Talk:Sophia Loren

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sophia Loren article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead image

Before an edit war starts, the current image is somewhat outdated, large and a bit unprofessional. I found a more recent one with better quality. Thoughts? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more suitable. No one intervened here so I think it can be changed. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 06:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a picture from the same series which seemed better. Asked for cropping and now we have this file. I changed the image in the article. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to the 1959 image, sorry guys if I upset anyone. The user "Magnins" never bothered going to the talk page to change an image that was main for roughly 3 years. His/her rationale of an older image being "inappropriate to use for a celebrity who is still alive and still in the public eye" is utter nonsense. We all know Sophia is alive, and still working. Using a great older image isn't inappropriate in the least. But then, when a famous star passes away, this mindset "oh, now let's use an image from when they were younger" makes it suddenly okay? It baffles me. Michael0986 (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael0986: I don’t agree with the rationale being “utter nonsense”. I wouldn’t call it inappropriate to use an older picture, but a reader may want to know what the subject looks like at the moment they are reading the article; then, once a person is dead, we decide what image is the most representative considering their life overall. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, an amateurish photo, which will more than likely will be updated once every couple of months, is preferable to a classical image of Sophia in her prime and instantly recognizable, looking into the camera? Most wikis seem to use the 1986 Allan Warren portrait, or the 1959 image. Was there ever a vote on this at least? A random user decided the 1959 image was "inappropriate", and this is now the mindset it seems. Michael0986 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t know if there was a vote (I just came to the page and saw a bad photo was being used), but we can discuss it now; that’s why this thread has been opened in the first place. Again, I don’t agree that the old photo is inappropriate, but there are good reasons to keep the present one, which is professional (not amateurish) and recent enough to present the subject as she is now; the picture most likely won’t be updated every couple months considering the one previous to this talk was from years before and this one is from 7 years ago. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Points well made. I'm still not in agreeance with this current image being appropriate for a lead, I enjoy the "wow factor" of a main image. Whether it's Sophia, or Joan Collins, which is an example of a main image I love. I'm not a fan of this trend of representing someone as they appear now for the sake of it, regardless if the image is good or not. Yeah, maybe the current image isn't as bad as I make it out to be, but a memorable image? Nah. That's just me though.Michael0986 (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Michael. There does seem to have been disagreement in the past as to what lead image use and I agree the one from 1959 is by far her best portrait along with Alan Warren’s, but just for reference this is what I found back in June when I changed it. So I think a fairly recent professional photo like the present one (of which I liked the angle and background compared to the one originally proposed here) is a good compromise. We shall see what happens later on if anyone objects; in any case I have no doubts that the 1959 portrait is the one this project will stick to when Loren is no longer with us. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the 50 Greatest American Screen Legends"

The lead section claims "With a career spanning over 70 years, she was named by the American Film Institute as one of the 50 Greatest American Screen Legends and is the only living person on that list.". Don't these claims need some kind of source(s)? When anyone dies, Wikipedia generally needs a source to support that, so I'm not sure how the words "is the only living person on that list" constitute a "fact" rather than another claim. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I think these are legitimate questions and I'm not sure why I have now been accused of "splitting hairs" and "trolling". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yours6700 your edit summary at 09:09 today said: "Simply click AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars for verification. It's a fact, not a claim." While I'd agree that it's quite clear at the AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars article that Loren is the sole survivor, by a process of elimination, I'm not sure that's an adequate substitute for actual sources in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article to a previous version. There was a clear citation and it was removed; this happened amid other minor disruptions on wording, photos and spelling. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I'm not sure whether that source, dated 16 June 1999, supports the claim that she is "is one of the last surviving stars". In fact, that claim now seems to be outdated, as she is now the last. The additional issue is that the claim needs to be made, and sourced, in the article main body, not just in the lead section? Any further suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s the reason why the original wording as I restored it is not about the specific list but in general about the Hollywood Golden Age. I’m also not sure where in the article body we could have this particular piece of information. Maybe under “Later career”? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just noticed some of it is already there, we just need to put the source. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is no longer "one of the last surviving stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema". All the others are dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mel Brooks, Dick Van Dyke or Clint Eastwood might disagree with you on this ;) Anyway I’m trying to look for a recent source including Loren among the living stars. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow IvanScrooge98. You've certainly demonstrated your naivete with this comment! Those guys are no more golden age than Mia Farrow or Candice Bergen. Being over 90 does not suddenly make them part of an era they had zero to do with. I would recommend refraining from topics about which you lack familiarity. You're so far off the mark. Yours6700 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is borderline a personal attack and not a good start as our first interaction. Those actors already worked in cinema during those years, period. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again! You lack the context to understand this. It's disconcerting. Yours6700 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the claim is, in some way, meant to reflect this article: AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars? But that's just a guess, based on the edit summary left by User:Yours6700 here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of sources. I hope this doesn’t end up being WP:CIRCULAR since the first page explicitly cites Wikipedia as its source for the images. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited the entertainment section of Fox News for this "golden age" verbiage. The journalism at Fox News is almost as awful as the Daily Mail (constant mathematical errors, misstatement of facts, bad grammar, mislabeled photos etc). It should be banned as a source.

And why do you continue to misrepresent the AFI list? The AFI does not use the terms "golden age" or "classical hollywood cinema" anywhere on that list! So why insist on shoehorning such verbiage into the lead? Yours6700 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the Fox News link; it's half-assed as expected. The article includes a photo of Loren that is clearly from the early-to-mid-1960s, but they've labeled it "1954" (probably copying the caption from Getty, which is notoriously riddled with errors, though they usually will make corrections if contacted via Customer Support.) Yours6700 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm now thinking that the mention of those claims in the lead section might need to be entirely re-considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the Fox News article seems earnest. But my bad for adding the second one, we’re probably better off without it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is a real improvement. But all any claims and sources also need to appear in the main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I’m aware. I think the problem is that this claim involves at the same time her prime career from decades ago and the current state of affairs, so it’s a bit tricky to find a proper spot to place it that isn’t a “trivia” section or something. Also because it’s not really trivia. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I type, we have that she is "one of the last surviving stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema". I can certainly live with that. But the other expression "one of the 50 Greatest American Screen Legends" is problematical, and I hope it stays out. She hasn't been active in a long time, and many younger people would never have heard of her (just as they've never heard of The Beatles). If they happen upon this article by chance, they would read that and think that she's an American. It has to be parsed as [American Screen] Legends, not American [Screen Legends]. But how would anyone unfamiliar with her know to do that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"50 Greatest American Screen Legends" is the title of the list, period! You don't get to change the title just because YOU don't like it. "They would read that and think that she's an American" ...do you hear yourself? Yours6700 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. Yes, quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the opening is very clear about her nationality – and, as an Italian, I couldn’t be happier – as well as where she worked. But I agree that would be poorly worded. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Golden Age" is a subjective label with no clear definition; most consider it to be the 1930s-40s, not the 1950s when Loren started. There is no need to shoehorn the airy fairy "classical Hollywood cinema" verbiage into the lead, either. Mentioning that the AFI named her one of the 50 greatest screen legends is enough for the lead. Anything extra is WP:BLOAT. Yours6700 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned that wording three days ago. You removed my tag an hour later? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yours6700: kindly stop edit warring. Your bold edits have been reverted multiple times. It’s on you to discuss here to change the consensus per WP:BRD. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should've been userprotected eons ago. Looking at the revision history, most of the disruptive changes originated from an IP address in Mexico (not via "consensus"). Yours6700 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop replacing the iconic Alan Warren photo from 1986 – with the pretext that it “does not illustrate” her later career – with an unrelated bad quality photo. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unrelated bad quality photo" ...do you hear yourself? That's a flattering picture. Probably the most flattering shot of Loren that this site has to offer. Yours6700 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have some WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL issues going on here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from the lede [1]:

With a career spanning over 70 years, she is one of the last surviving stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema.^[1]

References

^ Stanton, Elizabeth (2023-09-26). "Sophia Loren's devastating injury after complicated journey to become the ultimate golden age sex symbol". Fox News. Retrieved 2024-09-04.

That she's one of the last surviving stars from that age seems like RECENTISM and UNDUE in the lede. The span of her career seems fine. The AFI mention in the first paragraph seems UNDUE there, but fine elsewhere in the lede. RfC? --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about recentism: in forty years Loren will still be one of the last stars from the era to have died. The AFI mention is basically a recognition of her career so why would it be undue in the lead? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said the AFI mention would be fine elsewhere in the lede.

It seems to me that you're not making a case that the material belongs in the first paragraph of the lede, only that it's verified. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, please read my comments re Fox News. Yours6700 (talk)

Gosh, I’m sorry, I had misread your post. Yes, I’m indifferent as to which paragraph should include this. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Stanton, Elizabeth (2023-09-26). "Sophia Loren's devastating injury after complicated journey to become the ultimate golden age sex symbol". Fox News. Retrieved 2024-09-04.

[1]