Talk:Rudolph Valentino/Archive 1

Place of Birth

I changed back the place of birth to Castellaneta. (Apulia is the region, not the town). Miss Tabitha 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

BIRTH NAME

I don't know if Valentino had all those personal names, but I'm sure is surname was simply Guglielmi. He was born in a very humble family and had no nobility title. More, the titles I cancelled sounded very strange and absurd to Italian ears. I've a good knowledge of history and ancient Italian nobility and can assure that such titles never existed. (By the way, Valentina is a personal female first name, not a place). VAL

You're probably right--a lot of European immigrants from humble or ordinary backgrounds gave themselves aristocratic sounding names when they landed in the new world, assuming no one would be the wiser. 64.228.35.165 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We ought to determine this. If he was born with a simpler name - and "acquired" the other names on entry to America - we should state that. Can someone to determine this from a reputable biography? Davidpatrick 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Valentino's Citizenship

According to Emily Leider's bio of Valentino "Dark Lover," Valentino had taken some preliminary steps towards applying for American citizenship (and in so doing infuriated a lot of Italians who considered this "traitorous") but never actually acquired it. (March 16 2006)

Valentino filed an application for naturalization in November 1925. Valentino died before naturalization could take place. Had he lived, it seems evident he would have taken U.S. Citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyfan (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well he might and he might not have. Both times he thought about it Italians who became American were frowned upon. In New York he was looked down on for not being drafted (I believe he tried but was rejected; cant remember why off the top of my head) during WW1; and then towards the end of his life when he did apply for naturalization it caused a bit of a stir as Mussolini was going into power; so going through with it would have all but alientated him from Italy. My bet is had he lived he probably would have put it off as long as possible; possibly until after WW2 when he could have gottne away with it on both sides. I dont know does this need to be in the article? It was something I thought about but did not get a chance to add --Thegingerone (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording

What does Graduated in Agricultural Science in Genoa Nervi mean? -- Zoe

Wax Double or Not?

The article claims that a wax copy of valentino's body was in his coffin at the funeral, but then later the article says that story was only an "urban rumor". Which is it?

It was an urban legend. Miss Tabitha 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not according to Lawrence J. Quirk:

Emily W. Leider in her 2003 biography of Valentino, Dark Lover [Farrar, Straus and Giroux] claims on page 391 that my statement in my August 1986 Quirk's Reviews [in which this article first appeared] that a wax dummy was substituted for Valentino's body “has never been substantiated.” If Leider had even bothered to contact me, which she did not, she would have learned that numerous people substantiated this fact to me, including Adela Rogers St. Johns, whom I knew well and interviewed often, later Photoplay publisher Kathryn Dougherty, historian Terry Ramsaye, and publisher Martin Quigley, among others. She mistakenly quotes in her notes [page 488] my article as being August 1978 when it was August 1986, and lists my name as being Lawrence T. Quirk instead of Lawrence J. Quirk, plus other mistakes. So much for Leider's own inaccuracies. Moreover, I was talking to people like Ramon Novarro thirty to forty years before Leider even began researching. I had first-hand knowledge she could not possibly have obtained many years later when many sources had died.

If Miss Tabitha believes Quirk is mistaken, perhaps she could provide some supporting citation to back up the Urban Legend claim. --AC 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with writing about Hollywood celebrities such as Valentino is that not only are the primary sources long dead, they may not have been all that reliable to begin with. I'm not familar with all the names Quirk cites, but Adela Roger St. John was a yellow journalist and the publishers of Photoplay were notorious for promoting fabricated, sensationalized biographies of stars. As for the wax effigy story, call it a rumor that's virtually impossible to prove or disprove at this point in time and leave it at that. GB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.103.61 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reframing the question to be whether Photoplay is unreliable is besides the point -- Photoplay is not the source we're examining, the source is Lawrence J. Quirk, who I believe is independent from Photoplay. It doesn't necessarily follow from Photoplay being a rag that Quirk was duped, mistaken, or biased. --AC 05:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as one of Quirk's sources about the wax effigy rumor was the publisher of Photoplay, the question of Photoplay's reliability is quite relevant here. GB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.23.8 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Valentino's Homosexuality

I find it outragerous and homophobic that the question Valentino's homosexuality is not even mentioned in the article.24.6.23.248 07:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no real evidence that he was gay, although there were rumors. Perhaps the question of his orientation could be addressed in the "rumors" section of the article. 142.204.135.77 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Film historian Lawrence J. Quirk reports that he interviewed film star Ramon Novarro, who told him of his sexual relationship with Valentino, and how he bowed out of it because Valentino was uncomfortable with his sexuality. For further information see http://quirksreviews.tripod.com/id22.html. User:fshepinc 18 April 2007.

I added a reference to these rumors under "Rumors." Miss Tabitha 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New Biopic?

Has anyone heard anything about this supposed upcoming biopic (mentioned in the article) about Valentino? I can't find anything at imdb. Miss Tabitha 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two projects in the works. One has a finalized script and is being shopped around. The second is only in preliminary stages.

Hooded Falcon?

Hooded Falcon is mentioned in Trivia but not in Filmography. Which should it be? Ralphmerridew 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Hooded Falcon" was never completed; I don't think filming had even begun before the plug was pulled, largely due to escalating costs and the constant interference of Valentino's wife. I added more details to the trivia section to make it clear that this film was never made. Miss Tabitha 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hooded Falcon was scrapped. At first the film was delayed as Ritz-Carlton felt it would be more cost effective and efficient to get Cobra made and in release to get money coming in. Hooded Falcon was to have been filmed next, but due to a disagreement between Rambova and June Mathis on the scenario and due to Ritz-Carlton being fed up with the Valentinos, Hooded Falcon was canceled and the contract between the Valentinos and Ritz-Carlton was dissolved. No footage of Hooded Falcon was shot, only costume portraits were taken of Valentino. When the Valentinos made the trip to Europe in late 1924, Nita Naldi traveled with them, or met them in Paris, ostensibly for her to be fitted for costumes. No photographic evidence exists to support this, unfortunately.

Better Image(3)

File:Rudolph Valentino 1 - Touchup.jpg

File:Rudolph Valentino 1 - Touchup.jpg

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino

Rudolph Valentino

Second Marriage

Isn't there a contradiction in this article, claiming that he had TWO second marriages?

His first marriage to his second wife Natacha Rambova was annulled because he and Rambova claimed it had never been consumated (this was probably to avoid being charged with bigamy). Later, they married a second time.70.49.151.178

$20,000???

This article states: "He arrived with about $20,000 which he promptly wasted. ". That's an awful amount of money for that time, is this true? If so, how did he get all this money? and in what did he spend it to have to later try his hand at gardening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.3.2 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage name

We should determine how and when he got his stage name. Davidpatrick 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumors section

I removed this whole section. First off, there were no citations at all (like most of the article) and second, they are rumors and really have no place in an encyclopedia entry. Now, if there was some persistent rumor that itself had sources and was influential for some reason, then it could be in the article, but as it stands, anything could be added to this section. --Chuck Sirloin 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wilde, Valentino, Liberace...

All three men publicly concealed but privately engaged in behavior that was in their times both illegal and taboo, becoming targets of harsh public campaigns intended to demonize them, and all three attempted to fight back using hoax tactics that employed and pandered to their respective attackers own prejudices.

Wilde pressed hoax libel charges against a Marquess who had good lawyers and was acquitted; in the resulting blowback Wilde was jailed, which helped cause his early death. Valentino challenged an editorial writer to a macho public boxing match, (a kind of hoax), and boxed against a proxy -- it seems possible such stress made his ulcer worse, leading to his early death. Liberace sued the Daily Mirror for libel, won, and did not die young.

I seem to recall something like the above pertaining to the Marquis De Sade, except that Jail probably prolonged his life in revolutionary France; the villains of his novels were proud of their false piety shielding their libertinage. The first story in Boccaccio's Decameron is about a rogue who is made a saint, due to an utterly false deathbead confession. E. Fuller Torrey thinks Ezra Pound escaped being jailed for treason by falsely pleading insanity. J. Edgar Hoover? Andy Kaufman?

Maybe there's a new category in all this, but it's hard to pin it down. The themes and motifs are an unrepentant secret identity of proud nonconformity, a hypocritical public persona often played for fun, jealous rivals, cruel and bigoted gatekeepers, blackmailers, dread of exposure, the fun game becomes a grim merciless battle, stuff like that. The Man Who Would Be King -- Gods don't bleed; Heart of Darkness -- "The Horror". Perhaps other editors know of similar examples that may aid in drawing some better distinction. --AC 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== ESTATE VALUE? == This article mentions his estate and to whom it was left. However, his property, "Falcon Lair" had to be auctioned off to pay his many debts after his death and even that was not enough. His net worth was less than zero. I know this because my grandfather and his brother, Ernest and Clifford Birkel owned an electrical contracting company in L.A. and they "wired" Falcon lair for Valentino to modernize it and make it fully "electric". At the time of his death he had still not paid them, owed them tens of thousands of dollars, (hundreds of thousands in today's money) and even after the auction they received very little because he had so many debts. Dr Dale Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by DR Dale Ireland (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin J edits

Many words in your content are hard to understand. Also I see absolutely nothing moral about erasing reliable just because one person disagrees. Please, quit this nonsense already.

You are crazy and Im not putting up with your trolling. I'll wait for admins to deal with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs) 18 March 2008

Thegingerone, singing voices are not the same as natural voices

Jim Nabors had a southern drawl, but he still could sing opera quite well. This also is not a fan page, and it is only your opinion that my sources aren't reliable and that Fairbanks was not as good of a lover as Valentino. If your willing to compromise, I am too, but you need to keep your opinions to yourself.Kevin j (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I Believe My Writings are the Best.

Thegingerone seems to completely violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view quite often. It is only this user's opinion that Fairbanks was not a good of a lover compared to Valentino and that Emily Leider's book is more reliable than Valentino-The First Superstar. As I said before, singing voices are also not the same as natural voices, and it needs to be made clear to this user. I'm willing to find compromise, but this user apparently doesn't want to and is stuck with righting his/her opinions as facts.Kevin j (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

has he/should he be blocked then? i can already see he is a bit of an annoyance regarding this article, as you say Wikipedia is about fact not opinion, if he continues to add his opinions to the article, and does so with warnings, request an admin to block him. Maxtitan 16:35, 21 March 2008

To Thegingerone, I suggest you quit violating the NPOV policies

Content you typed like Valentino staring as the only lead character in The Four Horseman of The Apocalypse and that he came to America with $20,000.00 are completely inaccurate. Also, saying that Valentino was a better on-screen lover than Fairbanks is very opinionated, which is why I deleted the content, and is written like content on fan sites as well. Yes, Valentino's criminal record is true, and he did keep a diary; hence you are writing like a one-sided fan would by saying he had no record. Keep your opinions to yourself and quit violating the policies, or yes, you will be blocked. Your sweet talk is also not going to fly.Kevin j (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin J 1) quit being insane 2) quit being personal and 3) please make more coherent edits (why 3 there?) I dont know why your so insane but you are; and I'll fight you all the way for a good article. You are still wrong on Valentino's voice. Several sources taken from people who knew and worked with him said he had a voice similar to his singing one (deep but accented). I'll cite this if need be. Im sure someone who worked with him would be more reliable then some 3rd rate buisness book.

Maybe I mispoke with Four Horsemen. He was ONE of the leads in that film. I think I typoed on the $20,000; I meant $2,000. I cited that fact though. You didnt delete anything about Valentino being a better lover; you deleted the fact that Fairbanks did not perform well in love scenes which is not 'fan content' or 'opinion' its just knowledge which can be cited. Valentino's criminal record is NOT true which *I* cited and no he did not keep a diary. Like I said that biography is uncited and full of gossip which can not be proven. If Valentino was alive Wikipedia would call it 'slander'. I did not write it like a 'one sided' fan site; how are any of these points 'fan' views? Id like to reiterate that if Valentino had a criminal record would it not be simple to find via New York records or that if he kept a diary it would have been found and published and heavily cited in biographies? The only 'diary' to do this would be his serialized ghostwriten ones for various movie magazines; long after his early days in New York.

So quit insulting me and grow up; I hope a third party gets on this soon.--Thegingerone (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gossip Magazine? Give Me A Break

The book is just as reliable as The Dark Lover, and Noel Botham has been a good author and even wrote a class-A, best selling biography about Queen Elizabeth II's sister Margaret titled Margaret-The Untold Story. Show me the other sources that claimed Valentino had a voice similar to his singing voice, and show me how Emily Leider sourced her material as well. Tell them how you insulted me too.Kevin j (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No Dark Lover has citations (423 to be exact) and is widely considered highly reliable (5 pages of sources in addition to the citations); not just by myself. Noel Botham has written several gossip styled books; and just because something is 'best selling' does not mean its a good researched book with facts that are proven. I havent insulted you; after 4 or 5 replies of you bashing me I finally told you to knock it off; I regret nothing on that. If you cant play like a grown up then dont play at all.

As for my sources on the talkies to try and be a little more neutral I googled for 30 minutes but could not find any page that discussed Valentino and talkies AT ALL. A few had sentences wondering had he lived would he have transitioned but they never gave a reason or source as to why they thought he would or wouldnt (many implied his accent over anything). So forgive me but I must turn again to the good ol Leider book.

I know there were some quotes in there but Im having trouble just flipping through and finding them. Im going to have to fully reread the book again. But to cite what I was originally claiming (a baritone voice with accent) is on 376 of Leider's book. She however made the same statement that no one knew how he would have transitioned. I'll keep looking; its almost a shame there isnt more info one way or another on this topic beyond wonder since there are recordings and people had obviously heard him.--Thegingerone (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Talkie Transition

A certain user keeps citeing dubious sources on the matter but for a fact they are not true. Judging by the recordings he made Valentino had a deep bartione voice which had a very heavy Italian accent. It was not 'squeaky'.

Leider did a whole anaylsis in her book but admitted without him living its hard to say 'would he have transitioned' or not. He did play foreigners so if he toned down his accent its likely he would have gotten by just fine. But if not; that would probably be the reason. But then again look at Greta Garbo.

Whether this should be in the article or not I find questionable. Especially in his case of dying right as talkies came out he never attempted or had to worry on the matter. Beyond Leider is there any further GOOD sources that cite what may have happened?--Thegingerone (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Read my writings better, as I only said that it was questionable and not that it was certain.Kevin j (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add I found one source on Valentino's voice that is more then vague; http://www.altfg.com/blog/actors/rudolph-valentino-donna-hill/ (scroll down to the 4th question). Its not much but its more then I've been able to find online or off so far. Shame none of those radio broadcasts still exit!--Thegingerone (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found this book which if you click here under 'excerpt' the reporter speaks of her expierence with Valentinos 'pleasent' voice.--Thegingerone (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I know why you keep posting links about his voice. Is there something I've missed in the current version of this article that questions the quality of his voice? Has anyone else in the past month added or stated anything that would make it necessary to keep finding sources? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep adding? I just added one note. Im happy with the current version, but I figure if people want to add something about his vocals or raise claims about his voice then its nice to have the sources. I dont think theres any place to add it in the current version thus why I put it here. Jeesh Im not trying to start something, I was just making a note and I thought it belonged in this section.--Thegingerone (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple references to the same book: this looks bad!

It appears there are about 150 separate references to Emily Leider's book. This isn't good style! Please look at some other articles to get ideas for citing the same book more than once. The article can't remain this way. There is the possibility that a new editor will come along and revert all the recent changes to get rid of the funny appearance. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for why I believe my version is best

Personal annoyance aside I have real reasons for wanting the revert back to my last edits.

Kevin J's sources are questionable. The book Noel Botham, "Valentino: The First Superstar" is cited several times yet it is mainly the rehashing of another early 70s Valentino biopic "Valentino the Love God". The cited book itself has no sources or references...so that is suspect. His other source for the talkie isnt even a Valentino book. I'll get to that in a minute.

As for my source Emily Leider is considered de factor the Valentino biography of choice as it is well cited and sourced. I dont know how to clean up the Wikipedia citations as Im not good with that; but I dont feel that makes those facts any less true as they can be sourced beyond the book; unlike the other one.

Some of the editing is fine. What annoys me the most is the removal of perfectly relevant and cited information. Such as Valentino waisting $20,000 when he reached New York. Thats relevant because his poverty is what led him to dance, which led him to films. Why this is removed is beyond me. He also removed a note about Wong and Hayakawa which makes no sense; both as said suffered similar hardships as Valentino due to race.

Then there is some outright made up details which must come from that unsourced book. Such as Valentino writing in a diary, and contemplating suicide. He never did either. In fact the only 'diary' he kept was via one of those magazine serializations. Valentino set out to make a man of himself; killing himself would have deeply upset his mother so its unlikely he would have thought that route. Just one more reason that source is forgive me but shit.

His taxi dancing did not begin with a resteraunt; and why the other details there were deleted is beyond me. The note about Valentino being a blackmailer and a petty theif is also untrue. I even cited that originally. Why the information about his name was removed is again beyond me.

He removed the note about Fairbanks love scenes. This is citeable by several sources; so why he would remove it is beyond me. It is key because it shows why men were so Anti Valentino.

And my BIGGEST complaint is his line about talkies which he keeps putting in quite literally I believe to spite me. I find this something hard to make 'encyclopediac' as Valentino never recorded sound on film; and never most likely intended to as he died the year The Jazz Singer (the film that brought on the talkie revolution) was released. So to really say which way or the other (talkies would have killed or helped his career) is extremely difficult. And the line 'he had a squeaky voice' makes me maddest of all as I can prove myself this was not true. Valentino made 2 song recordings in his life, "Kashmiri Love Song" and "El Relicaro". You can hear them yourself at: http://cdbaby.com/cd/rudolphvalentino . He did not have a squeaky voice; he in fact had a deep baritone with a heavy Italian accent. So whether this would have went all Garbo or not is really unknown and why I feel at the LEAST that sentence needs to go. Its source isnt even a book about Valentino!!! I could source Leider's book as to why or why not he would have made talkies; but this line is incorrect completly.

So hopefully some third parties will sort this out. And hopefully incorrect information will be removed as there is enough of it out there about Valentino; and I find that quite annoying.--Thegingerone (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd party help

Alright...since this back & forth bickering isn't going to get anything solved, let's try to compromise on a version that everyone can agree on. First off, the only way I'm going to help is if EVERYONE involved is capable of expressing themselves in a mature & polite manner. I'm here to help and name calling, etc is not helpful. Also, as a courtesy, please do NOT start a new section when answering someone else's comment. Please read WP:TP to learn how to correctly respond to another editor. This helps the talk page from becoming cluttered and hard to follow. Judging from the history page of this article, the first section that seems to be a problem is the "New York" section. Let's start with that. What exactly can't be agreed upon and what should be said in that first section? Pinkadelica (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well New York point only this is where I stand. The $2,000 (minus my typo) needs to be returned, as does most of what I wrote for the first paragraph. Valentino was NOT a petty theif and DID NOT keep a diary as I have already stated and cited; he also did not try suicide at that point (he once had tendecies when divorcing Natacha but not during NY). The citations Kevin J has used (Valentino Superstar) are not reliable; as the book itself cites no sources for its claims. Leider's book which I used to cite my claims has citations and sources which I mentioned above. Valentino was introduced to dance at a time when he had been booted out of his cheap apartment; he wasnt 'fascinated' with the dancers. He had learned dancing during his stay in Paris prior to the US move. The part about high society should be returned as thats what he did; why he wasted his money; and how he got affiliated with De Saulles. Im not sure the name of the club off the top of my head; so I dont know if that should be left in there or not or if its even relevant as he danced at several clubs.

The part about being a petty theif and blackmailer again is untrue and he did not have a reputation for that. I have already stated why so that should go. I feel my original De Saulles murder paragraph should be retained as the source is better as is the wording. I guess I'll stop there as thats where New York leaves off; but trust me the talkie thing must be fixed too.--Thegingerone (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ginger. It looks as if the other user has been temporarily blocked from editing so...if you like, you can rewrite the article in this sandbox including what you think should be changed, etc and I'll go over it. I'm not sure which version is the version you'd like to see stay, but I'm using the current version as a start off point. Just write/edit it as you would any other article including new citations, etc. As far as the sources are concerned, I'd have to see both books to understand what you're talking about. I'm not sure if every book used as a reference has to have a bibliography in it to be considered reliable, but I'll check up on both books and give you my opinion on the sources used. Off hand, I think it's safe to say that the article is in desperate need of a cleanup. Not only are things repeated, but there are numerous grammatical errors, punctuation errors, spelling errors, and poorly cited references. These issues need to be addressed before the issues of content and whose sources are "right" is figured out. From what I'm reading on this talk page, only a few issues are being raised anyway so, let's deal with the cleanup part first and then we'll discuss content. If the other editor is unblocked, he is welcome to add to the discussion. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited it as asked. The cleanup that may need done may be beyond me; I tried to get all spelling errors but Im not sure on grammar. And if anything seems repetitive then thats for a 3rd party's eyes to sort out. Im not all 'hey my edit only my edit my edit!' I just want what I feel is factual info in there; and if thats the case and others make the article better then I am fine with it. My biggest complaint between the two books is that the Superstar one was written by a tabloid-esque writer who felt no need to cite or prove anything he claimed. Thats the BIGGEST problem with Rudolph Valentino; so much disinformation is out there about him. Thus my complaints. If we get the facts sorted out thats where my concerns lie; others can fix grammar and such.

One other thing someone else may have to fix: I put the right citations but the way I did it it makes it appear 40 some sources are from pages 1-3 (they arent LOL!) I know the right pages are in the edit; I dont know how to make that appear right. --Thegingerone (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I Read The Book Valentino-The First Superstar myself, and it had a Reliable Bibliography On the Back

The user Kevin J is right, it is a reliable source, and some of your statements ginger were only your opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You User, I Guess I didn't Notice

{editprotected|I don't want any more deletions of my conversations}

Yes, it turns out there is a bibliography in the back page of Valentino:The First Superstar. Bibliographies are lists that contain sources. Once again Thegingerone, it appears that a number of the facts you gave in this page are only your opinions talking.Kevin j (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, none of your talk page comments have been deleted. Another editor cleaned up the page because you insist on creating a new section for every comment and your topic headings were inappropriate. That was done out of courtesy, not to cover up anything. Nothing on Wikipedia is lost anyhow, so if you feel your comments were somehow deleted and you feel misrepresented, you should contact an administrator and ask them to review the talk page history and restore any content.

I'm gathering the source of contention between you & TheGingerOne is the mention of Valentino being a gigolo in his early days. Evidently, that seems to be true as I have found two separate (reliable) websites that have stated this. As far as I'm concerned, it can and will be mentioned in the article. The first version of the article relies too heavily upon one source which means the entire thing needs to balanced out and rewritten. You are free to lend a hand at the sandbox version of the article. However, as I stated above, this article needs a complete overhaul because of all the edits that were done and reverted numerous times. There's too many grammatical and spelling errors and the entire thing needs to be restructured. In other words, one source not being included isn't the problem here, the page is a hot mess because no one wanted to compromise or work together when it came to content. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinkdelica Im not sure your sources but the gigolo thing is unproven. Taxi dancer was associated with 'gigolo' in those days. Quite obviously its really hard to prove one way or another (not like he kept a written record of being paid for sex) but I do agree its not 'officially untrue'. Its possible; but like the talkies I feel its hard to prove. However the petty theif one is. That originated with the 1977 film; I mean if he had a criminal record I think it would be findable. Same for the diary. As for Kevin J I didnt say the book DIDNT have a biblography; just a lack of sources for its claims. I dont own the book but I have flipped through it; if I have this wrong then my apologies but I would like to see Superstar's citation for 'petty theif' amongst other things. And Kevin J I cleaned up the talk page; I didnt delete a word its all there. No need to get so worked up. --Thegingerone (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, I'm a bit perplexed as to what you two are fighting about. The versions between you two aren't really that different (at least not the last versions before the page was locked). I'm guessing the phrase "who were nicknamed "gigolos" by the public" in the "New York" section is the main source of the disagreement. Personally, I don't see this as stating that Valentino was actually a gigolo in the modern sense. It only states that some people felt that male dancers who happened to escort lonely society women around were looked down upon and probably subject to rumors of being paid for their "services". That's my interpretation anyway. That really wasn't an odd way of thinking considering the times. Since that content was actually sourced and I too have found two different sources (One at TCM's website & one at the Biography Channel website), I think there might be validity to the statement. However, since the book itself is being called into question as reliable, I'll have to find the book myself and check it out. From the description of the book I've found online, it supposedly does not have an index. If that is in fact the case, I don't think it would be a great idea to include that as a reference. In the meantime, I'll get a few outside opinions on the matter. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but if a reader comes here, and sees 'he worked as a gigolo' they'll think the modern sense without understanding the history behind it. Thus why I left it at Taxi dancer (which could imply he was or wasnt). Maybe more explanation could be given in the article to the matter. Like I said the worst thing about Valentino is the amount of faulty information out there; poor guy after 80 years you think it could be sorted out! But this is why Im leaving it in a third party's hands.--Thegingerone (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request disabled. It was unclear, and the protection will soon expire anyway. Sandstein (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of gigolo:

• From thefreedictionary.com: A man who is hired as an escort or a dancing partner for a woman.
• From Merriam-Webster.com: a man supported by a woman usually in return for his attentions or a professional dancing partner or male escort.
• Encarta: paid man companion or paid dancing partner or escort
• yourdictionary.com: a man who is paid to be a dancing partner or escort for women or a man who is the lover of a woman and is supported by her

The term gigolo is not something akin to a male prostitute in the modern sense, since there are four different dictionaries noted above which all agree that a gigolo may be a paid escort or a paid dancing partner. If Valentino was a "dance hall boy" or did make money escorting society and rich women around, then he was indeed a gigolo. There is nothing suggestive about using this word to describe what is detailed in the article about his activities in New York. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe a distinction would need to be made in the article though I still feel taxi dancer does the same connotations (dancer, dance partner who is hired by women)--Thegingerone (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with trying to figure out what others will read into something. Our job is to present a neutral, well sourced article, not figure out what other people might think a word means. The word gigolo has different meanings now and I think most people are aware of that. Whomever reads this will have to remember that the word was used in a different context and, if need be, look up the word. As Wildhartlivie has shown, even the dictionary has the correct meaning. Since that little nugget of info is avaliable in several different places, I believe it should be included. Also, since I don't have the Valentino: The First Superstar book in front of me right this minute, I'm not going to even deal with the issue if it's reliable or not. There are several books out that are salacious and tabloid-esque that I personally would not use as a reference. If that book does in fact fall under those categories, I don't think it should be relied upon heavily but it can be used to a limited degree. Like I said before, this article has more problems than just what references are used and wording. There's quite a bit that needs to be trimmed. Valentino's career was fairly short and right now, his biography is longer than other stars whose careers spanned decades. Things like his love of animals & "small" friendships with people doesn't seem all the encyclopedic to me. They're great tidbits of info, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From My Estimation, Noel Botham Is Clearly a Very Reliable Author

A bibliography gives much more reliability than an index. Mr. Botham is also a best-selling author as well, and I think critics would take note of his books if they were questionable. If his biography of Queen Elizabeth II's sister Margaret was reportedly unreliable, I think the royal family would have criticized him to the international public.Kevin j (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin j, since this talk page is currently being used to discuss the dispute that is ongoing, you were specifically asked to stop creating a new section title for each point you want to make. Please keep this all under the section already dedicated to this dispute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to this up and down and its the last time on THIS subject Im replying. I still feel it is not reliable and even though he has a biblography I doubt he cites each claim. What does he cite for his theif claim Id like to know as I dont own that book? Also I looked on amazon and the list of books hes authored looks quite 'sensationally tabloid' and prone to questioning. The Murder of Princess Diana, and Margaret the last real Princess which has bad reviews. Its odd to me he rehashed his Valentino book from the 70s which wasnt any better (the 70s were a bad time for Valentino; look at the horrible movie ugh!) Im letting a third party sort this out; but Im telling you hes not *the* author let alone reliable. HOWEVER Im not opposed to more GOOD sources.--Thegingerone (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello??? Since this talk page is currently being used to discuss the dispute that is ongoing, you were specifically asked to contain the current discussion under one heading. If you have a point to make, make it above. Please keep this all under the section already dedicated to this dispute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you Thegingerone mean one single thing you say. You clearly think your opinions are dominant. From my clear estimation:

• The titles were only advesrtising makeup.

• His bibliography mentions reliable sources, such Natacha Rambova's own personal memoirs.

• Other sources can back claims like Valentino being a gigalo.

• You(Thegingerone) are violating the NPOV policy.

• No, he did not rehash anything like this, and used different sources.

• Make more sense when you talk about the 1970's.

• This film did not inspire people to give Valentino a huge widespread amount of slanderous publicity; even Dean Martin was known for being a womanizer at this time.

• And lastly, it is not encyclopedic to include such opinions as facts.

Kevin j (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright...what part of "work together" or "be civil" don't you guys understand? In the past two days, this article has been edited again which is insane. If you two can't even agree on content, why do you insist upon editing an article that is in the process of being rewritten? I specifically created a sandbox version inviting both of you to edit that article instead of the actual article to work on a compromise. So far, that hasn't happened. Instead, you both would rather keep up this childish fight and try to out revert each other. I stated twice that I was in the process of getting the book that you two are arguing about to verify its reliability. That means WAIT...don't edit. WAIT. How hard is that? The page isn't going anywhere. The present article is way too long and full of errors that include poorly cited references and misspelled words. How anyone can have the audacity to argue about POV violations & reliable sources when this article is full of unneeded crap and mistakes is beyond me. Believe it or not, there are plenty of other references to use beside those two books which is what I was in process of finding only to discover that the article is again being edited. Just because it's unlocked, that does not mean to start up the fighting again. Insisting you're right or that your version is "better" does not make it so. If the parties involved can't refrain from hitting the edit button, please tell me now so I stop working on this article and contact an administrator to inform them of the revert war and uncivil behavior. Pinkadelica (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I share Pinkadelica's concerns about the quality of the current article. I urge the two warring editors, Thegingerone and Kevin j, to collaborate on improving the sandbox version. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Im just ignoring it all for now. Although Im admittedly annoyed that again they locked it on HIS version...WHY do the admins do that when it is clearly the worst or the two (not saying mine is perfect but it doesnt have the talkie and theif crap in it)?! I gave my edit to the sandbox version and so theres not much more I can do. I agree we need more sources...good sources.--Thegingerone (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I simply locked it on the version that was present when I read Pinkadelica's request for locking. I skimmed through both versions and to the casual eye I didn't see any glaring differences. Now, having said that, I'm going to strongly urge both of you to collaborate on the sandboxed version. Remember, locking the article is but one course of action that can be done. Another course of action that can be done is to block both the editors involved for things such as violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. I don't think we're at that individual editor block point... yet. Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See thats what annoys me. I happened to not be online; he reverts my edits; then it locks on his (this happened both times). The big fight is over the New York part and the talkie part; both of which if locked on my version would just leave them out; instead of spreading gossip as the current version does. I urge you to lock it on mine or just take out the disputed parts until its solved. Thank you.--Thegingerone (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And if I locked it on your version then Kevin J would be pissed. No deal. Resolve your differences first. Tabercil (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it was already locked on his once; and it seems its only locked on said version because it was the last; not because its the best current one. At least take out the talkie part; I find that would be a fair compromise.--Thegingerone (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just drop it if I were you. I know you're frustrated, but in the grand scheme of things, a few sentences aren't going to grossly misinform someone. I think you both need to cool out and just take a break from this article for a bit. It will take me a few days to gather the sources I need and to do a rewrite, so perhaps focusing on other articles or tasks would be beneficial. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know; not much I can do one way or the other anyways. Its just Wikipedia; I'll live :p. Thank you for your help dear :).--Thegingerone (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome hun. Hang in there, we'll get a good version out...eventually :) Pinkadelica (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Valentino: The First Superstar

Ok, I finally got the book in question, Valentino: The First Superstar, and it does in fact have a bibliography, albeit a short one. For anyone that is terribly interested, the bibliography cites the following books:

• The Sheik by E.M. Hull
  
• Rudy, Intimate Memories of Natacha by Natacha Rambova
  
• Madam Valentino by Michael Morris
  
• Valentino by Irving Shulman
  

Now, the content that seemed to cause the most trouble was the part about Valentino being a "gigolo". Since we established that the word gigolo has a different meaning in today's lexicon than it did in Valentino's day, I think it's safe to say that he was in fact considered a gigolo because he was an exhibition dancer/taxi dancer. The First Superstar does in fact state that male dancers around that time were nicknamed gigolos so, in my opinion, that content isn't incorrect. I also don't have a huge issue with The First Superstar as a source. I wouldn't rely on it entirely, but I see no problem with it being used with other sources. I also grabbed Madam Valentino, since that is included in the bibliography and seems like it would be quite useful. If anyone has anything to add regarding the article, the sandbox version is still avaliable to edit. I will be cleaning up the sandbox version in the next few days so if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well vs Emily Leider's 100s of notes and references that is VERY short. But those sources (minus the Sheik and 'Valentino' Im not sure of those 2 books as Im not familiar) seem okay. What did it make of the theif references and private diary? I heard of Madam Valentino last week; I was thinking about getting it as it looks very good and Natacha did lead an interesting life. I wonder what good info is in there. Thanks Pinkadelica!--Thegingerone (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops second thought. Have you found anything on talkies? Where does everyone else stand on this matter? I still stand by my opinion that given (minus 2 musical recordings) we have no proof of his voice its really hard to even put it in there. But I also stand by he had a nice (yet heavily accented) voice from what Ive read; not 'squeaky' and not 'not talkie friendly'. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Thegingerone (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to know what version of the article states that he was once a thief or mentions something about a private diary? I just got the book and haven't yet read it so, page numbers to the references would be helpful that way I can go right to it. As far as Valentino's voice, I just watched a documentary about him entitled Rudolph Valentino: The Great Lover. In that documentary, they touched upon that and basically everyone agreed that he had a pleasant speaking voice and would have had no trouble transitioning to talkies. Gloria Swanson said he had a lovely speaking voice with no hint of an accent when she worked with him. As far as my own personal opinion on the matter, from what I've read and watched, it seems he was a good actor would have had no problem with the transition. He was still young and popular and even if he had an accent, I think that would have added to his "Shiek" allure and mystique. There's really no way to know though and I would have trouble rationalizing the inclusion of that kind of opinion/speculation in the article. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The version that its currently locked in states (under New York) that he was a petty theif and gigolo and cites that book. Then under the Woman in Black paragraph is the talkie part citing a source that isnt even about Valentino. here is a comparison between the version I gave you and Kevin J's (which shows those edits I just mentioned). Then maybe we could put a part in about the talkies; though it definitly needs to CHANGE. I think thats the edit that annoyed me the most and really grates me its on there now for all the mirror sites to pick up.--Thegingerone (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The current locked version doesn't state that he was a thief, it says there were rumors of that and that those rumors (along with the gigolo thing) are persistent in certain biographies. However, on the page that is cited after that statement (page 30), there is a passage that states:

Of far more significance to Rodolpho was that, a few days earlier, he had toasted his twentieth birthday in champagne, surrounded by a group of attractive young women who were all willing to hand fairly substantial sums of the darkly handsome Italian in return for his sexual services.

That statement does support the gigolo claim, but that seems to be the only thing that does it is quite short and lacking details. After that little ditty, it goes on to talk about how Valentino worked menial jobs as a bus boy and through that job, was introduced into the world of dance, which had become popular with the "sophisticated New York social set". So in other words, there is no mention of being a thief in those pages. If it's somewhere else in the book, I haven't seen it yet and it's incorrectly cited. As for the "squeaky voice" content, it seems to be sourced from another book that I don't have so there's no way I can verify that information straight away. Personally, I don't think that's something I would keep in the article because it appears to be conjecture. I've heard varying opinions about Valentino's voice and that is actually the only time I've read that his voice wasn't up to par for talkies. Perhaps it is a valid assessment, but there's not much else there to support that claim. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OOOOH! HA! Its locked on my version! Dont know when that happened as I was told to 'shut up and quit whining over it!' Well okay the link I provided shows the difference between me and Kevin J's versions which was the source of this edit war. In his version those are the claims.--Thegingerone (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have obtained yet another book on Valentino, by Alexander Walker and am in the midst of reading it. I will let Pinkadelica know issues as I come across them. Having said that, I want to stress that the mentality of "my version" vs. "his version" really needs to stop. The article doesn't belong to either of you, and it's quite likely that the final version will use material from a lot of places, which is what it should be. The article, in either version, relied on one primary source, which will basically skew the article to the work of one author. You weren't told to shut up and quit whining, the admin who page protected the article did so at the time it was requested, which doesn't reflect a bias one way or another regarding versions. This sort of gloating, one-up-manship and commentary is, in my view, more the cause of the editing war than any real major differences over Valentino. Again, and probably finally, this has to stop. It's contentious and not in the best interest of the article or Wikipedia in general. The only objective should be a validly and widely sourced article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, facts from my version are saved actually. I am also disgusted with Thegingerone's remarks that I started this war. That is nonsense. I try to make the article reliable, and I don't mind when people had content that is backed by reliable sources. However, I don't like it when people delete content that is backed by reliable sources either.Kevin j (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add I do not intend to be the only user who edits this article. However, I do want it properly written for readers too. Botham's book has shown to be a reliable source. Also, I believe anybody else with reliable sources can edit this article too. It never has been just "my version," but my contributions are backed by a reliable source. I like to add proper facts.Kevin j (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Im not even taking the bait here as a 'you started this or you started that' war is stupid. Pinkadelica is still working on the final version; I still am not thrilled with Botham's book but of the tabloid styled ones its not the WORST. I guess its up to the third party editors.--Thegingerone (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

They are still JUST YOUR OPINIONS. Before you say the edit war blame is stupid, I suggest you first not gloat that I was the one who started it. I don't appreciate smark-aleck remarks as well, and I suggest you also drop the issue and quit encouraging me to write more rebuttals too. Libel me, and I will respond. Otherwise, I will keep peace.

I also am no stalker either. Frankly, I don't tolerate any vandalism, and I do like to perform administrative-like actions against it too. I want to make sure of it film articles are properly written.Kevin j (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that this page is for discussion of improvements to articles. If you have issues other than what pertains specifically to improvements to this article, then take it to personal talk pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

This article is incomplete about the causa mortis of this artist.He was killed by bad medicine.He died of septicemy, and there wasn't antibiotics or sulpha drugs available in this decade.Agre22 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

It is not incomplete. The article says he died from peritonitis, which set in following surgery for a perforated ulcer. That those drugs weren't available then was certainly a factor in his death, but it doesn't equate with bad medicine. That's an unfair comparison based on today's standard of medical care. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that he was murdered.He was victim of complications from the surgery;at least was this showed, on a TV program that I saw, about Rudolph Valentino, some years ago. Agre22 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

Perontinitis may well be a complication of surgery, but it doesn't make it bad medicine, which is what you stated. I also didn't say you wrote that he was murdered. He died because of the complications which led to peritonitis, which was the given cause of death. I'm responding to your assertion that the cause of death is incomplete in the article, when the article states it clearly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I never told, that Rudolph Valentino was murdered.I saw in a TV program, and I really wrote that he was killed by septicemia, provoked by his surgery.Agre22 (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

I really don't know what point you're trying to make. No one said anything about murder, except that you have said twice you didn't say that. I did not say that you did. You did say that he was killed by bad medicine and his cause of death in the article was incomplete. The article repeats what is on his death certificate: Peritonitis as a complication following surgery. What is wrong with that? What is your complaint? I have no idea what tv show you were watching, or what source they were using, but the death certificate says peritonitis. Please look at this link which says "Valentino's death certificate was filed with the Board of Health at three fifty that afternoon. It stated that the cause of death was a ruptured gastric ulcer with peritonitis, naming also septic pneumonia and septic endocarditis as contributory causes." End of story. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning an old rumor: that Valentino was poisoned by eating food cooked in an aluminum pot. My mother can recall hearing this in the 1930's. Saxophobia (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It would need a reference. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Snopes mentions it; but really is it that relevant? There were a million rumors about him before and after his death...I dont think its really noteworthy.--Maggiedane (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not All Qualifiers Are Weasel Words

There is nothing weaselly about saying that "some" thought Valentino was a threat to American manhood--he did have his defenders as well as his detractors--so I am going to restore some of the removed qualifiers to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.39.25 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition in WP:WEASEL, were "often" thought, seen by "some", are indeed weasel words. Besides, the next sentence and reference qualify what this means and where it comes from. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a Clean-up Tag

I added a clean-up tag to the “New York” section because there are these three sentences in a row: “He eventually…”, “Eventually, he…”, and “Valentino eventually…”; and this sentence, “The evidence was flimsy at best and after a few days in jail, Valentino's bail was lowered from $10,000 to $1,500.”, which has a dangling participle. Greta Hoostal (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)