Talk:Louise Brooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateLouise Brooks is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

LGBT?[edit]

An editor has removed the LGBT-related cats from the article. The evidence supporting those cats in the article is ambiguous. Thus:

Brooks enjoyed fostering speculation about her sexuality,[109] cultivating friendships with lesbian and bisexual women including Pepi Lederer and Peggy Fears, but eschewing relationships. She admitted to some lesbian dalliances,[112] including a one-night stand with Greta Garbo.[113] She later described Garbo as masculine but a "charming and tender lover".[114][115] Despite all this, she considered herself neither lesbian nor bisexual:

I had a lot of fun writing Marion Davies' Niece [an article about Pepi Lederer], leaving the lesbian theme in question marks. All my life it has been fun for me. ... When I am dead, I believe that film writers will fasten on the story that I am a lesbian ... I have done lots to make it believable ... All my women friends have been lesbians. But that is one point upon which I agree positively with [Christopher] Isherwood: There is no such thing as bisexuality. Ordinary people, although they may accommodate themselves, for reasons of whoring or marriage, are one-sexed. Out of curiosity, I had two affairs with girls — they did nothing for me.[116]

So, Brooks did not consider herself to be gay, but she admits she had affairs with two women. Which of these is dispositive? I think there should be at least a modicum of discussion before the cats are removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Reading between the lines I think it's safe to keep the LGBT categories. She was obviously comfortable having sexual encounters with either gender, regardless of how few she admitted to having. The fact that she believed "There is no such thing as bisexuality" is a smoking gun as to why she chose not to label herself as such. Adding such categories to an article about her is hardly pigeonholing her, if that's what Wheeln4444 is concerned about. Her sexuality, ambiguous as it may be, was a defining characteristic. She obviously intended for it to be that way. nagualdesign 01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just because a person does something with someone of the same gender doesn't make them gay. She was a party girl and experimenter and said she didn't like such a thing. Maybe she was lying when she said she only did it two times and felt nothing, but there is no evidence to support such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeln4444 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And maybe she was lying when she said that she did not consider herself either a lesbian or bisexual. We can't start throwing out her statements at will, we have to in some way deal with both of them. The way to do that is by citations of evaluations by reliable sources, i.e. someone who is not Louise Brooks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wheeln4444: I don't think that having LGBT categories in a Wikipedia article about you makes you officially gay either. What it does is make LGBT-related articles easier to find. What you're suggesting is tantamount to removing Brooks from such public discussions, which seems rather pointless. Whether someone enjoyed their sexual encounters or believed that there's no such thing as bisexuality is irrelevant. By her own admission she was arguably what most people today would call bisexual, and she made a point of publicly flirting around the idea, which I believe makes it a 'defining characteristic' by WP standards. To be honest, it sounds like you're trying to argue that "LGBTQIA+ people have a right to call themselves heterosexual!" Like Ken says, the only thing that matters here is what reliable secondary sources have to say about Brooks. nagualdesign 13:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over the phone 1983 Louise Brooks...more interview...[edit]

<ref name="nytimes-at-the-movies">{{cite news |last1=Chase |first1=Chris |title=AT THE MOVIES |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/16/movies/at-the-movies.html |access-date=6 September 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=16 September 1983 |quote=These days, even though she is bedridden - in addition to osteoarthritis, she suffers from emphysema - the eyes remain unclouded. Over the phone, she sounds every bit as forthright as she is said to have been in her heyday, and she is delighted by the renewed interest in her pictures.}}</ref>

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disrespectful[edit]

I was really thrown and had a bad taste in my mouth after reading “ In 1925, Brooks sued the New York glamour photographer John de Mirjian to prevent publication of his risqué studio portraits of her; the lawsuit made him notorious.” and yet directly above this text is one of said photos. In her bio. For all to see. Which would clearly go against her wishes should she be alive today. I find it very disrespectful and harmful. 142.120.114.104 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She's dead -- how can it be harmful? Dead people frequently have to endure the indignity of having their private lives made public in the most invasive way. This is why the aphorism runs nil nisi bonum de mortuis, because they can't sue and anyway, in Law, you can't defame the dead. But as they're dead anyway, they're long past any harm that might've resulted.
Nuttyskin (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos being used as clickable links?[edit]

Instead of expanding to larger images, some photos in this article inexplicably link directly to Wikipedia articles about the films of which they are stills. This is not usual in Wiki articles; and furthermore, it's bloody irritating! Nuttyskin (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I don't know when that snuck in, but I've removed those links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]