Talk:Rudolph Valentino

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal Life Refs[edit]

Both Emily Leider and Allan Ellenberger assert the claim that Valentino was to all evidence straight and anything else is not sourceable. I have included sources for this, and maybe a few other pages could be added to verify further. Ellenberger directly states that it was the rash of 60s books that began to perpetuate the gay rumors out and out especially the relationship with Novarro which never occurred. Why 2 books directly about Valentino cant be 'used to prove everything' is beyond me when both books are well reviewed and meet all Wikipedia standards. Get over your vendetta with me. I'm adding info per Wiki rules and I am sick of god kings sitting there reverting it trying to pick little fights with me. Its sourced relevant info, deleting it all down to one sparse sentence (author Allan Ellenberger also asserts this...) not only takes out much relevant info but isnt fully correct (Emily Leider does as well). Seriously I am sick of one person picking a personal rulership over all these silent articles. I'd like to see some new blood who isnt home all day trying to pick internet fights. I will revert anything taking out sourced edits, beyond that Im not playing this game thank you.--75.56.215.113 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Material supported by reliable sources should not be removed without a very good reason, and in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia, the reasons should be discussed here and consensus reached. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Key word here; perpetrate. Somebody has a vendetta alright. Hello Fred Niblo and his corrupt minion sickos who did everything in his power to destroy a man that was better than him at everything. And way better looking. We see you. We know it was you who stopped him from seeing his family, by cancelling the Spain trip. And we know he personally saw to it to perpetrate the rumors even back then. We know. Fred Niblo was a monster.

Personally I couldn't care less about Valentino's sex life, but this reputable new book on gay chronicler Samuel Steward (reviewed here by the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/books/26secret.html?hpw) brings up the topic again that Valentino had sex with men (specifically, Steward, who catalogued the encounter). It seems to this straight woman that, as currently worded, the Valentino article is insistently pro-straight, with no room for ambiguity beyond reference to "persistent rumors." The truth is, we just don't know, and neither do his biographers. If I add the alleged Steward-Valentino encounter to this article, will it just be deleted or straight-washed? -- Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.181.173 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how reliable is the claim of Steward, who it appears would have been a high school student in Ohio at the time of Valentino's death? Why privilege this one particular claim as evidence of orientation, especially since Steward seems to claim to have had sex with numerous famous people? More of a problem, for the article, is that the sentence about Steward feels arbitrarily inserted, and does not cite Steward, but "The Gay Book of Days." That said, the article takes a must-be-straight-or-gay approach, without allowing either for the possibility that Valentino was bisexual or the possibility of career-advancing sexual encounters irrelevant to his actual orientation. It does seem that it would be worthwhile to state that--whoever he had sex with--Valentino's orientation is not something we can diagnosis beyond doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Maiden (talk • contribs) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who isn't posturing or smarmy please clean up the section on Valentino's sexuality? The individual (anonymous) who initiated this thread in 2009 left a deeply offensive, biased, and inappropriate diatribe, which has received a couple of understandably defensive responses but no real clarity on the issue. It would be helpful if someone without the initial 2009 editor's homophobic attitude could provide us with a balanced discussion of the best available data on this issue--which is not necessarily what has been documented by biographers... Alanrobts (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the writer Adela Rogers St. John, who knew Valentino well, he was straight. She stayed for a time at his house while he and Natacha Rambova were having their then-illicit affair (he was still married to Jean Acker.) She described their lovemaking, which she unwillingly overheard, as noisy and extremely passionate. She wrote that he always referred to Rambova as the love of his life, and never recovered from their divorce. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Refs[edit]

I dont know how to format these right, but here are the 3 broken refs...could someone who knows how please fix them? They are Dark Lover by Emily Leider pages 271-272, same only pages 81, 271-272, and again the same book only pages 81, 126, 271-274. I dont know how to format them but I am putting them back in. I wish people would quit being lazy and deleting them instead of just formatting the damn things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.212.124 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, thegingerone, maggiedane, or whatever you are going by now. You can quite easily learn how to format these references yourself. See WP:CITE#Footnote system. As it is, you are not adding references, you're only sticking in meaningless words numbers and expecting someone else to do the work you are too lazy to learn how to do and instead making personal attacks when someon removes those meaningless words and numbers. When someone adds a reference to something, they are certifying its accuracy and validity, and it's ridiculous for you to expect someone to certify what you are claiming is a reference. None of those currently meaningless words and numbers are being used to cite something that isn't already cited, so it's not as if something controversial is being allowed to remain unsourced. Check the page that teaches you to format cites. Learn how to do your own work and stop expecting someone else to do it for you if it means that much. It wouldn't hurt for you to use the full publishing information for your sources, either. That's imperative when you're claiming something comes from a published book - what version of a book do the page numbers refer. As near as I can tell, that book was published by at least two different publishers, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Farrar and Faber and a paper version by Faber & Faber as well. No two versions are likely to have the same page numbering. Without the publishers information, the cites would not be valid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following specification of the bookk's details here I've fixed the three refs in question. However, I see that there's a ref called "leider1" which is defined variously as Dark Lover pages 1-3, 81-83, 85-86, and then cited to support the text "Some journalists were still calling his masculinity into question, going on at length about his pomaded hair, his dandyish clothing, his treatment of women, his views on women, and whether he was effeminate or not. Valentino hated these stories and was known to carry the clippings of them around and criticize them." Can someone with access to the book check these refs, and rename them as appropriate to avoid having the same name used for different portions? Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RudolphValentino.org[edit]

This website, and the contents therein, are from a private self-published website, owned by the same person who runs the forgetthetalkies.com website. Both websites are on the linkbot spam list. There is no valid reason to retain the link, nor the reference to someone's private website promotion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Wildhartlivie; seems a perfectly reasonable not to include mention in the article, especially as the concept is already mentioned and illustrated. A note in the edit summary to the same effect would have saved me from reverting your original edit! -- Timberframe (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for that I apologize. As you could probably tell from the timestamp, it was quite late for me, and this was on the very end of dealing with quite a bit of the talkies links. This has been an ongoing issue with spam from the second link, the valentino.org is relatively new. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth mentioning, forgetthetalkies.com and an assortment of other websites/blogs by the same author have been removed from Google and shut down completely per a Burbank, California court order. If anyone posts argumentatively regarding the fact, I will provide specific publicly available links to the arrest warrant and lawsuit here, as well as upload a complete copy of the court order. The blog/website author in question has an active warrant for her arrest for violating the terms of a court order regarding libel/defamation of character on many of her websites as well as contempt of court. As such, references to such sites and this author have no business being referenced on Wikipedia as they are unreliable, not in good faith and of questionable factual value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.82.40 (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular before Valentino[edit]

The text was erroneous in describing Douglas Fairbanks as being fair complexion, light eyes. True Fairbanks was popular but he was in a class by himself not being so much a great lover but filmdoms best athlete. Fairbanks complexion, even when one looks at his photos today, is dark and he didn't have light eyes. By all accounts they were dark grey. The reigning heartthrob before Valentino was Wallace Reid, and it's repeated in many books on movie history. So I supplanted Fairbanks name for Reid. Koplimek (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Reid wasn't especially fair. He and Valentino certainly don't look like opposites: they are about equally likely as Arrow Shirt models. I would say that, unless someone can cite a contemporary comparison from a film review or fan magazine discussing Valentino's coloring vs. Whoever, these discussions of coloring are projections onto the past. Winter Maiden (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mass hysteria[edit]

Should there really be a link to mass hysteria in the first paragraph? I don't think this comment was meant literally, or if it was the person who wrote it did not know what mass hysteria actually meant. If anyone clicks on the link for further information they get this image that his female fans unanimously endured bouts of semi-psychosis after his death. A pretty miraculous feet even by today's celebrity standards, I should think!109.156.195.40 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you! I'm going to delve into the literature and see if I can find evidence to support those claims. Andrew327 07:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, mass hysteria is the correct way to term the reaction some fans had after his death. This doesn't describe all people's reaction of course, but Valentino's death did cause some fans to go a bit, shall we say, bonkers. I've been working on a draft of this article for a while now because the current version is poorly written and quite poorly sourced. I was just waiting to get one of Valentino's biographies so I could double check the cites (I have it, just been procrastinating). Anyhow, from my draft version there are several sources I found that do support the mass hysteria wording. I made sure to find some because I remembered this comment. Granted, some of the hysteria was later discovered to be drummed up by his manager but there were fans who committed suicide because he died and people (mainly women) just acting in-sane. I wrote a section about it so it's explained a bit more instead of it just being thrown out there like it is now with very little explanation to back it up. Pinkadelica♣ 08:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content[edit]

User:David Bret has repeatedly removed sourced content for no valid reason from this article while also adding unsourced content alleging that Valentino was gay despite being warned that the content is unsourced. Time #1, Time #2, and Time #3. User has not provided a source for this content at any time which goes against Wikipedia policy WP:V, especially since this claim is controversial. I do not believe this content should not stay in the article as it is unsourced. About the only book that claims that Valentino was gay was, shocker!, David Bret's book which he can't even be bothered to cite as it most likely does not qualify as a reliable source. Since reverting Bret would put me over 3RR, I have warned Bret about edit warring and opened this RFC in an attempt to solve this dispute.

I have restored the section to a previous version because there was far too much unsourced speculation. Back and forth speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia which is actually what Wikipedia is, first and foremost. Also, there was quite a bit of the content that was sourced to what appears to be a fansite (Rudolphvalentino.org) which are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. If any user wants to add this content, I believe a consensus needs to be reached because, evidently, this is a hot button issue for at least three different people. Pinkadelica♣ 01:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Valentino Sexuality Debate[edit]

Hollywood Babylon is not a reliable source but is a pack of lies. There is NO evidence Valentino was anything but straight.--31 December 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.20.252 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned about the Rudolph Valentino's sexuality debate that has spilled over from Katie Lynn Birchard's, A.K.A. "Hala Pickford" blogs & websites. There is a gross amount of public mudslinging going on between Birchard, one of her authors, Evelyn Zumaya and David Bret. Birchard claims to have properly sourced material indicating that Valentino was straight. The problem is that she has a vested interest in such claims, and is the publisher for the book(s) in question under the business name "1921 PVG Publishing." She has been successfully sued in Burbank California by yet another well-known Valentino biographer for more than $100,000 dollars for libel and slander and currently has an active warrant for her arrest for violating a court-order involved in this same lawsuit. Court documents relating to the successful suit against Birchard, as well as the warrant for her arrest can be searched via public court records in Burbank, California. Neither she, Zumaya or Bret have any business publishing anything regarding Valentino to Wikipedia, as they all have a vested interest in defaming and fighting each other. Birchard or Zumaya can not make "good faith" edits to this article when they clearly are biased and one sided regarding the subject in question. For the sake of argument, I will leave out further details regarding Birchard. I am personally asking admins to remove all references to Birchard, her alias "Hala Pickford," any reference to any materials sourced from a book published by "1921 PVG Publishing," including her most recent work, written by Evelyn Zumaya. Please be aware of "sexuality" based feuds coming from unknown ip addresses with only argumentative edits as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.82.40 (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever beef these authors or self proclaimed Valentino experts have with each other needs to stay out of the article space and off Wikipedia. Edit warring and adding poorly sourced content to the article in an effort to "win" your battle is not what Wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedic article and it should read as such. Before this began, the article read quite well and provided BOTH opinions from various authors regarding Valentino's sexuality. That is what a well written article does. A well written article does not present only one author's personal point of view about a controversial topic such as one's sexuality. Especially if the subject is deceased and can no longer speak for themselves. I don't care who is right and who is wrong about this matter. If the edit warring, personal attacks, and additions of poorly sourced content continue, I will report all involved parties to AN/I and let administrators deal with them accordingly. Pinkadelica♣ 01:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst no longer wishing to persist with the argument over Valentino's sexuality (on the who really cares basis) what I would like to known is WHY, if not for reasons of prejudice and spite, all references to my biography, "Valentino, Dream of Desire", are persistently removed from the Bibliography section. This is a perfectly legitimate biography, published by a major house, a best-seller in the UK and the US, and has as much right to be here as any other. Why then does Evelyn Zumaya persistently get away with breaking the rules, just because she does not agree with my version of events? Reading her various posts away from Wikipedia, and the vindictive, potently illegal and libellous introduction to her own book, one would suggest a very strong leaning towards homophobia. One might argue, of course, that Zumaya be permitted her fleeting moment of fame: the reviews for her book have been poor, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of your edits here consist of you adding your own biographies to articles. This is not a place to advertise yourself. Same goes for anyone else. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then would someone else please have the courtesy to add my biography to all the others? Surely this is the only fair thing to do? You cannot omit/delete my book just because you disagree with what I have written. This is called prejudice, and may even be regarded as homophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret (talk • contribs) 11:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: my apologies to Aircorn. I did not know that I was not allowed to add a book title here. Would someone please do this for me. Many thanks.David Bret (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the entire "Further reading" section because A). Having the section is optional and B). Its very presence here is causing too much drama and C). the conflicts of interest here are alarming. There are other places you guys can advertise your books or fight about who was right about what gender Valentino decided to lay up with. Pinkadelica♣ 23:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


i'm only making a couple of comments. he picked women who liked women. he never did have a child, even if he did want one. my best guess is he was bi and liked both, but did not find the right wife to reproduce with who accepted him. that's all. he was very pretty and he fits the pattern of all the bi men of hollywood of that era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.52.121 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Films about Valentino section[edit]

There are three films mentioned in this section that do not appear to be notable, i.e., do not have articles for them and do not provide sources establishing notability. I propose they be deleted from that section unless notability is established. SQGibbon (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the non-notable films being removed from the section. Pinkadelica♣ 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Valentino's name[edit]

The Ellis Island record and some of the more researched biographies state that Rudolph Valentino's name was actually Rodolfo Alfonso Raffaello Pierre Filibert Guglielmi and that the di Valentina d'Antonguolla,were merely among his fathers traceable ancestors. While performing at Maxim's he found that the American clientele put a premium on titles. Because of this he added on the surname of a noble ancestor.RichardBond (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rudolph Valentino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail - no archived pages[edit]

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

Rudolph Valentino seen with his platinum slave bracelet[edit]

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudolph Valentino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rudolph Valentino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudolph Valentino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pola Negri[edit]

It is not mentioned in the description of Valentina’s personal life that he was engaged to Pola Negri,the great Hollywood actress of a silent cinema. She stayed with him until his death and mentioned later that he was the biggest love of her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.90.126 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pola Negri's claims after Valentino's death to have been his fiancée are mentioned in several places in the article. However, no reliable source could be found, then or now, to confirm those claims, so we will not state here that they were engaged. See WP:VERIFIABILITY. General Ization Talk 04:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

{{refimprove section|date=October 2022}}

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolph_Valentino&oldid=1193931079"