Talk:Hollywood Babylon

Untitled

I removed the plagiarism comment, which itself was cut and pasted straight from an Amazon.com User Comment about Hollywood Babylon. I've done some (minor) searching, and cannot find any critical commentary (aside from that Amazon comment) that accuses Anger of plagerism. I certainly could be wrong, but at most I think this deserves not much more than a minor mention. However, I would love to see someone flesh out the Hollywood Babylon entry overall. Piltdown 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason they are the same is that they are both by me. If you want further information check my website:

"The Cut and Paste Club

Plagiarism section restored. Again.

--

Well, ok. But still - this deserves not much more than a brief reference, lower in the HB entry. Not full cut and paste excerpts of possible (and very minor) plagiarism that you tout on your personal website. Additionally, you are referring to a different book (HB II). I've added "plagiarism" to the list of things that Anger has been criticized for. And i've also added a link to your website at the bottom of the entry. I've taken out your HBII/Unsolved Mysteries cut and paste comparisons, which I don't think really belong here, at least in this form. Again -- this book has pretty hefty cultural significance--- i'd love to see the entry expanded overall.

First, I don't think plagiarism is minor, especially in a book which, as you say, has become such an underground icon. That kind of "borrowing" in an academic book would spell disaster. I suppose it's "business as usual" in the area of "true" crime.

The fact is that much of "Hollywood Babylon" is lifted from the 1969 Austin book: William Desmond Taylor, Fatty Arbuckle, Carol Landis, Thelma Todd, Lupe Velez, Marilyn Monroe, Thomas Ince, they're here. I didn't have the time to address all of these areas. But you raise a good point, so I've obtained the 1965 edition of HB, which I'm told varies tremendously from the more current editions. It'll be interesting to see what K.A. was up to. He knocked off the Black Dahlia in HBII. I can't find anyone who has an edition of the reputed 1950s French edition and wonder if it even exists. But I'm quite a skeptic.

Navarro died much later than the first publication. Pls correct. <eg>

Amplification of the description of Busby Berkeley's "drunk driving incident"

I have amplified the original description of the event as "a drunk driving incident" as the incident was obviously far more serious than such a bland description would indicate.Hi There 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg

Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg

Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Publishing date?

This book has been said to be published in the late 50s many times. However is there any proof of this? The earliest I can find is on amazon and that says 1981. I will credit it does seem this book may have been written in the 60s or 70s (but not 50s...Marilyn Monroe was still alive as was Jaynse Mansfield). Good sources would be appreciated!--Maggiedane (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1969 film Mondo Trasho features a character reading from the book.

Evidently the book was released in France in 1959 and I found two references to support this. I'm assuming the 1959 and 1965 editions didn't have the same content as the more well known version released in 1975. I also re-added some of the content from previous versions back to the article (with sources) because way too much of the article focused on how inaccurate the book supposedly is. All of the references supporting that were to a blog which appears to be original research which we can't use (the link has since been removed). I also noticed that there was an accusation that Anger was responsible for the Jayne Mansfield decapitation rumor. While that may be true, the source given (snopes.com) did not state that he was responsible. It only stated the photo of the accident was featured in the book, so I removed that content as well. This article needs to cover what is in the book and give an overview of the inaccuracies (which I'm sure are aplenty) with reliable sources to back it up. Anything more is veering off into POV territory. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FTT

I have already spoken a little to both pinkadelica and wildhartlive. I would like more input, I dont feel 2-3 peoples opinions count as final say. I want further up people to review this if necessary. When I've been given a fair chance then I will take that ruling, and I dont feel I have been.

First on the tone of the article as that is crucial no matter what is linked the old version of the article is not satisfactory. Hollywood Babylon 3 has been released, but not written by Anger. For years this book has been critcized for its content, and no one has ever really sat and said its factual (heck I wonder if Anger himself has). I have tried to google some information on it and as I mentioned above long ago I cant even find a solid place for WHEN it was released. Amazon lists the 80s date but it does seem to be before that and it was seen in a movie in what was it the late 60s? Hollywood Babylon generates a LOT of interest to this day, but there isnt much good information on it out there...if you can prove me wrong feel free to do so. I welcome any good solid links or books referring to it. That being said I believe if I dig through my silent film book collection I could cite several published good authors decrying it.

This link (http://forgetthetalkies.com/2008/08/why-hollywood-babylon-sucksand-what.html) and the other one are my site. When I spoke with a fellow wikipedian about this matter they asked why I didnt just link my sources here. Well for starters I did all the research, and it was published long before it was on Wikipedia (the first expose anyways). Any authorship aside how would one do that? Hollywood Babylon covers several stories and all of the ones in the first book contain several inaccuracies. I have proven that by linking to sites that Wikipedia finds respectable (the TruTV crime library for example) and I did use some books as well (Dark Lover) but I didnt cite them as much (I dont adhere to showing rigid sourcing as its supposed to be presented in an entertaining way though indeed I do research everything I ever write).

Hollywood Babylon 2 is much larger (in size and I believe page content) and would be even harder to cover just linking here. Its an even messier layout, and the last 20 or so pages (dont quote me on the number, I literally did throw the book out once I was done with it) cover several suicides per page. How could one source that here on Wikipedia? It would overrun the article! Im familiar with Wiki layouts (and I have tried my best to adhere to them when I edit here) and I cant think of any way one could lay it out and just use the sources I did. Its just MUCH CLEANER to link to my articles.

No one has to take my word for it. Feel free to read and judge yourself. I am very angered that mainly one person decided I was a blog and 'not worthy' when other such sites are allowed on Wikipedia. Sites like [1] (or their variants) and [2] are all run by one person, and in certain cases have user contributions like Wikipedia (the PSFL list). Those sites are allowed to link and generally added on wikipedia, I do not see what the difference between them and Forget the Talkies is. We do valuable research and I think it is INSANE to be written off based on layout, and not content. I have fully solid content, content that has been praised by people and in the case of one of my articles was even used at a college in Minnesota (yes I can prove it!) I am currently writing a book for Mcfarland and in general I have recieved praise...just never on Wikipedia. I am so sick of adding here and being yelled at for spending hours working hard and research something. Its no hair off my skin if this is not linked. BUT it is a shame to all those dead people slandered in this book. Make it as neutral as possible but I challenge any one of you to go pick up either Babylon book, read my site, and do your own research and make your own conclusions. Thank you.--Maggiedane (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's more than one issue here, but until there has been a determination of this, I'd suggest you stop returning the link to your own website, featuring your own original research, into articles. Meanwhile, you're not going to get much of any commentary or response on this page, it isn't highly visited. This needs to be brought up at Wikipedia:Original research/noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard to get a good measure of opinion on your website. I can tell you ahead of time what the outcome will be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would let you post the query, or I will do it tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to work the upper Wiki hierarchy (otherwise I already would have) but I welcome it and that is indeed what I want. I want more than one persons opinion, and I have already pretty much stated that above. I welcome it, and if that is not satisfactory I still would like answers to my other questions...such as how one should edit this article to begin with if one link is not used (layout wise, inaccuracies wise, etc). --Maggiedane (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to post them. Hopefully we can get a good consensus.--Maggiedane (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason whatsoever to delete sourced content from an article. I found not one but two sources that back up the claim that the book was originally published in France in 1959. There's no reason to remove that and I've since restored it. If you simply don't agree with the content, express that on the talk page instead of removing sourced content for no valid reason. There is already a criticism section that needs a source and THAT section could be expand to detail what is wrong if and only if reliable sources can be found to back up the errors. If not, it needs to stay out. The fact that the accusation that Anger is solely responsible for starting the Mansfield decapitation rumor was not only misrepresented the first go round, but wholly unsourced this go round. Anger is a living person and a statement like that could be considered libelous. Unless there's a reliable source to back up that claim, it needs to stay out once and for all. As for all this talk about links, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS springs to mind. If there are dubious sources on other article, remove 'em. Using their presence as an excuse to justify adding a link that has already been removed by more than a few editors is not going to work. Unless a blog or fansite is written by an authority on the subject, it will be difficult to convince anyone here that it merits inclusion as a reliable source. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL Pink Im sorry its just funny to say 'libel' for Anger when thats pretty much what he did to these long dead people! First I would like to say critcizing a book (which I've already gone on and on about above, why will know one tell me how they want this layed out if my article is not used?) is not libel against Anger...he is a self proclaimed Satanist (some other word is used I guess) and that is sourced solidly...but other then that I dont think anything goes against him. I'm going to try and edit this as a mix of the two articles. The reason for the revert is not trying to delete what you added (sorry that was an accident) but because the old article is out of date and just as unsourced as the other. If my article is not used we basically have a handful of things that can be sourced and none of them are all that important (other than publishing date and the curse bit).

Okay just cleaned it a little. I wanted to add I tried to add some statements about what is wrong with it...and these (feel free to do yourselves as well) can be sourced without me. Dark Lover would be one good source, and I believe several Novarro bios would also help. Taylorolgy could be used for Miss Thomas. I would like to reword it further to say what Anger said and what really happened, but I dont wanna be picking fights here, so maybe you guys can word it how you like. --Maggiedane (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, by your logic, it's perfectly acceptable to put in potentially libelous statements about a person if they made erroneous statement about others and they're self proclaimed Satanist? Interesting viewpoint. Regardless of your personal feelings about the man, the source given this go round is the same as the last one (snopes.com) and that source does not state that Anger is responsible for the rumor. It only says his book featured the picture of Mansfield. That's it. Nothing more. Same goes for the content in the lede. The article cite from The Guardian (which is cited as a source) doesn't say anything about the book being "criticized for its scandalous style, and a lack of fact checking". That is pure misrepresentation of sources and frankly, deceptive behavior. As for "accidentally" removing sources and content, you did it twice which doesn't indicate an accident at all. Is there a reason why the publishing dates aren't important in your opinion? They are traditionally included in other articles about books so, why is it not important for this article? Further up on this page, you asked for references for the content, I have provided them yet that's not good enough? At this point, I've thrown good faith out the window. This is about "your" or "my" article, this is about writing a neutral, well sourced article that informs the reader. We don't own anything here and there are policies to abide by. If you're not familiar with them or if you don't know how to write an article properly, try listening to people who have been here more than a hot minute and who are attempting to guide you in the right direction. If you don't like the constraints of silly policies like WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:RS, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. At this point, I'm washing my hands of this situation because I don't like being lied to and I don't like working with people who use Wikipedia to promote their personal agendas and opinions. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pink I reverted the article twice because when I skimmed it it appeared to just be a revert to the version before I edited it at all, I did not realize you had added sources. I think the fact that I did what I said I would shows that I did not mean to delete those. I dont know what your referring to about the guardian article in the current edit, I think maybe you've misread how I was sourcing that line. Maybe a citation needed tag should go on the end of that sentence, because the guardian article is for the very last sentence (hollywood folklore) which it does reference. And no I am not saying eye for eye, I just said I thought it was funny (funny ironic I mean). When I added that statement I used the cinemarto source (any page history should verify this) and at some point during all this editing and delinking it was removed and Im not sure by who. So I added it back in and another source with it as well. Im not saying 'Satanist' like ooo evil Satanist, Anger has a history with the occult (several of his films and works and such) and hes quite proud of it. I dont see how thats libel at all. Maybe the sentence can be reworded but it is a part of the story, Anger was reportedly upset over Hollywood Babylon 3 being done without him. I am not arguing with your sourcing, and as I have already stated that was an accident and I have put all your sources right where they were with the statements they were with word for word in I think all cases. The publishing date is important.

I am asking how this layout should be done because without that article I do not see how I can source my claims without it being very messy and random (and I already talked about this all above). I tried to fix some of this in the origin section, and I have not readded any controversial links. Im still wanting the right info here, but Im trying not to be controversial about it.--Maggiedane (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the sentence about Anger being solely responsible for rumor can't be reworded because you have no source for it. You misrepresented the snopes.com source twice in an effort to get it in, so obviously you can't find a source to back up the statement. The fact of the matter remains that the rumors started when early reports of the accident stated that Mansfield was decapitated (and here's two sources backing that up source #1 and source #2). The most Anger probably did was perpetuate the rumor when he reprinted the photo and made up his own version of what happened, but the pictures of Mansfield's wig seen on the dashboard of the car (which made reporters assume it was her head) was printed in newspapers years before Hollywood Babylon was released. I found another book, Amazing . . . But False!: Hundreds of "Facts" You Thought Were True, But Aren't, that states Anger likely began the rumor, but likely doesn't equate to being the originator and isn't decisive to back up the claim IMO. As for the lede, I have read and re-read the The Guardian article and I found nothing that states "It has been criticized for its scandalous style, and a lack of fact checking. Many of the embellished stories have entered into Hollywood folklore." Could you point to me where in the citation it states any of that? If you can't, the original lede or a version close to it needs to be restored. Further, the source for the supposed spell Anger put on someone (Page Six from the New York Times) cannot be used a source. It's a gossip rag and considered unreliable per WP:RS. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Book sources

I added 4 solid book sources, all of which mention said scandals and their direct relation to Hollywood Babylon. WHY was this reverted? Its in a neutral tone, its from published books that specifically discuss the topics at hand of Hollywood Babylon. Getting bitchy over blogs is one thing, but deleting solid book sources is quite annoying and obnoxious to be frank.--75.51.187.46 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the edit was reverted because a lot of what was added under the criticism section falls under WP:UNDUE. There's really no need to go overboard in proving that Anger fabricated a story. If we devoted an entire section to what's wrong with the book, the entire article would be about that and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Also, the section clearly states that Anger is responsible for rumors that exist to this day. That should include things like Clara Bow/USC football team rumor and the Navarro/Valentino relationship. The content about Olive Thomas really doesn't fall under rumors that won't die. There was also a few misspelled words and sentences that didn't quite fall under the definition of a sentence. I have since cleaned up what was added and corrected the references. If that's being "bitchy", so be it. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You were not the person who reverted my edits with no reason given. I added the references I knew of because they were direct mentions about Hollywood Babylon's effect on the history and legacy of said stars...which in many cases his recounting became de facto. I think it is of a lot of note when something very specifically is proven false, particularly when most people (wrongly) assume this book is based in fact. However I cant let that one go, I am glad to see the mentions of Valentino and Bow and Novarro left behind. Thank you for cleaning any spelling errors.--75.51.187.46 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I never stated I reverted your changes, I was simply giving you an explanation instead of just letting you whistle in the wind. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)