Jump to content

Talk:Jayne Mansfield/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Improvement?

I did not read the whole article, but... To be honest, I feel that Jayne's personal life in the lead is worded very awkwardly. I get that this woman was married and divorced 3 times, but I do not believe all of her children should be listed in the lead too -- they were mentioned later in the article. Perhaps we should try something like Demi Moore's lead:

Mansfield took her professional name from her first husband, [occupation] Paul Mansfield, and is the mother of three children from her second marriage to actor ____. She married her third husband, actor ____, in ____, and separated from him in ___ __. 108.93.72.117 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Key dates are wrong under personal life

Jayne Mansfield died on June 29, 1967. Under the sub section Second marriage, it states:

  • "Zoltan was in the news when a lion attacked him and bit his neck while he and his mother were visiting the theme park Jungleland USA in Thousand Oaks, California on November 23, 1967. "
  • "Hargitay was appointed the guardian of Micky, Zoltan and Mariska by a court decree in July 1967, though they went on living with their mother."

I saw that with just a quick look at the article. Maybe this needs general clean up and reassessment as a Good Article. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Did she learn French in high school?

French from high school is listed as one of her five languages, but earlier in the article it claims she only learned German and Spanish in high school. Fotoguzzi (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Awkward writing

"Mansfield at the time had taken resort of alcoholism, drunken brawls and cheap burlesque shows"

What is this supposed to mean? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bust/Bra size section cannot be correct

Under the "Anatomy" section is says "According to Playboy, her vital statistics were 40D-21-36 (102-53-91 cm) on her 5'6" (1.68 m) frame." The source actually lists her bust size as 40", which means the "40D" part of that sentence makes no sense. In a bra size, the number represents the band size (the circumference of the rib cage) and the letter represents the cup size, which is based on the ratio of band size to bust circumference. A D cup means that there is 4" difference between the band size and the bust size. So, if she was indeed a D cup, which the source does not even say, her bra size would be 36D. However, this doesn't make sense, either, because the same source says her waist was 21". It is very, very unlikely that her rib cage was 15" larger than her waist. Since the source does not mention anything about bra or cup size, it would be best to remove any reference to bra size and only list bust size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.179.4 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good observation. Can someone do some more research about JM's most celebrated anatomy? There seems to be way too much unreliable information floating online. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
A 40" bust measurement is consistent with a 36D or 34DD bra size. The unusually small waist measurement (compared to present day women of roughly the same size) is most probably a consequence of measuring over foundation garments. Corsetry of that era resulted in markedly smaller waists than we are used to seeing these days. Many photos of her show clear evidence of wearing corsetry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a highly credible explanation. I'll go with this. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

citation needed and NPOV issues

There are a few issues with this article I'm going to change, as the given information either needs supporting evidence or seems (to me) to contradict a NPOV. Elsquared (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • re: known as the "Working Man's Monroe" – Added a “citation needed” tag. Mansfield was certainly in Monroe’s shadow, but something like this needs to be supported.
  • re: “although many people have never seen her movies” – I’m removing this sentence fragment. Clearly not a NPOV, and unsupported anyway.
  • re: The Curtain Club was a happening campus theatrical society – I’m changing the word “happening” to “popular”, which is more NPOV.
  • re: leaving a crumbling estate – Added a “citation needed” tag. No doubt Mansfield was not in good financial shape, but exactly how much was her estate “crumbling”?

Nude photo in Career Decline section

The inclusion of a nude photo from "Promises, Promises" seems inappropriate and gratuitous, looking at it from the standpoint of a history teacher whose students use Wikipedia as a research tool. Please remove it. Genericson (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose the article could be used in a history or social sciences unit on censorship, something to which educators generally claim to be opposed. Otherwise, though, what reason would there be to assign high school students to do research in Jayne Mansfield's biography? 2600:1006:B112:2B66:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Marilyn Monroe, Halle Berry, Lindsay Lohan, Helen Mirren, Bo Derek, Sharon Stone, Naomi Watts, Clara Bow ...
I couldn't find nude pictures of any of these actresses on their Wikipedia sites, even though they've all had famous nude roles or posed nude. Including nude photos isn't a typical thing *at all* as far as I can tell.
As for students, it's hard to tell what they will choose for open-ended class research projects or History Day Projects. I've been surprised many times and introduced to new things. Most of the time I worry about students coming across unusually gory pictures because they could be disturbing. As for nude photos--even fairly tame shots like this one--they can be distracting and take unnecessary amounts of my time and energy when I'm trying to help students stay on track under usual circumstances.
Wikipedia is a site I regularly send my students to for background information because I trust it to be informative and restrained. Please take this picture down. Genericson (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

While your intentions are good, please check WP:NOTCENSORED to find Wikpedia stand on the issue you raise. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Another point: This particular photo is in the article because it is part of Mansfield's history and also because she was the first major American actress to have a nude starring role in a Hollywood motion picture. The photo is also in the article because it is not under copyright and is therefore freely available for public use. If Marilyn Monroe's "Golden Dreams" nude Tom Kelley photo was freely available (being no longer under copyright) then I would endorse that photo being included in Monroe's article. When this particular photo was published it was an event that contributed to Monroe's mythos and career, helping establish her in the public eye when she was named the first Playboy Playmate of the month. Shearonink (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Images under the Offensive Images heading: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."
Following the principle of 'least astonishment', I ask a third time that this photo be removed. The article is no less informative without a nude photo of Mansfield. Wikipedia pages on the subject of pornography, for example, show a surprising amount of restraint in this regard. I assume, if one were to insist on including a photograph of this part of her career on her page, it would be possible to find a movie still that is not a frontal shot. Genericson (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
A couple of flaws in this otherwise wonderful observation:
  • The disclaimer says - "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts."
  • The policy says - "some articles may include images, text or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal (or inclusion) of content."
  • The content guideline says in no unambiguous terms that "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers."
  • The MoS explains least expectation as - "images that [do not] respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" which do not apply to a free image of one of the subjects highest point of notability. The reason, as per the MoS is "including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission". In that context it advises, for example, that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy," and absolutely doesn't apply here.
I guess this gives a clearer picture of our stand on "offensive material" (this "our" includes you and I both :D). Please, remember, we refused to remove the images of Prophet Muhammad, though a large number of Muslims were offended very vocally. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Opportunity for scholarship/ she deserves an academic biography

The word "iconic" has been overused, but Jayne Mansfield was indeed a late Fifties pop icon, as much a joyful symbol of American prosperity and exuberance as the giant tail fin. There's no serious book on her, which is a real opportunity for American scholarship. This wiki article is full of urban legends, though it does debunk, thank god, the decapitation myth. She didn't sleep with the Kennedys, either. This article includes the familiar myth that Marilyn and JFK had an affair. Donald Spoto's book on Monroe, the definitive biography, did the elementary but necessary scholarship such as comparing the Kennedy brothers' appointment books with Monroe's to show how miniscule the contact was. They were rarely on the same coast at the same time. Fans have known this forever, they just hate believing it. I'd be amazed to discover Jayne Mansfield had been in that appointment book. Spoto would have commented. Profhum (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Music career section

The end of the last sentence of the paragraph states "while signing (two) others." Is this signing (as in sign language) or singing (music)? As I couldn't find a source other than the book cited, and don't have access to said book, I am posing the question in case it was a typo.75.142.108.112 (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)JF

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jayne Mansfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Satanism

The claims that Jayne Mansfield was a Satanist are suspect at best. In his Church of Satan retrospective, p. 30, Michael Aquino, who was the secretary of the Church of Satan at the time Mansfield was alleged to be involved, states that her "membership" involved a meeting with LaVey who presented her with a few amulets which she was too polite to refuse. He cites Mansfield's interview with May Mann which is reprinted in their biography of her, p. 197:

"Anton LaVey is a very handsome and interesting man. He has this big black house on a hill with a 500-pound lion. He drives a black hearse. He told me he had fallen in love with me and wanted to join my life with his. It was a laugh. I did not wear the Devil's symbols and the charms he gave me. I was too polite to refuse, however".

Her meeting with LaVey was picked up by the National Enquirer, hardly a reputable publication, and has since passed into legend which, I suspect, serves the Church of Satan's interests only too well. I know that this is a big ask but I really think that it's time that these claims were more fully investigated and that, as an encyclopaedia, we only include information which is absolutely verifiable. Hermetic Pilgrim (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disputed role

"Then her agent, William Shiffrin, signed her to play fictional film star Rita Marlowe in the Broadway play Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? with Orson Bean and Walter Matthau. It became her first major performance, " I disagree with this. The Girl Can't Help It was the previous year and was one of the highest grossing films of 1956. That should be mentioned. That was certainly a major performance!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

→Well, you have your facts a little out of order. Mansfield's performance on Broadway in Rock Hunter started in October 1955, while The Girl Can't Help It didn't hit theaters until late 1956, more than a year later. So, in all reality, Mansfield's "breakthrough" as an actress with on Broadway. You are correct in saying that The Girl Can't Help It was a successful film; indeed it was, but it wasn't what people consider her acting "breakthrough". It was her first successful leading film role, but Rock Hunter, the play version, is what put her on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.233.41 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Major" Broadway and screen star?

I have modified the lede, which calls Mansfield a "major" Broadway and film star. Re: Broadway, she appeared in one play, for which she won a Most Promising Newcomer Award from Theatre World. How can one be "a major Broadway star" while also dubbed "promising'...(or even "most promising"?) Re: Film, the cited link itself states "Through her constant exposure in the press, she gave the public the false impression that she was a major movie star." I have also removed from this sentence "and [became] a leading celebrity in 1957", as this seems redundant, considering the sentence previously states Mansfield had already become a Broadway and film star by then. (How can one be a star in two fields, yet NOT a celebrity?) So, where the paragraph once read "Mansfield became a major Broadway star in 1955, a major Hollywood star in 1956, and a leading celebrity in 1957", I have modified it to "Mansfield became a Broadway star in 1955, and a Hollywood star in 1956". The earlier version seems of inflated stature, and contradicts the citation. Codenamemary (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox photo date

When you click on the Infobox photo, the new page has a caption with the wrong year of 1935 for the still from the movie.

It needs to be corrected to 1957. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jayne Mansfield. 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) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jayne Mansfield. 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) 08:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jayne Mansfield. 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) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Place of Death

She actually died IN New Orleans. Yes, it was the sparsely populated eastern portion of the city/parish. Yes, Slidell was the closest settlement of note. However, the car had crossed the Fort Pike Bridge and was very much within the city limits of New Orleans, even if it wasn't the urban New Orleans that people think of. Her death certificate confirms she was in the City of New Orleans/Parish of Orleans. 73.194.85.220 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A user with the name 2600:6c63:447f:ec44:cc1e:91fa:81a:ce2d changed it back to the erroneous Slidell, so I changed it back again. It doesn't matter what newspapers anecdotally reported, she was within Orleans Parish, hence New Orleans. Her death certificate confirms she was not in Slidell, but in New Orleans when she died, and the article itself attests to this as it notes she was WEST of the Fort Pike/Rigolets bridge, hence in Orleans Parish. 73.194.85.220 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jayne Mansfield. 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) 09:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Twofingered Typist

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jayne Mansfield has been completed.

There are a few things I wanted to draw to your attention:

In the Early Career section is says that "her prominent breasts were considered problematic" – I’m assuming by advertisers, and added it, but this should be clarified if possible.

In the Film stardom (1955–1958) section it says she performed Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter 444 times. In the Stage career section it says she performed 450 shows - I added "about" before 450 which should be good enough to explain the discrepancy.

In the Television career section this sentence appears: In November 1957, one of her nightclub acts was featured in a special episode of NBC's The Perry Como Show ("Holiday in Las Vegas"), which created "a situation" for the audience according to the broadcaster. "A situation" needs to be clarified.

In the Soundtracks section it says that she sang two songs for The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw and lip-synced to one by Connie Francis. In the Film stardom (1955–1958) section it says that Francis sang all three songs. Which is correct.

Live Performances: This song title which is not capitalized appears – "This Queen has her aces in all the right places" – I to checked the title and found that this is actually a line in the lyrics to a song in the musical Damn Yankees - called "A Little Brains, A Little Talent". Need to check this.

I placed several "citation" or "clarification" tags throughout the article to draw attention to other issues.

Without access to the original sources, it may be difficult to resolve these. This is also true with sentences/paragraphs with multiple citations. It may well be that multiple citations are necessary, and not a case of over citing, but again, without the original sources, who knows?

I suspect that reviewers will say that an article can have only one Info Box at the head of the article. You might consider making sure the information in the later boxes is included in the article and remove them.

Good luck going forward with this.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There will be a reason why....

....but it escapes me. Not being from the US I am puzzled by the following statement in the article -- Jayne divorced Paul Mansfield in California on October 21, 1956. Paul Mansfield divorced her in Texas on March 16, 1957 How is that possible? If she divorced him in 56 then they were no longer married in 57, so how could he then divorce her? Moriori (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they the dates they each filed for divorce? Moriori (talk)
It reads -- Jayne divorced Paul Mansfield in California on October 21, 1956, then he divorced her again in Texas on March 16, 1957, on the grounds of mental cruelty. -- now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Still doesn't make sense, unless they remarried between Oct 1956 and sometime before March 1957. Furthermore that paragraph says after a series of marital rows....they decided to annul the marriage. How does that fit into the picture. Annulment is not the same as divorce. Moriori (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It is true, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Paul Mansfield divorced her twice in two different courts, for the same marriage. It is all very well documented and reported. What is the annulment point? I have changed annul to dissolve and check with legal website. Dissolution and divorce are the same. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
....even if it doesn't make any sense to you. Well guess what, it can't make any sense to a reader either because what you have stated here is not explained in the article. It may be "very well documented and reported" elsewhere as you claim, but it is not obvious to our readers. It needs explanation, dates and citations. Re "annul", I know what it means and I mentioned it because it was clearly an inaccurate term. You have changed it to "divorce" but didn't add a new reference to justify it. Do the current refs say divorce? Moriori (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Annulment was a copy error, wrong choice of word, it was meant to be dissolved. That error has been rectified. I understand the need for a bit more explanation, the current sentence probably have not captured the fact in appropriate detail. Will be rectified shortly. As for the "sense" part, please, forgive me. I thought you were questioning the fact. Now that I realize that your meaning was that the copy doesn't make sense, I feel misearable. I agree to your view, and I can only request to get a permission to retract my reaction. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. I have amended the article which makes it clearer, I think.Moriori (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

An unexpected treasure trove

This one is amazing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So is this one. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ferrari anyone?
The 250 ML? Or the one bought by Matt Cimber? Maybe the pink Lincoln.
May be other boyfriends like Portofino Rubirosa or Gunter Sachs? 103.144.165.175 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Nude photo from “Promises, Promises”.

This pornographic photo is gratuitous and inappropriate, since users do not expect to see nudity when using Wikipedia. Whiterobes (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The photo is hardly pornographic. Read our Pornography article. The opening sentence says "Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal. " How you think that photo is displayed "for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal" is a mystery.

It also serves no purpose here.174.0.48.147 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion, given without supporting evidence. When you removed the image you ignored the message which said "Present editorial consensus is that the photo is appropriate for and belongs in the article." Wikipedia works on consensus, not your personal taste. I'm not too fussed by the image, but have restored it per consensus. Moriori (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jayne_Mansfield/Archive_3&oldid=1239639938"