Talk:Sophia Loren

Lead image

Proposed 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Before an edit war starts, the current image is somewhat outdated, large and a bit unprofessional.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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Go on, then. Provide the context. Teach my ignorant self since you act like you know so much more than me. My patience is starting to fade away. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

While Loren is of course younger than those guys, it's important to keep in mind that she started her movie career at 15/16, was an above-the-title billed star in her native Italy at 18 and a household name worldwide by the time she was 23. Whereas Van Dyke, Brooks and Eastwood didn't become prominent until they were nearing/over 40—and the Golden Age was kaput. Van Dyke didn't even make his film debut until 1963; in that year he turned 38. He'd been a TV star since '61 but TV was considered an inferior medium in those days. Brooks' very first acting credit—even if you count TV—isn't until 1963, and Brooks didn't actually star in a film until 1970 when he was 44. Eastwood was largely an unknown quantity even after New Hollywood came into effect. Back in July 1968, a month before the release of Hang 'Em High (his first major role in an American film, age 38), the nationally syndicated entertainment columnist Dorothy Manners wrote: "The proverbial man in the street is still asking, 'Who's Clint Eastwood?'" I consider this a barometer for his lack of fame at the time. Eastwood's 1950s resume consisted of TV guest spots and uncredited bit parts in B-films...if that counts as active in cinema then Jeff Bridges, Christopher Walken and even Ron Howard (!) would qualify too. There are plenty of stars who were technically active during the last gasp of the Golden Age but didn't achieve notability until the New Hollywood era. Yours6700 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll admit you made your point here. But those were just the first names that crossed my mind when I was typing the comment. Doesn’t change that, even using a strict definition of Golden Age, some actors from that era (which I now researched a bit more thoroughly), including the likes of June Lockhart and Eva Marie Saint, are still alive. And even if we couldn’t provide other names it would be weird to just state “she’s the only surviving actress of her era” as if Hollywood actors came in set boxes like pencils and at one point one box just ran out of pencils. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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

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)

"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)

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

@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)

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)

FYI, if no one objects to an edit, it’s also called consensus. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

"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)

If you think this picture is the “most flattering shot of Loren that this site has to offer” you need to double check the article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There's two reasons I consider it the most flattering: (1) Though taken in 2009, the photo still looks "contemporary" ; (2) Loren was 75 at the time but could pass for 60. The rest of the Wiki headshots are either obviously dated or have Loren looking very mature. In my opinion she looked her best during the late 1960s and early 1970s with straight hair that went past her shoulders. Unfortunately Wiki has no close-ups of Loren from this era.Yours6700 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I already provided a better (for pose and background) shot from that 2009 night without removing the 1986 portrait in the process, as you had done. Seems a fair compromise to me. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I have now changed to “greatest stars of American film history”, reprising the wording at the dedicated article. This should be enough of a compromise. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hipal, please read my comments re Fox News. Yours6700 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yours6700 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yours6700, in your edit summary here you said: "You're splitting hairs - it's tantamount to trolling at this point." I was not trolling, I was editing in perfectly good faith, which is what you should have assumed, as per WP:AGF. As that comment was made as part of an edit summary, you can now neither delete it nor strike it out. So I kindly request that you should retract that accusation here. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I retract it. Yours6700 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Years_active

The infobox says "years_active = 1950–2021". But the article provides no evidence of any activity after 2020 (in Ponti's feature film The Life Ahead)? Loren will soon be 90 years old. Do we just assume that she will remain "active" until she announces her retirement or until she dies? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess “2021” implies the year she was nominated to the various awards for The Life Ahead – a bit confusing and out of place anyway. As far as we know, Loren is currently inactive and hasn’t shared any plans to appear in any new productions, so I think we should stick to “2020”. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think being nominated for an award makes an actor "active". Even winning one, and then turning up to the ceremony and getting it doesn't. And some awards are posthumous. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Loren is not retired https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/sophia-loren-90-shares-her-plans-to-never-retire-from-hollywood/ Her last film was 4 years ago. 4 years is not that long of a hiatus considering she's taken as much as 6 years off in the past. Yours6700 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If we rely on her own personal claim, then the number of years since her last film is irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what is meant here by “I hope never to retire” is basically “I hope I will be physically able to feature in other productions before I die”; that doesn’t mean we should rely on her aspirations; unless new plans are officially announced, Loren is currently inactive (which doesn’t mean retired). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Like all good thespians, she's currently just "between jobs"... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC) p.s. that piece at usmagazine.com could be added to her career section as an update?

^ This. I can think of a few actors and actresses of note without credits in the past 4 years who are still listed as active on Wiki. I don't know why Sophia is being singled out. Yours6700 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Added the info clarifying that she is nonetheless inactive. Could that be a compromise? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

topless underage picture

what the hell is wrong with you? 135.131.161.109 (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Has Loren objected to the publication of this image? Is it not in the public domain and already widely circulated? Has some law been broken here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The image has now been removed by two anon IPs geolocating to Indiana, without any discussion here. My aim has been simply to preserve the status quo until adequate discussion has taken place. Comments here are strongly encouraged. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

And now again by a third anon IP geolocating to Indiana, with no sign of any engagement here. Is page protection justified? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve requested the page be protected. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: the user range has been blocked for 3 days. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Count me as another who thinks it should be removed. It was added by an IP less than a month ago, so there's not some long-standing consensus for it, and while Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, that page also includes WP:GRATUITOUS: Images should respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. The article is well-illustrated by plenty of images of Loren; it doesn't need this one. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 has decided no further discussion required. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I made a bold edit that I believe is justified by policy, and gave several reasons why. In no way, shape or form did I say or hint that further discussion would be inappropriate. If you can gain consensus that a topless photo of a living person taken when she was 16 is a good thing for this article, then I will accept consensus. But I will make my case in any further discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, it was bold, wasn't it. My several reverts of the deletion were primarily motivated by the desire to see due process followed. Not by the need to see Miss Scicolone's tits on the page. I had mistakenly assumed that this thread had suddenly become redundant. That spaghetti looks positively undressed to me... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123, do not make any further remarks that are disrespectful of the subject of this BLP article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested image for the lead.

I agree that there are a sufficient number of quality photos of Loren to not require this one, as a matter of urgency or at all. Gratuitousness was mentioned above; in the vernacular, it's called taking the pish. The current lead photo is crap too. I mean, are we deliberately trying to wind her up?! :) SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"... what the hell is wrong with you?" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The lead photo is the best recent photo we have of Loren and is the better alternative to frequent changes that were made before. We can decide to use an old picture but in that case we have images that feature her face much more prominently. See the discussion from last year above. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)