Talk:Hollywood Babylon

message: 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)
thread_title: Amplification of the description of Busby Berkeley's "drunk driving incident"

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Publishing date?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Book sources