Talk:Anita Loos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] birthdate

Various websites, notably Penguin http://www.penguin.co.uk:8000/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,0_1000020096,00.html claim that Anita Loos was born in 1888. —193.122.47.146 15 October 2005.

David Thomson's New Biographical Dictionary of Film (4th ed.: Little Brown, 2002 p. 530) gives 1891, FWIW. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1891 is just wrong. A well known fact is that Loos started shaving years off her age when she was 18 - she claimed to be 16 etc....She played that little girl card for years. Carey is to be believed before another source. God knows where they got their data. EraserGirl (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

God knows. Obviously a good biography is to be favoured over someone who affords her a column and a half. Perhaps stick a cite to Carey in there somewhere lest the matter come up again. Adieu. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Emerson husband

Is John Emerson (filmmaker) her husband? I'm not sure but it seems so considering all the films he's presumably affiliated with (as per a Wikipedia search anyway)... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] EraserGirl comments

Yes, John Emerson was her husband, regardless of her reputed affairs, most notably with H.L. Mencken. This article has far too few citations, and not much personal data. I will research it further using NON-internet sources and come back to it in a few days. A good biography is not merely catalog of works produced and husbands. EraserGirl (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I take back what I said after rewriting the article, Emerson wasn't much of a husband, and the affairs were all his. Unfortunately most of the film work he is credited with are not. EraserGirl (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revision

I apologize for the new length, I went back and reread the Gary biography, as well as other print sources I had around, and when I finished writing my new version, it was about three times as long as it is now. I tried to cut out unnecessary bits, and the result may read a little clunky. If you think I went overboard, feel free to let me know. i will probably revisit it in a few days and try to correct any bad grammar. EraserGirl (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" tour

There is a line in the "Return to New York" section which I find a little odd: "The show toured for 90 weeks and went on tour for another year." Did the show:-

  • simply tour for 2 years and 38 weeks in total?
  • tour for 90 weeks in one area and a further year elsewhere?
  • play/run for 90 weeks in one theatre and then go on tour for a year?

--Red Sunset 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake, I must have been on drugs when I typed that. I checked my reference it PLAYED for 90 weeks. I will correct it. I now have my own copies of the bio an her books so I can correct the method of reference citation. The libraries always want their books back, its damned inconvenient. Odd I never could edit my own work. EraserGirl (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] GA status?

Based on admittedly cursory run-through of the article, about the only thing I can think of missing would be more frequent citations, preferably at least one per paragraphy. Otherwise, there might or might not be other complaints as well, but I think those would vary from reviewer to reviewer. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am still casting around for more citable sources beyond the Cary book, all I have left on my desk are her own memoirs, and she was not known for her veracity later in life. EraserGirl (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I was advised, having written a long article using the <ref name=x/> cite device, that page numbers were required for specific book references. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well this is how I was taught to do it, by my editors. I am trying to replace most of the Carey references with others. and I still don't take advice from anonymous users. From what I can tell you have been on WP all of 1 week. EraserGirl (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh my. I didn't give you advice, I just recounted a frustrating experience of mine. And to John Carter, technically. Anita Loos is still an excellent article. I was myself following a guide laid out by experienced users, one that did not spell out that using <refname> in this way may not satisfy the most rigorous review. Of course by the time someone suggested otherwise, books had been returned to libraries, chapters of others required re-reading in their entirety etc., etc. My IP changes periodically, btw. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I own all the books in most of my articles. And if your IP changes you should create an account. I am not looking at moving Loos or any of my others to GA status, they aren't finished in my eyes. EraserGirl (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

if your IP changes you should create an account Suggestions like these are best made on User Talk pages, in my humble, non-registered opinion. Again, great article. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)