Jump to content

Talk:Above and Beyond (1952 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"6th BG livery"

[edit]

That phrasing would be ok in a nuts-and-bolts history article, or one on aircraft, but here?
This is a page about some commercial romance movie for non-historians.
Varlaam (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter so much as a caption to a picture, but you're right. I removed it as unnecessary detail. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it was copied verbatim from somewhere where it was clear, there, in that context.
Cool. This article is not for specialists. Varlaam (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that it's OK to skimp on detail in a "non-history" article is disturbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the suggestion. Nothing has been lost; that caption was apparently copied from the Enola Gay article. It's still there.
Unnecessary details that are obscure, meaningless to most readers, and not even explained, add zero encyclopedic value. Because the explanation for this particular detail is out of scope for this article's topic, the detail itself does not belong.
That doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't provide those details somewhere. The Enola Gay article is the appropriate place for them. It is enough that this article includes a link to that one. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BG, par exemple, was not defined. I assume it's Bombing Group.
My point was that this film article does not need a big digression just to define the caption of a photo.
This article should be about how hot the young Eleanor Parker was, not about the subtleties of aircraft markings.
There are other articles where a discussion of the fine points of markings makes sense.
Nicht wahr? Varlaam (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even now, we have the word "hardstand".
I'm a half century old. I don't know what a hardstand is. Why is a movie page using airbase jargon?
Varlaam (talk)
And, parenthetically, I put Tibbets and the rest of his crew into the IMDb, back when I was the IMDb documentary film guy.
I created the IMDb Lenin page. I created the IMDb Stalin page. I did the IMDb cast list for Triumph of the Will.
Goering. Goebbels. But not Hitler, he was already there.
I did the IMDb's "cast" listing for the Zapruder film, and the other, lesser known JFK Dallas home movies too.
I put Tibbets in the IMDb.
I don't know what a hardstand is.
Varlaam (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hardstand is the concrete pad that aircraft use in running up; it has to be thick enough to hold the weight of an aircraft. It is commonly confused with "tarmac" which is the actual description of a tar-based compound used in runway construction, long since abandoned, but has entered the public vernacular as the equivalent of hardstand, runway, landing strip, taxiway and the like. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

See the article hardstand. I see no need to remove a fairly common word from the caption, but I have wikilinked the word so that anyone who doesn't know its meaning may click on it to find out. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I'm wondering now if that's US terminology. Have to ask somebody around here.
Neither of the Canadian dictionaries within reach list it.
Varlaam (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I come from the Canadian aviation industry and it's a common aviation term. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Books about the Arrow! Cool. I don't think I have ever looked at your homepage before.
And we have always had that term then, eh?
Varlaam (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used to work with a guy who'd worked on the Arrow.
But he was oddly negative about it.
Strange. Varlaam (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This be me FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Taylor and Parker were rumoured to be lovers

[edit]

The gay Robert Taylor?
Good one. Varlaam (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to his wives or biographers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
We know that Hollywood wives, unlike wives of regular people, are often just camouflage. That's happened time and time again.
Michael Jackson. A recent issue of Vanity Fair says that before MJ could kiss his fiancée Miss Presley on TV, he called Liz Taylor to seek advice on how to kiss a girl. And MJ was my age.
Tom Cruise? Poor John Travolta. At least Preston is up for grabs now.
In the specific case of Robert Taylor, I don't remember now which book says that. Long time ago now. Well, perhaps whatever it was was simply incorrect, as you've indicated.
Director John Ford. Maureen O'Hara wrote that she walked in on Ford necking with some guy.
And that's John Ford, for goodness' sake. O'Hara has no grudge against Ford; they worked together countless times.
I stopped reading O'Hara's book at that point. If there are more startling gossipy revelations like that in there, I don't need to hear it.
Varlaam (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor was confronted with the rumors of being gay throughout the early part of his career, but there was nothing to those rumors which were based on gossip-mongering, and that is confirmed in both biographies of Barbara Stanwyck, his first wife and biographies on Taylor, who greatly resented the "pretty-boy" image that Hollywood publicists had created for him. He was a product of the mid-west and rarely was part of the partying and social life of the studios. He apparently never proposed to Eleanor Parker, but dated her throughout the production and after, but with the recent divorce from Stanwyck and her blatant entreaties to reconcile, combined with the fact that Parker was a similar Type-A personality, led him to break off the relationship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting.
But are gay rumours swirling around back in those days? It's the 1940s.
"Dare not speak its name" meant nobody used to talk about homosexuals, because they did not exist.
Where would gay rumours be circulating in the 1940s?
But if there is a clear cut explanation for Taylor gossip specifically, then good.
But I still don't like him as an actor. He's too pretty.
Hey, hey, wait, Stanwyck is one of those secret lesbians, supposedly.
I forget what you call it; they're each other's camo. Marriage of convenience.
Varlaam (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a book called The Sewing Circle?
That could be what I'm thinking of.
Varlaam (talk)

When do I call BS?! Both Taylor and Stanwyck also had fairly glorified careers as heterosexuals with numerous confirmed affairs. What books are you reading again? If you check out Taylor, that "pretty-boy" persona was completely unlike him who pushed to go into the military in World War II despite being overage, was a noted horseman and rancher and had numerous buddies that would attest to his manliness, including Clark Gable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Sewing Circle: Sappho's Leading Ladies by Axel Madsen features Stanwyck as one of "those" without a stitch of evidence to back it up, especially since he had earlier authored Stanwyck while she was still alive and never once mentioned even the hint of "that, that should not be spoken." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Fine. This is not my field.
If Gable vouches for Taylor, then I guess he's ok. But I still don't like his movies because he seems so damn wimpy.
Stanwyck is gorgeous; that one didn't sound entirely convincing.
Yes, Madsen, that's the author.
Some would argue that having worked on a biography in her lifetime put him in an ideal position to trot out other details later, in the cowardly cloak of night after she'd passed on.
That argument is a two-edged sword.
What's your acronym, FWiW, by the way, BZed?
Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not hard to figure out, check the letters against the idiom: "For what it's worth"; not much these days, given the economy. Bzuk (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Source for "Sanitary Engineers" veracity?

[edit]

Hi all, I'm wondering if there's a source for the part where it says the sanitary engineers humorous moment was true? The cited source doesn't appear to actually mention anything about that. Thanks! 160.79.60.162 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Above and Beyond (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Above and Beyond (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Above_and_Beyond_(1952_film)&oldid=1197864311"