Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

"Had a 20-inch waist (34A-20-34) and at 5'7" never weighed more than 110 lbs (50 kg)."

 Is this true?! 

A copy of Audrey's birth certificate for anybody that disputes her name, is availble here : http://www.thatface.org/3473.jpg - Beaker

I was reading Sean Ferrer's description about his mother [Hepburn] and he mentioned that many people thought she was thinner than she actually was; she had a narrow upper body, but had rather strong, muscular legs. Also, she suffered from malnutrition because of the war and she had been depressed for some time due to a miscarriage. So, no, though it would seem that she was [anorexic] - especially according to those who think that every thin person is suffering from an eating disorder, she was healthy, else she may not have been able to withstand her duties as an UNICEF ambassadress.

The name issue, again

Sorry folks, but i too have "Edda van Heemstra Hepburn-Ruston" as her birthname. This is according to Le Musée du Cinéma, Phaidon, Paris, 1999.

========

Now this is something I find rather interesting. Could you, 149.101.1.119, explain where the name "Edda van Heemstra Hepburn-Ruston" -- the one you deleted -- came from? And is it really "Andrey Kathleen Ruston? All the best, KF 22:17 27 May 2003 (UTC)

In my encyclopedia it says "Edda Hepburn-van Heemstra". 193.171.249.98 16:22 28 May 2003 (UTC)

acording to the book Audrey Hepburn an elegant spirit by Sean Hepburn Ferrer (Audrey's eldest son) Audrey was born "Audrey Kathleen Ruston". After the war, her father, Joseph Victor Anthony Ruston, found documents about his ancestors, some of whom bore the name Hepburn. "This is when he added it to his name, which caused my mother to have to legally add Hepburn to her name as well." Sean continues to write "my grandmother temporarily changed my mother's name from Audrey to Edda during the war, feeling that "Audrey" might indicate her British roots too strongly." He goes on to tell how it was done. "My grandmother Ella came up with the name Edda by simply exchanging the two l's in her own name with two d's." "Since most documents were handwritten at the time, Ella may have had one that could easily be doctored so that my mother could carry it with her whenever she left the house." "just add two c's to the lowercase l's." "change the birth year a bit - Ella was born in 1900, my mother in 1929 - and you have Edda Van Heemstra." I hope this answers your question. Sincerly, slywolf374 (on Yahoo IM)

again removing persistent misinformation about birthname

Instead of pinging-ponging the article back and forth could we get explain the popular misinformation in the article somewhere rather than just deleting it ready for the same mistake to be made again. Thanks! Pcb21| Pete 07:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's referenced; I suppose we could be more obvious about it. - Nunh-huh 07:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

She was born simply Andrey (NOT AUDREY) Kathleen Ruston as it appears on her birth certificate in a biography of her that I read. Her name was later embellished by her socially conscious mother, a Dutch socialite. 65.88.88.214 22:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you have to do better than that. Provide the name of the book and explain why it contradicts the writings of her own son, and other authors like Barry Paris. Bear in mind there is at least one so-called biography out there that has been debunked as fiction - that's the one written by a so-called illegitimate son who claimed Audrey had ties to organized crime and the Nazi party. 23skidoo 22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Followup. Go here and scroll down for a scan of her birth certificate. It clearly says her birth name was Audrey (and it also helps settle the "Edda" dispute as well). 23skidoo 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Birth name Andrey Kathleen Ruston as per her bio "Audrey Hepburn:a biography" by Warren G. Harris (Simon & Schuster) ISBN#0-671-75800-4. - 65.88.88.214 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And the quotation in that work claiming "Andrey" is what? - Nunh-huh 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK-As per "Audrey Hepburn:a biography" by Warren G. Harris (Simon & Schuster) ISBN#0-671-75800-4:

page 12: "Her name at birth was Andrey Kathleen Ruston, "Andrey" being an uncommon feminine of 'Andrew', which would have been her given name if she'd been born a boy. 'Kathleen' honored her father's favorite aunt. Inevitably, the tendency of 'Andrey' to turn up misspelled as the better known 'Audrey' became a constant annoyance, so the quickest solution was for the family to adopt [note-this does not mean a legal adoption, necessarily-Ed.] that name instead."

page 15: "The Rustons settled in a furnished maisonette at 48 rue Keyenveld in the Ixelles district, the most Parisian quarter of Brussels. Their daughter, Andrey Kathleen, was born at home, at three in the morning of May 4, 1929..."

I hope this resolves ALL questions re this matter. 70.19.64.9 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

One reference supporting your preferred name against all the other references could hardly "resolve" it. What sources does Harris list? - Nunh-huh 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This debate is located further down the page, guys - see "Andrey?". We should all be talking in the same place, not having 2 separate debates on the same issue. JackofOz 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A copy of Audrey's birth certificate for anybody that disputes her name, is availble here : http://www.thatface.org/3473.jpg - Beaker

Isn't her original name Andrey Kathleen Ruston-Hepburn

Breakfast At Tiffanys

There is no refrence to her most famous role as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffanys in this article. Perhaps not her best piece, but her part of that film is HUGELY iconic.

Rectified. I personally think it was her best performance other than Two for the Road. 23skidoo 18:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Katharine Hepburn issue

I have put a reference to people erroneously stating that Audrey and Katharine Hepburn were sisters back into the text, but in the Trivia section this time. Although Nunh-huh makes a good point that everyone is related, the fact is to remove this "corrective" would mean that all references to siblings and other relations would have to be excised from Wikipedia as redundant. (i.e. Joan Fontaine and Oliva de Havilland, James Arness and Peter Graves, etc.). If proof exists that the two Hepburns were distantly related, I concede that, but someone should put this into the text because the way it reads now, Audrey's dad chose Hepburn out of thin air. If they were cousins 49 times removed, it's worth noting. However the fact is they weren't sisters, and considering Wikipedia is becoming a major reference, I feel it important to mention this because this erroneous fact has already been committed to print by a national Canadian newspaper and at least one Who's Who-type publication. (Actually, a new Wikipedia article explaining how the two Hepburns are related could be quite interesting.) 23skidoo 18:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But now the entry in the trivia section makes no sense:

It is often erroneously reported in reference books and media that Audrey Hepburn and Katharine Hepburn were sisters or otherwise very close relatives. They were reportedly related, but very distantly.

In particular, the repetition of the word "reported" makes these sentences both confusing and potentially contradictory. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:12, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

They were related, but no more closely than any two white people chosen at random. Perhaps "Audrey Hepburn and Katharine Hepburn were neither sisters nor otherwise closely related, despite occasional, and mistaken, press reports to the contrary. - Nunh-huh 04:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

23skidoo: Audrey's dad did not choose "Hepburn" out of thin air, as Audrey's bios make clear, it was her socially conscious mother who discovered the name in her husband's family's background (I believe it belonged to his grandmother). Just to let you know!!67.101.192.103 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also I read that Katharine and Audrey were 19th cousins, once removed. 67.101.192.103 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Edward III

From Royal descents of famous people [1]

Number of estimated descendants of Edward III - I have seen 80 percent of the population of England quoted, which would conflict with the estimate for William the Conqueror above (it would imply that perhaps 75 percent of the population of Britain descend from William the Conqueror). Roderick W. Stuart claims millions of descendants of Edward III in America alone: "Edward III is the latest king from whom a large number of Americans and Europeans can claim descent. His American posterity numbers in the millions." [Stuart, 1998].

In this light, there is little reason to note this ancestor. -Willmcw 21:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Biopic POV

Yes there were some very vocal Audrey Hepburn and Natalie Portman fans that were unhappy with Hewitt's performance but it was by no means "general disappointment". A number of months ago I removed "universally condemed" from Hewitt's article audrey biopic section since that is simply also not true, I should have checked this article back then. The biopic section in this article would need to be twice as large to balance out all those POV violations, there are more than a handful of critics that think Hewitt did an OK or better job. However, for Audrey's article I don't need to get that verbose.

Also, should we mention somewhere else in this article that Cate Blanchette played Audrey in the Aviator and is nominated for an Oscar for that performance? zen master T 14:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To acknowledge publicized criticism is not POV. If you feel to do so is POV I invite you to try and change the article on Star Trek: Enterprise. I'm reverting your change, but will try to do some rewording. Incidentally, Blanchett played KATHERINE Hepburn in The Aviator, not Audrey. BTW your edit took out references to the fact that more than one version of the bio-pic exists and that several actresses have been named as potential Audrey Hepburn portrayers including one who has actually done so in a fashion layout. I'm at a loss to understand how that information could possibly be POV. 23skidoo 14:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks for some clean up but "much of the criticism" and "suggested by fans" is still POV. Most of the criticism of the audrey hepburn story I've read about were about the writing and the way the story was condensed for an NBC movie as opposed to a mini-series.

The second paragraph is entirely POV, stating some actresses "should" play or have been "suggested to play" audrey is POV. The point I am trying to make is that the "publicized" criticism was by no means universal and the article still presents it as such, vocal criticism does not equal universial criticism. To rectify the POV problems with that section of the article we need to either state precisely who is criticizing negatively and balance with positive critics or remove the entire section, I chose the later but will be happy to do it the former way if you thing that section needs to remain detailed. zen master T 15:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There were a few things removed that I feel are appropriate, in particular the mention that footage of the real Audrey is used in the film. That fact isn't POV, so I will put it back. Also, there is quite a bit of discussion over who should play Audrey if anothe biopic is made, and the actresses mentioned there have been mentioned in media, not just fan circles, so that removes POV. I will make a subsection for that paragraph so it doesn't directly relate to the JLH film.23skidoo 17:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, done. I'm not too thrilled with the subhead title Potential 'Audrey Hepburns'. Any ideas for a better title are welcome. 23skidoo 17:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the movie aired on NBC, not FOX? The problem with the "potential hepburns" section is that such a thing violates NPOV by its very existence, there are many critics/fans that would say some of those listed actreses should not be allowed, and others would say Hewitt should be included in a future potray possibility, the producers and the studio obviously thought she had potential. It was generally only Portman fans that were upset over her casting. I still say it is better not to have a "potential potrayals" section even though it is worded better now, it still is not NPOV. Think about it this way: do other deceased actors and actress article's on wikipedia include a section on who best could "potentially" portray them on film? I don't think so. zen master T 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe there is a few. And I still say this is not POV as these are things that have been discussed. It's not a case of the writer (i.e. me or whomever) saying "I think so-and-so should play Audrey". It's the fact that these three individuals have been specifically identified in media as having an Audrey Hepburn style to them. If you feel this strongly about it, and rather than us end up in a revert war over it, I invite you to seek a peer review from Wikipedia administrators and let them make the call. Cheers. 23skidoo

I do feel strongly about this, it is sneaky POV being allowed in there, I am considering tagging that section with an NPOV template. I am a fan of Natalie Portman (and ironically also Hewitt) but I am a bigger fan of NPOV. I think uncited POV text should be left off of an article prior to peer-review :-) but maybe that is just my POV. If other articles have a who could *potentially* play a person that would also be wrong (they key is who *has* played someone vs who "should" *potentially* play someone, potentially is rife with POV). We really should state exactly who these internet fans/critics are specifically stating can play audrey, it's not just POV it's also uncited (once it becomes cited then rebuttles or differing opinions can be cited/included as well for well). I am going to fix the fact that the tv movie aired on ABC not FOX. zen master T 19:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm no Hepburn expert but what exactly is it that makes her a "gay icon?" She's not LGB or T, and I don't think she has a disproportionate number of fans in the gay community. Molimo 02:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This has long puzzled me as well. I know the Gay Icons category has been removed from a few other articles (Sophia Loren IIRC) as being non-applicable. If a rationale for Hepburn being listed isn't provided, I suggest it be deleted. 23skidoo 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Belgian-born

Is this worth noting? Should she not be described as an Anglo-Dutch actress, since she was raised in both countries, and her family came from both?

NO--She was a British citizen from birth as per her biography: "Audrey Hepburn: a biography" by Warren G. Harris (ISBN# 0-671-75800-4), page 12: "Because Audrey happened to be born in Brussels, her original nationality has often been erroneously cited as Belgian. But being born on Belgian soil does not by itself convey Belgian citizenship. That must come through at least one Belgian parent or through naturalization, neither of which applied in Audrey's case. Though she had a British father and a Dutch-born mother, both were British in the eyes of the law, and she was duly certified as such by the British consulate in Brussels."

Clear?? 70.19.72.177 18:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

- The article still said "a Belgian actress", so I changed it to "British". I hope everyone's okay with that. Lunapuella 18:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with that but it is a factual error to remove "Belgian born" from other articles. Nevermind her nationality -- it's a fact she was born in Belgium. I could be an American who was born in London ... that still makes me London-born. David Byrne was born in Edinburgh, so it's correct to say he was Scottish born, never mind his ultimate nationality. So there's no reason (as in Roman Holiday) to not say she was Belgian-born. 23skidoo 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Don't go too crazy on adding images to this article, guys. It makes it look cluttered and there should never be side-by-side images at the top of the article, it makes it look junky. Pick one image for the top and put the other elsewhere. As it is, there are maybe 2 or 3 too many images in this article as is stands now. I like the newly-added Funny Face image which has the benefit of being rather uncommon. 23skidoo 20:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get into a revert war over this. I moved the UNICEF image farther down the story. There is no need to have two competing images at the top. 23skidoo 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an article on Hepburn rather than an image sanctuary. Each of us may have their own favourite picture of the actress, but this is absolutely ridiculous. One, maybe two images, but what has happened here is intolerable.

A problem still bigger than the one just mentioned is the copyright status of the new images. Not a single one of them has been tagged. Almost whatever page I have a look at these days (see, for example, Teri Hatcher, Salma Hayek, Susan Sarandon), the PD images or fair use screenshots are being replaced by "better" (ha) images, and it doesn't take long until someone else comes along and justifiably tags them {{unverified}}. Please let's not do this. Please let's not work against each other. And please read the text on the upload file before uploading yet another image. <KF> 23:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Having seen a couple of excellent images turfed from Kate Bush's article, I'm sensitive to copyright status. To my knowledge most of the images on this page are Fair Use because they are either publicity stills (i.e. Roman Holiday, Robin & Marian), screen captures (Charade), or government-related (the new UNICEF picture). The only one I'm uncertain of is the recently added Richard Avedon picture at the top from Funny Face. If it can be verified that it was a publicity shot, then it should be OK. That said the images have gotten out of hand. My recommendation is pick TWO and only two, one for the top and one for farther down the article. My votes would be for the Roman Holiday photo and the UNICEF shot, as both shots nicely illustrate both facets of her life. 23skidoo 02:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone is overreacting about this. These are just a few pictures. The Funny Face picture isn't working for some reason, but I think it is the best of the lot. And it is a publicity shot (what else could it be?). Keep that, Roman Holiday, and the UNICEF picture, and the page will look fine.

The Funny Face image could be from a behind-the-scenes magazine article, or a separate assignment by Avedon ... just because an image depicts a scene from a film doesn't mean it's considered a promotional image. (The image is appearing fine for me, btw). But I agree that IMO the best images to use are Funny Face (assuming it's kosher), Roman Holiday (which is a famous publicity still) and UNICEF (ditto and government-related to boot which renders it PD). 23skidoo 20:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears the Funny Face image has been tagged as a copyvio, so it will likely be deleted. 23skidoo 14:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like the image is toast. Whoever uploaded it just cut-and-pasted from the Audrey1 website and placed no information indication permission was sought or that the image is freeuse. The powers that be at Wikipedia are really cracking down on this sort of thing. I recommend whoever uploaded the UNICEF image make sure it's free use. The Roman Holiday image is from a screenshot so it's safe (in theory). I have a scan of the DVD cover for Breakfast at Tiffany's (another image that qualifies under free use) ready to go when the Funny Face image is deleted. 23skidoo 14:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a publicity shot that can be found on imdb.

Please sign your messages. I noticed it's also on IMDb, but the version that has been uploaded contains a URL for another site, so Wikipedia is treating it as a copyvio. Also the appearance of an image on IMDb is not an indicator of copyright status because it usually means the image is copyright either IMDb or a third party (I believe MPTV or something like that in the case of this image). Wikipedia is getting very strict with the images it allows, in part because of the copycat websites out there. I made a screen capture for Eleanor Powell and I've seen it redistributed all over the Net. In the case of the Funny Face image I agree it should be considered a vintage promotional image, but in all likelihood Wikipedia will delete it now as copyvios more often than not end up that way. 23skidoo 12:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, someone has replaced the iffy images with a fair use book cover scan, and one of the nicer ones too. This image should be safe because, last I looked, book covers were allowed. 23skidoo 04:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Does any one else not really like the image in the lead? I personally think the Roman Holiday one should be up there, not a calander. The other image is much more famous and better represents her. Sunlc 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've lost track -- the images seem to change by the week. The calendar image is fine. It depicts the young Audrey and is technically a book cover (calendars are considered books) which makes it easier to justify fair use. I thought the Adieu Audrey book cover image was fine. Let's just pick an image and stick with it for a few months. 23skidoo 16:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One of Her Unicef appeals

I will never forget something she said in an interview on tv once when I was a kid. She said "If it hadn't been for Unicef I would have starved to death. She was OK.-Dakota ^(Talk)

Andrey?

An anonymous editor posted that Audrey's birth name was in fact "Andrey". I reverted this, but I'm starting this thread for anyone who can actually provide some sort of proof that this is true. PS. I just noticed at the very top of this page that this discussion actually dates back to 2003. IMO if Sean Ferrer's book says it is Audrey then it is Audrey. He should know. 23skidoo 20:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• A link that was just added for the [www.accuracyproject.org/cbe-Hepburn,Audrey.html Accuracy Project] pretty much confirms that the whole idea of Audrey's birth name being "Andry" is nonsense. 23skidoo 17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reverted the recent "Andrey" addition (which cited a "movie poster" site as "evidence"). Since we have her letter in her own hand stating that her birth name was Audrey, and no good evidence of any "Andrey", we just need to revert when this sort of thing is added. - Nunh-huh 00:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've just sent a strongly-worded e-mail to the webmaster of the webpage cited by the anon. Hopefully it'll put an end to all this. If nothing else, maybe we'll be able to find out where this Andrey B.S. comes from. My guess is it'll be that fictional book from the guy who claimed Audrey was a CIA agent out to kill him ... or something like that. 23skidoo 01:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Surely, surely, this Andrey rubbish has come about through either a simple typographical error, or, more likely, someone misreading a hand-written 'u' as an 'n' and not having the presence of mind to understand what they were reading? It happens all the time. JackofOz 01:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think you will likely be proven correct. What annoys me (and I'm obviously not alone) is someone is taking this "typo" ("write-o?") and treating it has fact despite evidence to the contrary. 23skidoo 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, this is one of the ways in which urban myths get created. Amazing how some people so tightly latch on to beliefs that, to others, are so obviously wrong - they've never heard of Occam's Razor apparently. JackofOz 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Birth name WAS Andrey Kathleen Ruston as per her bio "Audrey Hepburn:a biography" by Warren G. Harris (Simon & Schuster) ISBN#0-671-75800-4. (copied and pasted from above).

And the quotation in that work claiming "Andrey" is what? - Nunh-huh 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) OK-As per "Audrey Hepburn:a biography" by Warren G. Harris (Simon & Schuster) ISBN#0-671-75800-4:

page 12: "Her name at birth was Andrey Kathleen Ruston, "Andrey" being an uncommon feminine of 'Andrew', which would have been her given name if she'd been born a boy. 'Kathleen' honored her father's favorite aunt. Inevitably, the tendency of 'Andrey' to turn up misspelled as the better known 'Audrey' became a constant annoyance, so the quickest solution was for the family to adopt [note-this does not mean a legal adoption, necessarily-Ed.] that name instead."

page 15: "The Rustons settled in a furnished maisonette at 48 rue Keyenveld in the Ixelles district, the most Parisian quarter of Brussels. Their daughter, Andrey Kathleen, was born at home, at three in the morning of May 4, 1929..."

I hope this resolves ALL questions re this matter. 70.19.72.177 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does this keep coming back up when Audrey's birth certificate and childhood passports as shown in "An Elegant Spirit" by Sean Hepburn Ferrer, clearly show this is wrong?

A copy of Audrey's birth certificate for anybody that disputes her name, is availble here : http://www.thatface.org/3473.jpg - Beaker

Oxford University

An anonymous editor has added that Audrey attended Oxford. I'm not aware of this -- can anyone verify this fact? I wasn't aware she attended university at all. 23skidoo 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think she attended Oxford. It's a prestigious university so I am sure it would be better known. Of course I could be wrong, but this sort of thing really should not be added until its verified. I have looked and haven't seen ANYTHING that even hints that she attended Oxford, even briefly. Please provide sources on the discussion page before adding this again.Iamdracula 20:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

npov

The second paragraph about what a saint she was borders on hagiography. I don't care about this woman or this page so I am not going to change it, but ultimately someone who isn't a smitten fan will remove the tireless work and living a life of kindness to others crap.

Believe it or not, everything in that paragraph is all factually correct according to everything that's been documented about her. Worked for UNICEF, everyone liked her, no scandals, had a lot of quotes about kindness, charming in all of her movies. Maybe you can't believe that a person could have that many good qualities...you can add "she smoked" if you want, that wasn't a great quality. Gunkyboy

It may be factually correct but I do have to agree somewhat with the anonymous poster that it did veer a bit too far into POV territory as worded. WP:NOT says articles should not be treated as fan pages. I have reworded it slightly to lessen the potential for POV interpretation. I would suggest, however that a source be cited in this paragraph as a footnote. You can pretty well pick any reputable Hepburn biography for this purpose. 23skidoo 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cruft trivia

I put back a couple of trivia items that had been deleted as "cruft". It is quite notable (and verifiable) that opera star Maria Callas adopted her famous look based upon Hepburn. (I happen to not possess any books on Callas in my 5000-book library but I'm sure someone can add a citation). And it is also notable to indicate which of Hepburn's films were her personal favorites (and the source is good). I agree some of the other items deleted were a bit too NN, but I felt these two should remain. 23skidoo 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pets trivia item

I just noticed that the trivia item about her pets stated that she kept the fawn Pippin "after she was injured" (presumably referring to her accident on the set of The Unforgiven). However I have seen photos of Audrey and Mel at home dated 1957 with the fawn. My understanding is she adopted the fawn around the time she appeared in Green Mansions because she wanted to develop a rapport with the animal on screen in her role as Rima. BTW just following on from the above thread, mentioning her pets isn't too crufty because there was fairly extensive media coverage, especially of the fawn. 23skidoo 14:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought her fawn's name was Ip. Maybe it was a nickname for Pippin, but I don't remember coming across that name for it in the first place. I've always seen the name Ip or Ippy mentioned.

Beaton book image

The "Fair Lady" book image is cool, but I fear under the rather draconian new fair use rules that Wikipedia has put in place in recent weeks, it's possible this image might be removed by someone on the grounds that the article isn't about the book itself. (I'm not exaggerating -- pick any article that has or had a magazine cover image on it and you'll see some editors have really been cracking down on this sort of thing, visually damaging a number of articles in the process). I'm not saying deletion of this image is inevitable, but whoever uploaded should make sure there's an air-tight image license for it. 23skidoo 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. The picture would only be fair use in this article if the article specifically discussed the significance of AH's appearance on that book cover. Otherwise the image will have to be removed. Angr (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Iconicity

We read in the very first sentence that Hepburn was "iconic", and later that Hepburn's performance as "Holly Golightly" in 1961's Breakfast at Tiffany's resulted in one of the most iconic characters in 20th Century American cinema. Her performance as Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady is perhaps equally as iconic. What, if anything, does this mean? (An icon of what?) -- Hoary 06:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

"Many believe", "some believe": who are these people, and how well grounded are their beliefs? (Why should I believe what they are said to believe?) "Reportedly": reported where and when? An enormous amount here needs to be sourced. I started to insert CITENEEDED flags, but quickly gave up. -- Hoary 07:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If a whole section needs sources, you can save time by using {{unsourcedsect}}. User:Angr 09:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I could indeed sling that on every section. Not very helpful, though.

It's sometimes worth noting that this or that notion is widely believed, if only that the notion can then be expressly refuted. But in general I don't care what percentage of an unspecified and perhaps underinformed group of people believe such-and-such; instead, I want to know what is stated by, for example, this or that (named) scrupulous biographer whose (named) biography has got good reviews in the NYRB or wherever. (Page numbers are always welcome too.) -- Hoary 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of the info. It's all accurate and from my own research, but I never cited all of the sources. It'll be a pain in the ass to find the articles I read everything in, but I'll try to finish it off ASAP. -- Gunkyboy

Failed GA

For being on hold for a week.--SeizureDog 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citing ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)