In the other one, it's a nice profile shot, but it's not greatly different to the Luck of the Irish shot. Also, although I think it's a nice image of Henry Daniell in the jail, Dietrich is more a "star" for Power. So it also demonstrates the calibre of co-stars he was playing with even at the end of his lengthy career. Rossrs 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Of all the Witness for the Prosecution shots, the only one that I absolutely hate is the one with Marlene Dietrich. I would go with any of the others, except that one. goldenerafn 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Dietrich is holding up his dead body. Who knew there were so many bad pictures of such a handsome man. Just expressing my opinion, which I'm sure will be most unwelcome.Chandler75 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I added it as we don't want to show him smiling in every pic and I think it gives you more of an idea of the film than the others. Arniep 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I think you've successfully avoided having him smiling in every picture. There are eight photos of him on the page, and he is smiling in only one (Blood and Sand). goldenerafn 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's funny but the only one with him smiling is the Karsh photo, ironic eh? Arniep 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, for a man whose smile "would light up the darkest hour of the day, like a sunburst" (George Sander's comment), the Karsh photo doesn't exactly do his smile justice. So, sure, it's ironic. For one of many examples of what Ty's smile really was, check out: ttp://tyforum.bravepages.com/40G/40b.gif . goldenerafn 18:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you're right, we want drama, not charm, and we want other people. If we have to live with it, there you go. And I agree Witness should be in there. I guess you could say he looks unlikeable, as Rossrs suggests. Dead, but unlikeable.Chandler75 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have a compromise. This is the only one of the Witness photos that I totally dislike. Seems that Chandler feels the same. So why not just choose one of the others? goldenerafn 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I now see that Arniep just went ahead and switched the photo, with no further discussion. I thought that we were going to try to come to some type of consensus before changing photos. Guess not. Not sure why I bother to voice an opinion, since it just gets mowed down. goldenerafn 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. User:Chandler75 and User:Goldenerafn both feel very strongly against the courtroom image, and I completely respect that. I prefer the courtroom image but not strongly, and if I didn't think the prison photo was a good one I would not have suggested it. I also think that Chandler and Goldenerafn feel more strongly against the courtroom image than either Arnie or myself feel in favour of the courtroom image. So I think the prison photo is the one we should run with. Arnie, I don't know whether you just have a little too much enthusiasm but I can really understand why people feel like their opinions aren't being taken seriously, when, in the middle of a discussion, you go ahead and make everyone's decision for them. There was no consensus before, but I guess now there is. I'm going to change the image, and the superfluous ones that I uploaded I am going to list on Wikipedia:Images for deletion. I hope that with all the progress we've made recently in cooperating and discussing and respecting each others viewpoints, that we are not about to take a backwards step. Rossrs 08:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the images as per the discussion above, and have listed the images that I uploaded but that are not being used, on Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Goldenerafn agreed and nobody objected. I've moved the Karsh image slightly and made it marginally smaller so it's similar to the other images, and increased the size of the grave photo so it's basically the same size too. Rossrs 09:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually really really dislike the jail photo so I'll have a hunt for a better one that shows more of his face . Arniep 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Rossrs, thanks for the image adjustments. I think the page looks so much better with the changes that you made. goldenerafn 18:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, I think its nice of you to keep looking for a screenshot that would appeal to everyone. But, if you do find another photo that you think is better, I would appreciate a chance to have a preview of it, along with discussion, before the one currently there is removed. goldenerafn 18:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Arnie you should have mentioned before that you dislike the image so much, so that we understand exactly what you're thinking. Ideally we should be using an image that everyone is happy with, so although the majority are happy with the current image, by all means, let's see if there is something better. I'd also appreciate the chance to see it before it becomes part of the article. Rossrs 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was my comment removed? Because I am Gay? My opinion matters. I forgot to mention for an actor that never had comments made while alive of bi-sexuality, there is much length in the article on rumors decades after his death. One or two lines on most people seems to sufice. It's length is out of proportion for so little written material. This makes me wonder about the motives of the writer. Posting printed facts or driving home a personal opinion?Marcus9 13:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Marcus, please see the above section on this page regarding bisexuality - the response to you is up there, as this section is for the images.Chandler75 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I wrote there. Here, I still think the picture of Tyrone Power by Yousuf Karsh does not fit in this article. Every picture easily indicates work he did. This picture does not do that. It's a hard picture of him and doesn't keep the article consistant in my thoughts. Enough said by me.Marcus9 12:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh picture isn't going to be removed as it is free, so you might as well give up on that. Regarding the bisexual allegations, I originally tried to reduce them myself but other users added lengthy counter arguments making the section much more noticeable than it was before. Arniep 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

In general, because of the goals of our project, it is unacceptable to use a non-free image in an important role where a more clearly free image is available. Under fair use we may only take from a copyrighted work if we are discussing that copyrighted work. Look at counterexample 2 from Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples: An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses.. It is not fair use to take parts of a copyrighted movie merely because it contains a picture of someone we're talking about.

As a result I've reorder the images in the article to move the image which appears the most free to the top (where we aren't talking about a movie at all), and I've removed several images where I could find no evidence of us actually discussing the copyrighted work that we took the excerpt from. Yes, such violations are widespread in some places on Wikipedia, but that isn't an excuse. Be forwarned that citing examples of other violations will just bring them to the attention of people who will clean them up too.

While some editors may not care about the amount of free content in this article, preferring to make it as attractive as possible at the expense of free content the same motivation is not shared by Wikipedia as a whole... The purpose of this project is to make an encyclopedia of free content, and when we say free we mean free as in freedom, not free as in "whatever isn't bolted down".--Gmaxwell 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Really nice work, Arniep. You changed the photos around so many times... and you did see that we were going to mediation on the pictures. So, instead of allowing for mediation, you just call in one of your buddies to do your dirty work of changing around photos. And, you wonder why you're being called a bully? goldenerafn 00:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel bullied but we are just trying to maintain the use of free use images on Wikipedia. We couldn't allow the Karsh photo to be removed as it would set a bad precedent for all other free use images that people didn't like to be removed too.
If you're "sorry" is more than just lip service, I would suggest that you refrain from bringing in someone to rearrange photos, when there is an ongoing discussion about it. Also, you might want to refrain from deleting my comment on User Talk pages. I'm referring to the following comment of mine that you deleted on Gmaxwell's talk page, where you were thanking him for joining the fray: "Oh, yeah, that's the way to calm things down, Arniep. Drag someone in to do your dirty work of changing pictures around for you. And you're offended at being called a bully!" It is bully behavior to start deleting others' comments. If you really want things to calm down, you will stop deleting comments; rearranging photos without regard to discussion; bringing people to mediation that you know will have your viewpoint, though they were never party to the original discussion; and bringing in people to do your editing for you. These are specific examples of your behavior that cause people to call you a bully. goldenerafn 02:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comment from Gmaxwell's page as it was a personal attack. I asked Greg to come in as he deals with the usage of images on Wikipedia not because I know him (I don't). Arniep 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Arniep 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Arniep's buddy, I've only seen him around the Wiki a few times. Arniep contacted me presumably because he saw some things wrong here, and he knows that I deal with image copyright matters all the time. I didn't make the changes to the article as a favor for Arniep, I made the changes because they were the right thing for us to do. I would have done the same in any other simmlar article I encountered. --Gmaxwell 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep brought you in because he had exhausted other editors' patience with his constant rearranging of photos, while we were having an ongoing discussion about it. I think it would have been better to let the parties who were in dispute have their mediation without enlisting others in the fray. goldenerafn 02:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but that is just wrong. My main concern here is that we should not remove free images. It is true that I continually restored the free image when it was removed. Arniep 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, you made the edits while this was being discussed in mediation. Arniep shows bad faith to the mediation process by calling you in, and circumvents the process while the other participants are keeping away from the article and restricting their comments to the mediation. If the aim of mediation is to completely ignore the comments of the mediator and of all participants, Arniep is doing a fantastic job. The images have been there for a couple of weeks and leaving them for a couple of days while the mediation processed continued, would not have been an unreasonable expectation. Rossrs 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I have to say I did not act in bad faith. I asked Greg to come in as I know he believes that we should protect the usage of free images within Wikipedia. If you want to try and create a policy that allows fair use images to be given preference over free ones you are free to do that. Arniep 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I'm about at all. Remember, I was the one supporting the Karsh image initially when it was the only one we had. Rossrs 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Rossrs, as I replied on my talk page.. the images aren't a matter for mediation, they are a cut and dry matter of Wikipedia policy and copyright law. As I understand it, mediation is intended for dealing with point issues between small numbers of users. This is a broad issue and I could bring in any number of users to support this position. I haven't looked deeply enough into the mediation to know, but if the image copyright issue was the only factor, then it was a mistake to bring the matter before mediation in the first place. --Gmaxwell 02:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't the only issue and the mediation request was fair. I agree with the copyright issue, so it won't be necessary to bring other users in as far as I'm concerned. I think the timing of the edit was the problem, and those of us who felt wronged by it, need to step back and cool down. Myself included. Rossrs 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The mediation regarding the photo itself was about what the rule on wikipedia actually is only. If that is the rule, I am satisfied, and I appreciate the additional information on adding of other photos, etc. So I am satisfied on that point. I would, however, as the mediator suggested, like to see this photo elsewhere in the article. And it should not have been changed without informing the mediator and everyone else on the mediation page first.Chandler75 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Concerning Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03_Tyrone_Power: Do you require further mediation? Several people indicated further mediation might be necessary. --Fasten 12:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

I have added some screenshots to the page to replace those that were removed. I added information about the respective films depicted by the screenshots, in a good faith effort to follow the rules for using screenshots. I moved the Karsh image down the page and the John Brown's Body shot up, with text added to the opening paragraph to tie in the picture appropriately. Both the Karsh image and the John Brown's Body are public domain, so either is eligible to be used as the top photo. I have rearranged these two photos in accordance with the suggestions of the mediator. I respectfully request that no changes be made to the photo without first discussing it on this page. goldenerafn 18:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with moving the Karsh pic, but I couldn't see the detail as it was so I've enlarged it a little. Arniep 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Very informative page.Chandler75 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, if you couldn't see the details on the Karsh image, then you can't see the details on the other photos either. The Karsh image should be smaller than the other photos, because it is a closeup portrait. The screenshots have two or more people in them, so to make the portrait in line with the size of the other pictures, it needs to be smaller. Otherwise, the portrait itself is double the size of the other photos and jumps out of the page, dominating it (because the other photos are longer distance and two or more people in the same shot). Anyone who needs to see detail can click on the thumbnail --- that is what the thumbnail is for. goldenerafn

Okay, I tried to compromise. Arniep, you had actually made the photo larger than it was when it was the main photo. That is just way too big for a photo that isn't supposed to be the main photo. So, I enlarged the photo from what I previously had it, but decreased it from the huge 250 px that you had. Please, try to get along on this. The picture that everyone hates is still on the page, so you did get your way on that. The picture is certainly large enough that anyone who is interested can make it larger by clicking on it. I simply do not like having a nice page ruined with an oversized portrait that draws attention away from everything else on the page. I'm trying very hard to get along here. goldenerafn 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a lot bigger than the other photos accompanying the article. It's easy to click on it and get it to a very large size if one wants to examine it more closely. I've done that with several photos on Wikipedia.Chandler75 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with that size but please don't reduce it any further. We should keep free images larger than any copyrighted images as this is a free encyclopedia. Arniep 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've any seen that written in any policy or guidelines, but if it is written anywhere I would like to see it. I think the size of the images is ok and yes we can click on them to see the fullsize image if we wish. Rossrs 11:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, I've honestly been trying to abide by the Wikipedia rules. I've searched and searched through the rules about sizing the images. Please copy/paste the language here and where you got it so that I can understand the reason behind changing the screenshots to make them very hard to even see. I'm sure it must be in there somewhere, but I'd like to see the language for myself. goldenerafn 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the images are fine with regards to size. As we've agreed we can click on the image to see the full sized one. If we say this about the Karsh, we should also agree that it applies to the screenshots. The screenshots are splendid and I think the page looks so much better. I would suggest that they be assembled in chronological order. I can understand the swashbuckler image from Mark of Zorro is related to the last swashbuckler role but I think the image would be better further up. I also think they should be alternated left/right - this is not Wikipedia policy, but it's a widely accepted style guideline, not mandatory, but I prefer it. I don't mind either way. Could the images be moved up a little? It may only be my browser but the Mark of Zorro overlaps 2 sections, as does the Karsh. If they could be moved up by one paragraph they would be more contained within their sections, and (hopefully) will view neatly on all browsers. Rossrs 11:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I personally think that the screenshots should have been a little bigger than the Karsh photo to allow for the fact that at least two people are in each screenshot (and, in the case of Witness for the Prosecution, three people). The more people in a frame, the smaller each individual picture. As it stands now, the portrait is much more visible than the screenshots, due to the composition of each screenshot as opposed to the portrait. I think that it would look much better to downsize the portrait to make it more in line with the comparative sizes of individuals within the portrait. This is in keeping with good website design. However, I will go along with keeping all photos identical, just to try to appease others. I think that Basil Rathbone's comment about Power's swordsmanship needs to be next to the picture; therefore, I moved the comment up the page and added enough text to make a decent paragraph. I also adjusted the Karsh photo's placement just a little bit so that the section on "Military Service" would fit in, without running into the "Personal Life" section just above it. Pursuant to Rossrs's suggestion, I reordered the screenshots in chronilogical order by date of movie release. I hope that all these changes will meet with everyone's agreement. goldenerafn 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks Rossrs 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks excellent. I like the idea of the text referring to the photos as Gmaxwell suggested, and I'm glad the mediator thought we could use all the photos. Thank you, everyone, as I have no ability with photos and am not a page designer either.Chandler75 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Rossrs and Chandler. Glad that you like the revisions. I have designed web sites for about a decade now, but it is more challenging when there are so many fingers in the pie. LOL goldenerafn 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Death Rumors section

Arniep, I noticed that you removed the "post death rumors" section. Before you or anyone else puts back the version that was there or writes in another version, I request that you please discuss language to be used. goldenerafn 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I did it because I wanted to make clear that I never had any agenda which you obviously all thought I had. I think there is a case to be made that we shouldn't include information unless it is backed up by others, and I think neither Monkhouse or Mr. Blackwell's claims were verified by anyone else so we shouldn't include them. Arniep 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, I have never been so happy to be proved wrong about someone. Thank you for supporting the removal of the section, since the rumors have been soundly disputed by some people who knew him. goldenerafn 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not anything is added to the page, I think that all the input has been most helpful in placing the photos, connecting the text, sizing the photos, etc. in accordance with policy. I am envious of all of your abilities and knowledge, because it's not easy to read through all of the rules and policies on this site. Anyone interested in contributing to Wikipedia could take a look at this article as an excellent example of a fully developed page, as the mediator Jere suggested it should be.Chandler75 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Article still looks great. There have been a couple of tweaks, etc. - nice page, very complete. Chandler75 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Putting the entire rumors section back into the article is a little more than a "tweak". It would have been nice if OneFortyOne had discussed it before doing so, since the general agreement was that the section would either be removed entirely or decreased in size. I don't believe it is necessary to include rumors to have a complete article, but some people make it their major focus for contributions to Wikipedia. goldenerafn 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

What exactly was his ethnicity? I've removed all the extraneous categories (Irish-French) except for English, because his father was born in England. What was he "mostly"? Irish? JackO'Lantern 07:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have pretty detailed info on his ancestry as I am related. He was pretty much a mixture. He had quite a few bits of French ancestry probably amounting to 1/4 of the total. Only his great grandfather was actually Irish although he may have had an Irish ancestor further back in his French huguenot ancestors in Dublin. The rest was mostly British names. Arniep 11:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok, thank you. Then I guess he should probably just be under the English category, since it seems everything else is more distant. JackO'Lantern 15:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actualy there are more descendants from Ireland than you think I am from that side (Power/Harrington) and they originated from Cork Ireland who moved to England where Ty senior was born. Never heard of the french though new one on me who exactly. You can also relate him to Spanish roots too as some moved to Spain can't say which ones though trying to trace them. But as far as what ethnicity a member of the family says were heinz '57's --Fairy.dust 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1913 or 1914

Which year of birth is correct?

1914 is the correct year.Chandler75 02:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide proof that 1914 is the correct year? Just to be certain. Hotwine8 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have his birth certificate, which states May 5, 1914, and also 1914 is on his tombstone. I'm not sure where the 1913 date came from, but it is occasionally picked up. It is incorrect.Chandler75 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A credit to the Power family

I love the article on Tyrone power it makes us decendants proud.--Fairy.dust 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] So whats all this about the French connection

I have seen a few messages with French ancestry creeping up time and again whats all this about. Its news to me I am related to the Powers through my great gran Mary Catherine Power and nothing was mentioned about the French can any one shed some light about this as I am trying to update family records. Also I believe that JackofOz is related how if you don't mind me asking how? Seems like theres family everywhere and no one knows they exist until you find them through chance like I did. --Fairy.dust 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion about me, FD. I have Irish roots to be sure (to be sure), but I'm not aware that I'm related to any Powers, and I've never made any such claims. Cheers JackofOz 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe Arniep, who has worked on this page, is a descendant, but I don't know how. Also if you look at the imdb message board (imdb.com) on Power's page, there is a person on his message board who says she is related. As far as the French descendancy, I don't know, but his mother's maiden name was Reaume, and I believe that is French, so that would account for some of it. Arnie says that most of Power's roots are French, so he would be a good one to contact. It would be great to have some of it explained on the wiki page as well.Chandler75 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advice sorry took so long to reply been on holiday have spoken to Arniep and got some info have checked the site you suggested and found this most helpfull will update you all when I can get some definate facts to paste on this site take care all--Fairy.dust 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JUDY GARLAND, MARITAL AFFAIRS

Several issues here, though I didn't put them in the article, but I wanted to bring them up.

- According to the Gerald Clarke biography of Garland, she may have faked the pregnancy in order to force Power to make a decision.

- While Power was still married to Annabella, there was a pregnancy documented: Lana Turner reports in her autobiography that she became pregnant and that Power would call in from his South American trip, and they had a code that would indicate whether or not she had had the abortion. She finally did. Before his marriage to Annabella, according to the Guiles autobiography of Power, verified by local residents (though not relevant to Wikipedia), while filming Jesse James, Power impregnated an extra, who gave the baby up for adoption. When he found out, he spent a fortune trying to find the child but did not.

- Power had a relationship with Anita Ekberg (source: Investigation Hollywood by Fred Otash) and also an editor, Mary Roblee (sources: Linda by Linda Christian and A Farmhouse in Provence by Mary Roblee Henry), while married to Linda Christian.Chandler75 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maureen O'Hara reference to John Ford and Tyrone Power

Doing an Amazon.com search inside the book for "kissing", yields her assertions on p190 regarding John Ford - but Tyrone Power is never mentioned by name. The term "liplock" came from a washington post.com review, and isn't found in the text either. I'm not averse to assertions regarding Tyrone Power's sexuality, but they should be properly referenced. --JereKrischel 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that a few people are so eager to "prove" that Tyrone Power was a bi-sexual that they grasp at anything? As Jere correctly says, nowhere does it mention Tyrone Power's name in the John Ford incident. He is not mentioned by name, nor is it even implied that he would have been the other party. And there is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that he was the other party in the Ford incident. Ms. O'Hara did not say that the incident occurred on the set of The Long Gray Line , in which both she and Power starred. She said that it occurred several weeks before shooting of The Long Gray Line ever started --- in the office of Ford at Columbia Studios. There is no reason to believe that Tyrone Power would even have been around Columbia studio at that point in time, since that was his first film for Columbia --- and since filming was several weeks away. goldenerafn 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't looked into the date timings in the same detail you did, goldenerafn, but you make a good point. That being said, I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith at this point, and accept the incorrect reference as an honest, and provably wrong, mistake. Hopefully the anonymous editor understands their error at this point, and will help in the future with more accurate references. --JereKrischel 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


And here we go again. I can verify that this is an incorrect statement. The incident took place at Columbia studio and concerned Ms. O'Hara visiting Ford's office regarding costumes for The Long Gray Line . At no time does she state the name of the actor. Maybe it was John Wayne.
I would like to add a comment that a gay friend of mine who was in show business in Los Angeles made to me. It was, "If all these people were gay, where are the books from the people they slept with?" It's a fair question. After Elvis' death, books were written by women who purportedly had affairs with him and had his child; a hairdresser wrote a book after Bogart's death and claimed to have had an affair with him while married to Bacall. (Bacall denied it and said that "it was against everything Bogie believed in.) A woman wrote a book about her big affair with Cary Grant. And on and on. So where are all the common folk who could have made a fortune saying they slept with Power, Flynn, the whole bunch? Highly unlikely that they only slept with one another - and that statement totally goes against some of the so-called "references" Wikipedia holds in high regard.
In "Audrey Hepburn" by Barry Paris, he writes of Hepburn visiting the set of The Sun Also Rises and states that there was tension on the set. Paris asks Peter Viertel, who was also on the set and is the husband of Deborah Kerr, was the tension due to the alleged affair between Tyrone Power and Errol Flynn. Viertel became very angry and said, "There was no tension. And there was never any such affair." I'm only making a point. Some people actually knew these individuals.Chandler75 02:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I went ahead and converted some inline references to reference tags. Using them is pretty simple, all you need to do is use the following code in the text:

<ref>This is my reference.</ref>

It will automatically show up as a reference citation and footnote with forward and back links. When citing from books, you can use the "cite book" template, which automatically formats the information in a standard form. I've done so for just two examples, but it could be done for other inline citations.

Both of these techniques will help make clearer where information is coming from, and hopefully prevent disagreements regarding sourced statements. --JereKrischel 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] height

It seems like there's been some edit warring over the height value in the infobox. Two notes - 1) the infobox doesn't even display height, so if you want this visible, you should move a reference to his height into a paragraph of text. 2) please cite references for his height. If he was measured at 5'10" at death by a coroner, use:

5'10"<ref>Measurement by Coroner Mr. X, xx/xx/xxxx, page x</ref>

If he was measured at 6' upon enlistment, use:

6'<ref>Measurement recorded on enlistment application, Fort XXXX, Sgt. XXXX, xx/xx/xxxx</ref>

If there are competing claims to his height, simply give references to them, and let the reader decide which reference to believe. --JereKrischel 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

References have been given as "iMDB, official website, and several photographs", as well as "military sheet p.1". IMDB doesn't have any height information i can find, and there is no indication what the "official website" for Tyrone Power is, nor which photographs could possibly prove his height. Similarly, the military sheet being cited should be cited by date. Please provide more specific references. --JereKrischel 02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jere, I will dig out the military info. IMDb has his height listed on his biography page. CMG claims to be his official website as they license his name and image.Chandler75

[edit] Is his son: Tyrone Power III or Tyrone Power IV

His wife gave birth to his son, Tyrone Power IV, on 1959-01-22.

Wives and children

1) Annabella, married 1939-04-23 and divorced 1948-01-26 One daughter Anne Power (Annabella's daughter, adopted by Tyrone Power) 2) Linda Christian, married 1949-01-27 and divorced 1956-08-07 Two daughters Romina Francesca Power, born 1951 and Taryn Power, born 1953 3) Deborah Ann Montgomery Minardos, married 1958-05-07 One son Tyrone William Power III, born 1959

I don't know which is correct, but there is an obvious conflict. George O'Connor 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

--Tyrone William Power, born 1959, is Tyrone Power IV. Today he goes by Tyrone Power, Jr., as his dad did when he started out. Tyrone Power the movie star (born 1914) was Tyrone Power III. His father (died 1931) was Tyrone Power (actually Frederick Tyrone Power but went by Tyrone) and his father was William Tyrone Power, a comedian (who also went by Tyrone). Tyrone Power IV has a son now named Tyrone Keenan Power, and he's Tyrone V. Tyrone William Power III should be changed to IV.Chandler75

[edit] Ty's sexuality by Marilyn Monroe, by Truman Capote

In Truman Capote's essay over Marilyn Monroe, "A Beautiful Child" (first appeared in Music for Chameleons), Marilyn tells him that she already knew about Errol Flynn's homosexuality because her masseusse ("she is like a sister to me") told her of the affair between Flynn and Tyrone Power. The meeting between Monroe and Capote, according to the story, happened on April 28th, 1955. I think that's a testimony to consider. Nazroon 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---If Wikipedia insists that that anecdote be included because it appeared in print, fine, but that is obviously a third-hand story and not "testimony." In the Barry Paris biography of Greta Garbo, author Peter Viertel, who knew both actors and was present on the set of "The Sun Also Rises" as he wrote the screenplay, was adamant that there was never any affair. It is stated in the book "All Those Tomorrows" that "Errol Flynn's biggest problem was that he could not keep his hands off of teenaged girls." This has been documented; there is no direct evidence anywhere of Errol Flynn's homosexuality let alone bisexuality.Chandler75 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lloyds of London image

I have restored the Lloyds of London image. It was the subject of discussion regarding images, and the decision at the time was that it was useful in showing his first starring role. The discussion still exists above. I'm completely in favour of using free images where possible, and if this allows the deletion of unfree media, all the better, but I don't think this article needs 3 images from Alexander's Ragtime Band. Perhaps all the unfree images should be removed from this article as there are now several free images that show what Power looked like and also shows him in some film roles. Rossrs (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think a lot of these could be replaced by public domain images from trailers- do you have of the DVDs of these films that you could take screenshots from? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not, but I'll see what I can find. The only one I have is Witness for the Prosecution, but I don't think the trailer is included. Rossrs (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Try looking in "extras" or "special features" as the trailer is often hidden in there. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)