Talk:Anita Loos

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class

	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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Screenwriters High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics 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.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Style of writing

I tagged the whole article with a cleanup template because of a fast and loose (pun intended) style of writing. Phrases like these make me think the article was written like a story:

"suffered from wanderlust"
"veiled version"
"tagged after her alcoholic scamp father as they explored San Francisco's underbelly"
"free herself of the shackles"
"take a perfunctory bow"
"her adoration of Emerson had manifested as subservience"
"they did what women do, they went shopping"

...and more. Such writing style works great in the bestseller section but fails to meet the expectations of an encyclopedic and straightforward relation of facts, dates and general themes. I have too much on my plate right now to gather all the sources together, study the subject in depth and rewrite the article myself which is why I'm just leaving a tag. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be so much happier with this article if contributors let Loos speak her own funny lines by employing quotes. Phrases such as "toothless flirt" added by User:EraserGirl don't help the article achieve the encyclopedic mission of being informative and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no takers? I've got none of the required books to even consider going through and correcting the personally-invested style of writing. Somebody out there must be able to do this. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to San Fran in 1892?

All the sources and articles I could find indicate Anita's family moved to San Francisco in 1892. My article on R. Beers Loos references a primary source I posted to Wikimedia commons. It is a letter written by Loos, dated 5 December 1892, and on the dateline is written "Sisson" and the bottom is signed "Sisson Mascot." So, either the family moved after 5 Dec or there is a discrepancy? --JasonCochran (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay credits

I created Category:Screenplays by Anita Loos and went through all the links I could find on this page, but I wasn't quite sure if I should place the uncredited works in that category. If her name wasn't listed in the film's infobox, I didn't put it, but I'm wondering if I should go back and add those films as well. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, categories at the bottom of an article should be supported by something in the article. If you add the category to uncredited works, please add a bit of sourced text that says Loos wrote it. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Husband

I looked up Anita Loos after reading an article about her in a Reader's Digest called "Gentlemen Still Prefer Blondes." It was from 1953. The article claims she left her first husband in 36 hours. In the Wikipedia article is says six months. Seems like a big difference. Which is more accurate? --Fonkety ponk (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent timelines

There is a rather large inconsistency with the summer of 1919 for Anita Loos. She is asked by the Talmadges to spend it in Paris without Emerson but then gets married and goes off with her assistant meeting Gertrude Stein and Alice B. ? Also she is in Florida (not having full blown affair) with Mezner and she never sees him again for him to pop up in Hollywood as companion along with Cecil? Then there's the MGM contract that she can't buy her way out of that then just lets her go early? Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the Florida situation with wording, but will leave the 1919 summer ( it has sat this way unnoticed for some time, it wont hurt?) until I can find either research or somebody to discuss this here with, please? Jennablurrs7575 20:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New portrait uploaded

FYI note to editors: I just uploaded a new portrait for Anita Loos. See link. Possibly the same sitting as the portrait you're already using. KKelvinThompson (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lowlifes and fast women

Not exactly an objective turn of phrase. Nicmart (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]