Talk:Farrah Fawcett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Topics from 2005-2006

Gay icon?

Why is Fawcett listed as a gay icon (category)? She's not gay, in fact she's had relationships with several men over the years (Lee Majors, Ryan O'Neil)? If no one has an answer, I'll rever the addition. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, turns out she appeals to gays. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, Mar 24, 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 20:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture

There's a famous poster of her in a red bathing suit. Someone should replace the current pic (from Myra Breckinridge) with that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.22.195 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 July 2005

That poster is copyrighted and Farrah owns all rights to it. I would not put it up, without her permission. -96.8.184.155 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you chose the wrong version of the poster

You chose a version of the poster that I'd never seen, and as old as I am you can believe I saw the original... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.25.25 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 December 2005

Filmography is incomplete

Probably the best Playboy video to date is the video about Farrah Fawcett that she made when she turned fifty. There is some nudity, but there is more art than nudity. The going rate on Amazon for a copy of this DVD is $199.99. They are hard to find. I had one, I think my son took it with him when he went away to college. Imagine that, a 20-year-old watching a 50-year-old woman with lust in his heart.

"Playboy: Farrah Fawcett, All of Me" (1997) Directed by Mark S. Manos

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/36/16/80m.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.25.25 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 December 2005

A link to the poster

http://www.cybertown.com/ffposter.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.155.219 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 July 2006

If Guernica (painting) is iconic enough to justify fair use (Wikipedia:Fair use), than certainly this poster is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 December 2006

Incoherent at Shatner's Roast?

I just watched that roast twice. While I agree that she was not exactly smooth in delivering her jokes -- far from it -- I do not feel that she was incoherent. NSpector 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• What roast were /you/ watching? I can't believe they let her go that long. It was embarassing. Rockhound 18:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It could also have been an act. Either way its not our place to assume one thing or another. These personal biography pages are disasters waiting to happen if we don't stay as NPOV as possible. I deleted the tabloid comment as it is the kind of thing that absolutely must be sourced, and the plastic surgery remark seems unnecessary and likely unfounded. If someone can provide a somewhat reliable source then maybe it will work. I also cleared up the roast information along the same lines.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Add: She was rather coherent during the Emmy ceremonies when she spoke so I find it hard to believe the entire roast deal was for real.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

University

did she not attend the University of Texas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.167.31 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 October 2006

Orr injuries

"In 1998, she was injured by then-boyfriend James Orr when he tried to stop her from vandalizing his house." Entertainment tonight just said that Orr attacked her and then she returned the next night with a baseball bat and hit his car with it when he wouldn't let her in the house. --Gbleem 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Topics from 2007-2008

Cancer

The article mentions O'Neal in this section, but does not explain who that is. It should explain who that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.21.41 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

how do u get anal cancer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.250.76 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Probably similar to how one gets breast cancer, prostate cancer, or brain cancer. Eating lots of beef increases your chances of colon cancer, because of how long it takes to digest (according to my nurse friend). Lewie 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nurse friends are always excellent sources of information...while low fiber does predispose you to colorectal cancer, Ms. Fawcett had a completely different type of cancer. 68.115.83.140 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To correct you, ulcerative colitis is thought to be one potential contributing factor to anal cancer, and in turn diet is thought to be a contributing factor to ulcerative colitis. There is also a genetic predisposition to both gastric disease and all types of cancer. Abrazame (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Fawcett have rectal cancer or anal cancer? It is an important distinction, as the two have different causes. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the metastases in her liver were found in May 2007. However, the large majority of people with liver metastases are dead within a year of the secondaries being found in the liver. Is it certain the metastases were found as early as 23 months ago? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The cited source for that part of Wiki's article states:

"She was declared in remission on Feb 2, 2007, but three months later, scans showed 'not only had it recurred, it metastasized to her liver,' Nevius said.

"The latest treatment in Germany tried to address the cancer's spread to that organ, he said."

I realize this is an important distinction for those with the disease as well as those in the medical profession. If anybody can source a different or more specific mention for this detail, please discuss it here. Nevius is not the doctor, but he is being quoted by the media as her spokesperson as he is the person producing the documentary about Fawcett's treatment. Of course I would prefer to use terms and dates specified by the doctor, if we could find a quote. The article quotes Piro addressing the hematoma specifically, but not the cancer. I am assuming Piro, an L.A. doctor, would be privy to, but not authorized to speak on, her German treatment.

As for the distinction between anal and rectal cancer, I think the edits here have merely been one of linguistic propriety, to put it one way. I have seen both words used in articles about Fawcett. I have not edited that detail one way or the other, due to this conflation of terms in media sources and my own lack of understanding of that distinction. The person inquiring above about the cause was responding to vulgar vandalism. My editorial instinct is that sourced information about causes that are not specifically about an individual person's case is probably best for articles about disease or disease prevention and not articles about the individual person. Abrazame (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There are significant differences between anal and rectal cancer. Anal cancer is a squamous cell cancer while rectal cancer is an adenocarcinoma (glandular cancer). Anal cancer has been linked with HPV infection (same virus that causes cervical cancer) while rectal cancer has been linked with diet and ulcerative colitis. -69.122.46.162 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Passive voice

Interesting and useful article, but can it loose the passive voice? "It was revealed..."? Eeeuww. Instead, (just a fabricated example) how about phrasing such as this: "Sarah, in an interview in the Curmugeon Weekly [footnote goes here], revealed that...". Bill Wvbailey (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Topics from 2009-2010

Picture, Article

First off, there should be a picture of her from Charlie's Angels or something as the main picture and then her famous poster should have its own section. I mean my god, it's the highest selling poster ever, does it not deserve its own section in her article? And use an actual photo of the poster because the actual poster does not show the lower portion of her right leg and has her signature on the bottom right.

Second, there is too much focus on her illness and not enough on her impact on popular culture. That could go so much further in depth and she is maybe the biggest icon of the 1970's. Certainly the late 1970's. For such a massive icon of the decade the article is way too short.

And for god's sake leave Michael Jackson out of her article. I don't care how close her death was to his. Her name is not mentioned in HIS article so seriously.

There is some major work to be done on this article to giver her her due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtskins (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Health update, 04-Apr-2009

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/04/exclusive-farrah-fawcett-hospitalized

Farrah Fawcett has been hospitalized and is in bad shape, sources close to family and friends tell RadarOnline.com exclusively.

She has been battling cancer for three years and recently returned from Germany, where she had experimental stem-cell treatment. Sources told RadarOnline.com that she is critical but stable in a Los Angeles-area hospital. They also say she is unconscious and has been hospitalized for days. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The very first sentence says: Farrah Fawcett (born February 2, 1947) has died an American actress. " As of 1:25 p.m., on Monday, April 6, 2009, Pacific Time, it has NOT been announced that she has died! Please change this ASAP! Thank You. -DrewBe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the radaronline report was incorrect, in true tabloid style. According to her spokesperson in an AP article[1], not only was she not "in bad shape," but she had never received any stem-cell treatment. Furthermore, she had chemotherapy and radiation in 2006, but not surgery as is reported in this bio. Abrazame (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did she receive an experimental stem cell transplant? If so it should be included, as right now it says she went for 'holistic treatment', which is generally code word in the cancer community for forgoing modern treatment in favor of unproven herbs, spices, cartilage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.83.140 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the post immediately above yours here, supported by the link therein, a spokesperson has said she did not have stem cell treatment. There will be a documentary airing on U.S. network television this Friday which may shed some light on the treatment. However, we cannot speculate on the modernity or comment on the nature of her treatment without a notable reference. Abrazame (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redmond O'Neal

Stop trying to sensationalize the guy's arrests. He is a living person dealing with a challenge. He is also the child of Farrah Fawcett. While in the real world he is a valuable and multidimensional human being and an important and enduring part of Fawcett's life, Redmond has not chosen to be a celebrity or actor and is not himself encyclopedically notable. Note that, other than one sentence about his birth noting his father, the vast majority was about his addiction and record. This is undue weight both from the standpoint of its being Fawcett's bio and from the standpoint of its coverage of this young man. It's not a question of what's clearly lacking in your heart, it's a question of what's clearly lacking in your editorial responsibility given that this is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column. We need to refrain from emphasizing the tabloid elements of an article subject, in this case Fawcett's life, and virtually ignore those elements of their relatives', in this case her son's. Abrazame (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is he still in jail? It is relevant to her life, and therefore her bio, whether or not her son is currently imprisoned. Correct & improve (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

April 6 news

I have restored the fact that Fawcett learned about her liver cancer two years ago, and has been living with that cancer and receiving treatment for it these past two years. This was noted not only in the article referenced but in its title. This is not some horrible new development that has transpired during or since her time in Germany. Just because most of the press is sensationalizing it due to the fact they just learned of the development, we need to take a broader perspective and present the history of the woman's life, not the history of the news reports about her. It's the misreporting of all of this that lends itself to the misrepresentation that it's a sudden turn for the worse and she's at death's door. Let's try and distill the facts and the actual reportage from the breaking tabloid news around here. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Lee Majors launch her career? Strange Wikipedia bio entry

This is a strange Wikipedia bio entry. According to this entry, she was doing commercials in the late 1960's and did an "I Dream of Jeannie" episode in 1969. And it mentions that she at that point married Lee Majors in the early 1970's. This totally leaves out that she got her Hollywood start when Lee Majors visited the University of Texas and saw a picture of her and dropped by the Tri-Delt house and told them "Tell Farrah Fawcett that Lee Majors will pick her up at 7 tonight" or something to that effect. Didn't he launch her career????, introduce her to Hollywood??? I could have sworn I read that a dozen times - but nothing in this Wiki entry. And didn't they divorce because Majors didn't want a starlet wife, but Victorian ideas and wanted her pregnant at home, cooking food for him??? I think he actually said that. But no mention of anything here. Not even why they got divorced. Maybe I'm thinking about a different Farrah Fawcett, and this one in Wikipedia didn't inhabit this particular Earth. I think they are two different people, what with all the information left out of this Wiki entry. This is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.54.161 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Farrah Fawcett that inhabits this earth, she's one of the most photographed women in the history of said earth, and there's been more than a few words accompanying those photos. Perhaps you can find the strings of quotes you're recalling from a notable source (not fan magazines, unauthorized bios or tabloids) and actually reference them in the article. If Majors began her career, then married her, but didn't want a starlet wife, that's kind of self-contradictory, no? I'm not saying I haven't read it, or that one couldn't glean the second part of that from the TV movie, I'm saying what's your point...what was his point...and does it stack up as the real story? What purpose does it serve in her bio? The germane issue to her bio is that what is notable is that she appeared in this or that project, not her former husband's alleged and changing views on her career, much less his bon mots to her roommates as they dated or speculation on the cause of their divorce.

Having said all that, I agree that this bio needs some work, as it's heavily weighted toward latter-day tabloid tales. Fawcett is not Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton, she is notable not only for her relationships and her beauty and her fame but for having been an actress with a decades-long career. The bio should better reflect that. Abrazame (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see multiple problems with what you wrote and suggested. First of all, it all took place in the late 1960's, and most newspapers do not have those articles up on the web - the web only really took off in the mid-1990's - a quarter of a century later. Secondly, Farrah Fawcett was Hollywood actress and starlet - not a nuclear physicist or politician - so the vast majority of her coverage was in tabloids etc, i.e. she was not a topic for discussion by what you would consider to be serious media. Thirdly, it is largely a waste of time for somebody like me to insert anything in Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia entries are largely dominated by people who have serious serious SERIOUS interest in the topics at hand, i.e. they "own" a half dozen pages at Wikipedia, and immediately delete/change edits that they don't like (that's probably the primary reason why Wikipedia will never be a serious resource - at least, not until the people running Wikipedia figure out a solution to that). Thus, I don't waste my time with edits. Heck, the Lee Majors stuff was probably put up at one time (probably multiple times), but taken down by whoever "owns" this page. And, lastly, any sort of edit that might be considered negative in ANY SORT OF LIGHT WHATSOEVER has to come down at Wikipedia - negative information is basically not allowed at Wikipedia (in case you hadn't noticed that) - another major shortcoming of Wikipedia until they figure out a way to be able to put up negative information without it being taken down.

One more minor comment, with your regards to what I wrote being "contradictory". I guess you weren't around when it all happened and was written about, but Majors introduced her to Hollywood for things like commercials - never expecting (or wanting) her to become a major star - and when she did - poof, there went the marriage, i.e. it's actually not contradictory if you knew the full story.

Direct-to-video

Wasn't the All of Me piece shown on the Playboy Channel and/or Pay-Per-View prior to or concurrent with the video release? As such, isn't it essentially the same as other cable or television films/specials and not truly direct-to-video? Could we get a ref for the direct-to-video status of those titles? Abrazame (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Encounter with crazed fan

This reads very poorly; e.g. "They tried—but failed—to throw the book at him." It needs a more summary style than a story. 69.221.128.207 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I re-edited that down to its unsensationalized essentials and incorporated it into a newly formed section on Extremities rather than its own section. I've also expanded and split into sections other areas of her career, in an effort to give appropriate weight to what she's actually been notable for, and less to her cancer and her son's difficulties. Abrazame (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you divided her career into subsections. Good call. LA Movie Buff (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting content from talk pages

I've just restored two deleted sections to this talk page. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, talk page content should be archived, not deleted. Deleting content because you don't agree with it, eg this, is inappropriate. It's censorship and Wikipedia is not censored! A more appropriate response to the suggestion might have been to answer with a modified version the edit summary used in the deletion. As for this edit, it's expressly covered by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long; "Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, do not delete the content—archive it." Of course the page is less than 32KB in length and there are only (now) 20 sections so the page doesn't meet the general archiving guideline in that section. i.e there's no need to archive yet. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just been made aware that one of the deleted sections was started by a banned user, so I'm re-deleting it as such deletion is entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Death

Death?

did she really die or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

She's not dead, unless the anonymous IP that saved that information knows her personally or has some other way of knowing this information before the press finds out. There is no news source reporting her death at this time. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 05:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The old Wikipedia custom of jumping the gun surfaces again...192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just received a text message update from WTOP radio in Washington D.C. saying that Entertainment Tonight announced that Fawcett has died. Akira (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it's true. The news of her death is on CNN right now.Smiloid (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

From her website "I am sorry to say our Farrah has passed to a better place and left the pain and confines of her bed behind. She is free to be the woman we all knew and loved. So Few have touched so many. You all keep Fighting the Fight." Smiloid (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Date

It is 1:52am EST June 25, 2009 and her date of death has already been posted?!!! (read June 26, 2009) Jumping the gun?

CNN just broke this news.

People Magazine posted an on-line message at 12:35 P.M. EDT on June 25, 2009 saying that she died at 9:28 A.M. PST on June 25th. However, they must have meant 9:28 A.M. PDT because 12:35 P.M. EDT is the same as 9:35 A.M. PDT -- seven minutes later than 9:28 A.M. PDT, but 53 minutes before 9:28 A.M. PST; i.e., 9:28 A.M. PST is the same at 10:28 A.M. PDT.Rodneysmall (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proseline

I tried to quickly reformat the "Cancer" paragraph to remove the proseline, but since I'm not an experienced contributor, a work check would be appreciated. If it looks OK, the proseline template may also be removed. Thanks--Webwizard (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anal cancer

There is a factual conflict between whether Farrah has anal or rectal cancer in this article. The article says anal and the footnote says rectal. This page is probably getting hit a lot on the eve of the broadcast; would a true Wikipedian please work this out? I am but a nestling. DioxonFreak not logged in96.238.101.102 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fawcett has anal cancer. I have inserted a ref for that immediately following the term, as it does not support the claim that she had surgery for her first bout, which is noted in the other ref. I've taken the liberty of changing your section title. Thanks for the heads-up, although of course it is the ref which is wrong and not the Wikipedia article. I could cite five notable refs for "anal cancer" and someone else could come along and cite five notable refs for "rectal cancer". And anyone reading the articles which state the latter will go off believing that. I have seen a preview of Fawcett's documentary, and she says the term in her own voice. I would direct anyone else who has a question one way or the other on this or any other detail to watch the documentary Friday, 5/15 at 9PM ET on NBC, and take your information on this from the source. Abrazame (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction request

Under the second paragraph under the heading 'Cancer', a course of profusion (which means an abundance) should be changed to a course of perfusion (the pumping of a liquid into an organ or tissue)

thanks! GrammarPolice23 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, by removing the sentence entirely, as it was uncited.  Frank  |  talk  14:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, one doesn't fix a typo by removing the whole sentence and its salient information. The cite came at the end of the paragraph for everything therein back to the previous cite. The reference is the documentary Farrah's Story, where the details came right from the source, meetings between Fawcett and her German doctors. Thanks for correcting my spelling of that term, GrammarPolice23! Much appreciated and a valuable contribution. Abrazame (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment and also at my talk page, I'm not aware of a reliable way to use a video as a reliable source. In addition, this is an encyclopedia, not Wikinews, so we don't need every (literally) excruciating detail of each of her six trips to Germany.  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't include any excruciating details, it names, what, four elements of her course of therapy? Abrazame (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As to video as reliable source, I used a Wikipedia template called "Cite video". Abrazame (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment details

We must always remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. To include the words "in fact" in an article is very much against the spirit of WP:NPOV. We report was has been reported elsewhere in reliable sources, and if the material cannot be properly cited, it usually should be removed.  Frank  |  talk  20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Her ancestry

The statement that her father is "Lebanese American" is not correct; the only reference to that was the British tabloid, the Daily Mail, which almost certainly copied what was on her Wikipedia page just a few days before the paper's publication on April 2 (see Wikipedia page dated March 31). These British papers do that a lot. "Current Biography Yearbook", 1978 edition, describes her as "of mixed French, English, and one-eighth Choctaw Indian descent" and quotes her mother, Pauline, as the source (Pg. 125). The same is also stated in the 2005 book "Entertainment Celebrities‎" (Pg. 219), by Norbert B. Laufenberg and in Richard Linklater's 2001 book "Dazed and Confused: Teenage Nostalgia, Instant and Cool 70's Memorabilia" (pg. 72). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Her family...

Her father is Lebanese why is there no mention of this...her name Farah is an Arabic name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.120.207 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any citations from reliable sources to support this? More than one citation in the article says otherwise; the source that was previously used in this article was a tabloid, and that was the only one I could find. If there are others, this question can certainly be revisited, but the cites we have don't include Lebanese.

Regarding her name, again...it's not clear that any cite exists to support this, and at least two say that her mother made it up. What her name might mean in any language other than English may be interesting to some people, but it isn't necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  Frank  |  talk  17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Name, or, what Farrah means to ME

Farah is indeed an Arabic name. Farah is a river, province and city of Afghanistan and it is also the name of the last Empress of Iran. In Arabic it means "joy" and in Persian it apparently means "glory" or "fortune".

However, Farrah, with the spelling actually used by Fawcett, is said—by Wikipedia's disambiguation page, at any rate—to be an English name descended from the Gaelic, and meaning "beauty" or "pleasant". This site pinpoints it as an English name meaning "delightful".

While Fawcett surely has all of these qualities, and all of these associations might make an interesting aside in the article, we should avoid making declarative statements about her name and her heritage that are not attributed to Fawcett or her parents, or people who can speak for them. What Farrah means in Middle English is probably at least as relevant as what Farah means in the Middle East, if not more so, though her parents may have known about and felt fine with it all. Abrazame (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean these things up; please feel free to jump in and help!  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

World's most photographed woman

I would like to expound upon the Pop Culture Phenomenon angle. Many women are actresses, but Fawcett's hold over the media, peaking between 1976 and the early '80s but sustained to this day, was equal to none at the time. I recall reading on more than one occasion that Fawcett was referred to as holding this informal title (I even recall reading she "took it" from Elizabeth Taylor) in the 1970s. I suppose Princess Diana and Madonna eventually shared that distinction once the 1980s really got underway, and of course paparazzi have multiplied exponentially since then, spreading their focus over so many more women. But for a while there, and for a few years after leaving Charlie's Angels, Fawcett's face was all over the place. I can only find blog posts and the promo for Chasing Farrah here. The latter may or may not be a good enough source. Can anyone help track down a better source (perhaps from the period) for this claim? Abrazame (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can find better sources, this may be worth expanding upon, but if we have to rely on original research or opinion, the article is better off without it. Personally, I'd rather address this (if at all) in terms of "phenomenon" rather than "most photographed" because the former is a description, while the latter is a declarative that is probably not supportable and not worth having long discussions about. She was certainly well-photographed; I don't think we need to try to determine if (or when) she was "most photographed" to convey the idea in the article. Again (see my comment above), please feel free to jump in!  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you glance at the last seven pages of the edit history of this article's main page, I have made extensive and frequent recent edits to the article, expanding, correcting and referencing information. I am the editor who submitted the page for semi-protection. Two weeks ago you and I had an exchange about our edits to this article on your talk page. Are you erroneously suggesting the person who wrote the Chasing Farrah promo is constrained by Wikipedia's original research guideline, or do you misunderstand my post? I don't really know what you mean about long discussions. I'm sure you don't mean to prevent this from moving further by dissuading other editors from contributing references for this topic? Abrazame (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments like "Fawcett's face was all over the place" and "I can only find blog posts and the promo..." look like original research to me, and since I don't see edits to the article that use them as support, I think this talk page is doing what it's intended to. You made a suggestion and I responded with my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure what to say about the suggestion that I might be trying to "[dissuade] others from contributing references for this topic".  Frank  |  talk  09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you misunderstand, and could benefit by re-reading my first post here—particularly the last sentence. I wasn't asking for permission to put this aspect into the article, I was announcing my intention to and inviting anyone interested to help track down a better reference than I've yet found. I'm fairly certain that one of us doesn't grasp the concept of original research if you consider inviting others to help find a reference to support something you recall having read as such. It's quite possible someone visiting this page will be a fan who has a collection of magazines from the period and/or know exactly where they read that. "I think this talk page is doing what it's intended to" sounds like you think something was accomplished here, and I'm left puzzled at what that could be, though coming on the heels of "not worth having long discussions about" it sounds a bit imperious. Abrazame (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your guess is off the mark; we simply disagree. In general, I am of the opinion that no biographical article is improved by starting with a conclusion and then finding sources to support it. Furthermore, I don't think that having to hunt around to find sources to support a very subjective superlative statement is particularly encyclopedic; it seems rather more tabloidish to me. And yes, I continue to think this talk page is doing exactly what it's here for; there is discussion about what elements should be added to the article. That is not to say that the mere presence of a discussion indicates a consensus has been reached. I am not saying she was or wasn't the "most photographed woman", nor am I saying that sources can't be found to support such a statement. I'm saying that I don't think it adds to one's understanding of the subject. I feel all the more strongly about that if it's so hard to find reliable sources to support it, and I've spent the last ten days reading articles from most years since 1975 that focus on her.  Frank  |  talk  14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I don't think that linking to something like Highbeam research is helpful to a reference, since it is a pay service and only one of many. If we can't link to the content directly, should we really be telling readers what method to use to pay for an article? It almost seems like Highbeam gets free advertising this way, just because they happen to come up earlier (and/or more often) in web searches. But ProQuest, LexisNexis, and NewsBank (to name just some) could also provide copies of an article, and some of them are available to public library patrons and university students on the Internet.  Frank  |  talk  19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, we might be helping a serious researcher who may not be currently aware that a pay service such as Highbeam exists. After all, Highbeam is a valid Wikipedia entry. If a serious researcher finds a new tool like Highbeam on Wikipedia, he/she is more likely to respect Wikipedia and return to use it often. I don't think it's such a bad thing to give Highbeam "free advertising". It's no different from linking any other commercial enterprise. Would you discourage linking Coca Cola for that reason?

Since the economy is in such bad shape right now, maybe this will help it in a small way. If we were experiencing an era of booming economic prosperity, I might be inclined to agree with you about "no free advertising". But I have been unemployed for over 6 months, with absolutely no job prospects on the horizon. I am passing my time and keeping myself sane by contributing to Wikipedia. I really think this is a minor quibble, and in my opinion, the link to Highbeam should remain. I have no affiliation or financial interest in Highbeam. I wasn't even aware it existed until I came across it a few minutes ago. LA Movie Buff (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies do not depend on the state of the economy at a given point in time, and providing free advertising is (and has long been) against policies, particularly WP:SPAM. Why would we link to Highbeam and not NewsBank? Or a search directly at the Washington Post's site? Where do we draw the line?  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

American Roman Catholics category

She is certainly an American Roman Catholic. It is stated in the article, and is referenced. Her religion is certainly important to her; her faith must be strong, as she stated this month that she is praying for a miracle to save her from dying of the metastatic cancer that she is suffering from. When praying, that would be to the god that Catholics believe in, not a generic 'higher power'. As that footage of her, including her making the sign of the cross on herself, was broadcast internationally to many millions of viewers, that qualifies her religion as relevant to her public life. I believe it fair to say that she self-identifies as RC; if someone asked her what her religion is, she would, if she is still able to, answer that question. Best name (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but please see Wikipedia:BLP#Categories - she does not meet both criteria listed for people to be included in categories relating to their religion or orientation. The point is not to "out" people whose inclusion in this category is not the central thing about them.—GraemeMcRae^talk 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe she does meet both criteria, as I explained above. It would not be 'outing' her, as she is openly Catholic and it is referenced. There is no requirement that a person's religion be central to their life or notablity for them to be included in the category. Best name (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Her religion is not central to her persona, her fame, or her notability. And, as you point out, the information is in the article for those who are interested.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Extremities at Internet off-Broadway Database

I had been hearing so much about Farrah's performance in off-Broadway's "Extremities", but I could never find any information on it at the Internet off-Broadway Database. I e-mailed IOBDB numerous times and asked them to please add information about it, explaining that since Farrah is in the spotlight so much now, there is renewed interest in that show for establishing her as a serious actress. I just received an e-mail from the database - they added it!

Woo hoo! I added it as an external link in the article: http://www.lortel.org/LLA_archive/index.cfm?search_by=people&first=Farrah&last=Fawcett&middle=

LA Movie Buff (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Partridge Family

Didn't she have a bit part on an episode of The Partridge Family, around 1970, when she was 22? I've seen it somewhere. She was wearing tennis shorts and looked gorgeous.

That's in the Filmography, under Television, 1970. I've only seen a fraction of her pre-Charlie's Angels stuff, but I did happen to catch that episode once on TV Land, and I agree! Abrazame (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's on YouTube.

Personal life subheads

I've removed the subheads for several reasons. They are unnecessary magnification of each section and even as such they don't quite make sense. Her Late Show interview doesn't deserve its own section despite tabloid response. In fact, it seems the only reason the Late Show interview is considered "Personal life" instead of part of her career is because of subsequent tabloid speculation, which is unencyclopedic (and only vaguely alluded to). Mentioning Joaquim Phoenix seems entirely un-notable to Fawcett's personal life or career, and is merely context to the fact that Letterman makes jokes at other people's expense for a living, and did so right in front of Phoenix, which I suppose someone considered mitigation of his jokes at her expense. But talk show hosts' jokes about popular celebrities are rarely if ever a reasonable part of a brief bio of that celebrity.

Of course the title "Sister's Cancer Death" doesn't include the death of her mother, but even with the addition of "mother" in the title it seems morbid to title a section "Deaths of her sister and mother," and there simply isn't enough information in this segment to warrant its own title. (Not that there should be in an article of this length.) As far as Ryan O'Neal, the section includes her son, Redmond. Arguably the Majors, Ryan and Redmond O'Neal and sister and mother section could be put in a "Family" subsection, but that's hardly necessary. Abrazame (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on illness

The section "Cancer" makes up 30% of this article. That's absurd. Fawcett is most notable for her career as an actress. The excessive coverage of her cancer is contrary to both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. It should be, at most, a 3- or 4-word paragraph as a subsection of the "Personal life" section. TJRC (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe five or six words? :) —GraemeMcRae^talk 15:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Her cancer is a major part of her public and personal life, and has been for about three years, more so since a documentary about her current life and illness was shown earlier this year. A high proportion of the people reading this article do so to find out the details of it. We should give the known facts; this is a biography, so should cover all her life. That it is such a substantial proportion of the article is because: a) her illness is known about by hundreds of millions of people and receives a great deal of media coverage; b) the rest of the article is too short. Info that is sourced, accurate and relevant to her life should remain. Anyone talking about her would soon mention her cancer; it is now a major part of who she is. Information yes (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the impression left upon the initial poster here. It is my intention to continue to expand the article about Fawcett, as I and others have been over the past few months, so that her long career and the dazzling media phenomenon she was particularly in the 1970s and early 1980s are better represented and a greater percentage of the article. For the time being, it's my judgement that the cancer information should stand more or less as is (with the possible addition of some material about her last days if that becomes public knowledge), to allow people to read the timeline and access the links to learn more about the disease which took her life. At some point in the coming months, it would likely serve the article to rewrite the section somewhat for length and perspective, but nowhere near as drastically as is suggested here.

Rather than removing information from the article, interested parties could best help by submitting free-use photos (note Wiki policies on free use and uploading pictures) that represent Fawcett's beauty and vitality at various phases of her career. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already a suitable balance between her career and her health. There is no rush to condense the information in the article before new retrospective sources become available. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My timing on opening this discussion was unfortunate. I made it immediately prior to the news of her death coming out. In the aftermath of her death, of course, the typical flurry of Wikipedia activity when a celebrity dies has commenced, so it's not possible to address the imbalance now. I'll go away for a month or two and revisit when things have calmed down. I still am in fundamental disagreement that an article on someone whose notability and fame do not derive from her illness and death has 1/3 of its coverage directed to her illness and death. But today's obviously not the day to try to address that. TJRC (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Cancer (and death) section has never constituted as much as 30%, let alone a third, of the article. Information yes (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the article source is 40,762 characters. The Cancer and Death sections are 12,011, or 29.5%. Yesterday it was slightly higher, something like 31%. 14:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policy which allows for the expansion of article in whatever direction we wish. Please consider wikipedia guideline of Content forking and the following examples : Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Mozart, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Death of Jesus, Death of Vince Foster (which redirect to suicide of...), Death of Chris Benoit and his family (which was merged back into the article I believe) or Death of Osama bin Laden (which redirect to the location of Osama). I woulrd recommend: the Death of Farrah Fawcett or (temporarily) The history of Farrah Fawcett's Illness (if that is the focus we wish to take). But given her death is quite recent, I recommend death, whereas we will most likely gain more contributions documenting the serries of event surrounding (ie.: funeral, other funerals such as Micheal Jackson, etc.) --CyclePat (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Official website?

Not according to this:

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0625_ryan_lawsuit_wm.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.37.231 (talk) June 25, 2009

Someone please remove links to the following website as it is NOT her official website.

http://www.farrahfawcett.us/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.52.15 (talk) June 25, 2009

I have removed the site from the official links at the bottom of the page, per the legal document, and it has been blanked from view in the infobox. Abrazame (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Art meets life

The article states that Fawcett "had steadfastly resisted appearing nude in films or magazines throughout the 1970s and 1980s", but in fact she did appear topless briefly in the 1980 film Saturn 3. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A good paradox. There is however a logical compatibility between the two or more propositions. Therefore the information is complementary and explains the dilema of trying to resist "appearing nude in films or magazines". I suggest including this information, because it guives us an incite on the dilema she faced and demonstrates that exception. --CyclePat (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Farrah's name

It's actually: Mary Farrah Leni Fawcett, not Ferrah Leni Fawcett as you have it. Locking a page is so dumb BTW. You are not the Farrah expert, as proven by the numerous posts here.

For the record and for convenience, I was contacted on my talk page about this, but due to my semi-protection of the article, I'm avoiding making any major changes, and I'm also not familiar with this. Thanks. Acalamari 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Farrah's name IS Mary Farrah Leni Fawcett. Look it up on USA Today or Associated Press articles.

Hello, Butchnn. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please remember to sign your posts when you leave messages on talk pages.

Also, to answer your comment: Page protection is only used when an article has been vandalized repeatedly or if editors continually add unhelpful material. It is used to stabilize the condition of a page and in no way endorses whatever version has been protected (if fully protected). Additionally, if there is anything you would like to do to improve the article but are unable to, feel free to post it on the talk page. In this case, if you think Farrah Fawcett's birth name has been incorrectly written, please find a reliable source for what you believe it is and discuss it with other users. Thanks, Clem (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Texas Birth Index lists her as "Ferrah Leni Fawcett". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Texas Birth Index proves her name at birth; it is much more reliable than other sources. The only known change of name was adding Majors to her name when she married. Proof will need to be submitted to show that she ever had another name change. Information yes (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Texas Birth Index is not a reliable source for her name, and even if it is considered reliable, it is a primary source, which is not sufficient for her name. There are two references in the article that state her name was "Farrah", and none that state otherwise. Please edit the article accordingly. Thanks! 86.40.9.158 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The official birth index is a very reliable source for her birthname; the information in that is taken directly from birth certificates. It is not in dispute that she changed Ferrah to Farrah. It is the unsubstantiated claim that Mary was ever part of her name that would need to be verified before it could be included. Information yes (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am disputing the name change; I see no reference cited that shows it. As for the birth index, as a primary source, it is not acceptable as the only source for information in a Wikipedia article. The cited sources in the article support that her name was originally Farrah; none state otherwise that I can see. If I'm wrong, it should be a simple matter to show the citations. 86.41.102.96 (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The part of No original reasearch policy dealing with sources states that interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source by Wikipedia editors. There is no interpretation, analysis of synthesizing of her entry in the Texas Birth Index - it is stated as it is written in that official record. The entry is definitely her: the date, location and parents names are correct. Therefore the birth name Ferrah Leni Fawcett is reliably sourced, without being interpreted, it is merely written in this article as it is in the birth index. Information yes (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely interpretation. You are looking at a commercial database transcription of an original source document. There is no secondary source that confirms her name as "Ferrah", and there are secondary sources (reliable ones, at that) that claim otherwise. That makes the information unsuitable for the article; it was properly removed and re-sourced with the correct info a month ago, but the bad info has now crept back in. (See elsewhere on this page where her "official" web site was removed because it turned out to be not-so-official.) 83.70.111.196 (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the birth index, many sources state that her birthname was "Ferrah" - Time Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Detroit News, The Telegraph, and so on. All Hallow's (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that what are normally thought of as reliable sources are repeating this not-so-meticulously-researched detail. Three out of four of those sources must be considered suspect:

• The Sydney Morning Herald claims she moved to Hollywood after graduation; no other source lists her as graduating ever.
• The Telegraph story asserts five Emmy nominations (But despite her obvious determination and five Emmy nominations, mainstream Hollywood remained unimpressed), while other sources say three, or four if you include the more recent posthumous nomination for Farrah's Story.
• The Time story asserts the TV special was on ABC; it was actually on NBC, and rebroadcast on other NBC-owned networks, but not, according to other sources, on ABC.

So, given that there are other details in those sources that are demonstrably incorrect, and given that there are other sources which state otherwise regarding her name, it doesn't seem reasonable to include this information in the article, and certainly not to present it as properly sourced information.  Frank  |  talk  20:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference for her death

Can we please get another and perhaps "more" reputable reference for the date of her Farrah Fawcett death. An, in print, news paper? Would be better. A TV broadcast would be worse but could help then the status quo, a reference from MSN news. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Farrah's cultural impact

It is well-documented that Farrah had a particularly strong impact on teens in the 1970s, during the peak of her popularity (e.g. teen girls copied her trademark hairstyle and teen boys put her iconic swimsuit poster en masse on their bedroom walls). The term "Generation Jones" has become well-established as the name of this generation of teens in the 1970s. And there is no doubt that her appeal cuts across multiple generations. There is no NPOV issue with any of this.TreadingWater (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

He was not relevant to her life. However, it is undoubtedly true that his death occurred and was announced a few hours after hers, and that massively reduced the amount of media coverage of her death. If not for Jackson's death so chronologically and geographically close to hers, there would have been multiple times more media coverage of her death - that is clearly evident. The situation is similar to that in early July 1997, when two famous American actors died. James Stewart died the day after Robert Mitchum. As a consequence, Mitchum's death received much less coverage that it otherwise would have done, due to the coverage given to Stewart, who was more famous than Mitchum. The deaths and media coverage are obvious fact, not POV, so the lack of media coverage and the reason for it should be mentioned on this article. The lack of media coverage is stated, unferefenced, on Mitchum's article. Due to the fact that the media is concentrating on Jackson now, and have almost forgotten about Fawcett, it would be difficult to find an reliably sourced article about the lack of media coverage of her death, as very few journalists would write such a piece whilst the world is obsessed with Jackson, and relatively very few are interested in the much less famous Fawcett. Information yes (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An exemplary way of handling this is illustrated by the article Aldous Huxley, where a similar but even more extreme case is limited to a single sentence:

Media coverage of his death was overshadowed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, on the same day...

I think that's about all it merits in this case, too. I note that the full sentence also notes the same-day death of C.S. Lewis, and the paragraph continues:

This coincidence was the inspiration for Peter Kreeft's book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley (Kreeft 1982).

However, unless/until there is some similarly notable work that discusses the coincidental death of Fawcett and Jackson, the passing mention is all that's warranted here. TJRC (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference to her death occurring "just hours before the death of singer Michael Jackson" should be removed from the article entirely, at least for the time being. There is more than enough coverage of Jackson, and as the person above said he was not relevant to her life. I feel it is unfair to her family and any fan base she may have (I'm not very familiar with her work) to constantly mention her death as it relates to the more famous celebrity who happened to die around the same time. Finally, my apologies if this is the wrong area to mention this. I'm not really familiar with the inner workings of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.54.181 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Jackson was not relevant to Fawcett's life, his death and the massive coverage of it caused her death to receive only a small fraction of the coverage it would otherwise have received. Hence the Death section of the article should mention the lack of media coverage of her death, along with the reason for that. To not include that in a section about the death of Farrah Fawcett is a major omission. She had a very high profile, and her decline due to her cancer gained a level of coverage that was unusually extensive. There will be people who come to this article months in the future, unaware of her death, to find out how her health is, due to the fact that they didn't hear she'd died because the media decided to virtually ignore her death; giving blanket media coverage to Jackson. Information yes (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be menionted, and here are some news article which deal directly with that [2] [3]. - Epson291 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a passing mention. Just to be clear, though, there's absolutely no need to incorporate a discussion of Huxley/Lewis/Kennedy into this article. I brought that up to illustrate how briefly another article illustrates an even more extreme case into the article: as a one-line mention. It's inappropriate to include that example in the article, as opposed to the talk page. That passage has since been taken out; let's leave it out. TJRC (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for River Phoenix - Federico Fellini / Diana - Mother Teresa comparisons, but it should be stated in the Death section of this article that the media coverage of Fawcett's death, which was considerable in the few hours between the two deaths, has reduced massively since, and as a result of, Jackson's death. Her death made the front page of the first editions of many newspapers, and were replaced by Jackson's death before the next editions were printed. Information yes (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

About seven different celebrities (mostly entertainment personalities) died within two weeks of each other, a seemingly high figure.. Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, Michael Jackson, Billy Mays ... Who were the others? I can't remember --RyanTee82 (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The spike in celeb deaths in late June - early July has been remarked upon by many media sources and many people. Others that died durng that period include Karl Malden, Mollie Sugden and Steve McNair. Hoaxers falsely reported deaths of celebs who are actually alive now. I don't believe any summer 2009 deaths other than Fawcett's and Jackson's should be mentioned in this article, as none of them are relevant to her or significantly relevant to the reporting of her death. Jackson's death was very relevant to hers, as he died a few hours after her, eclipsing coverage of her death, which would otherwise have received a huge amount of coverage. Information yes (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit talk-page year headers

27-June-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well.Wikid77 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Beware hourly edit-conflicts of interwiki bots

27-June-09: For the past 2 days, every few hours, another variation of article "Farrah Fawcett" has been written in another language, based on news reports around the world. Consequently, the various bot programs have been editing the English Wikipedia, hourly, to add the bottom interwiki-language links. Expect edit-conflicts with them, and try to re-save your edit. If you cannot get the latest interwiki-language links, don't worry because another bot will try to re-add those interwiki links within a few hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Farrah"

Is there any particular reason why Farrah redirects here instead of heading directly to the dab page Farah ? 76.66.203.200 (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Farrah Fawcett is now by far the most common meaning of Farrah. Prior to the recent change, entering Farrah brought up the article about a little-known band. If you said Farrah to people, virtually everyone would think of Fawcett, very few people looking up Farrah would be thinking of any of the other meanings. Information yes (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And what about Farad which has the same sound? I've redirected Farrah to the appropriate DAB Farah. --CyclePat (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What does sounding the same have to do with it? It's the spelling that is what is being put into the search engine, not the phonetics. Elvis redirects to Elvis Presley (despite there being a good many "Elvis" variations at the disambig page) which begins stating "'Elvis' redirects here. For other uses, see Elvis (disambiguation)." As Information yes mentions, "Farrah" used to lead to the page of an obscure indie British band, not to "Farah". Why should it do so now? What's the problem with redirecting to Farrah Fawcett and having a disambig link at the top of the page? Abrazame (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Early life section

If she began university in 1966, how did she leave after her junior year in 1969? Information yes (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

She began as a freshman in the Fall of 1966, so her Freshman year ended in Spring 1967, her Sophomore year ended in Spring 1968, and her Junior year ended in Spring 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agr0223 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese American?

the word "farah" was made up??????? how stupid is THAT? it means Joy in arabic, farrah's father was lebanese american! unless of course you don't believe biography central and your stupid enough to believe that her mother "made it up" http://www.biography-center.com/biographies/18946-Fawcett_Farah.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.4 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it means something in one of the world's many languages does not necessarily preclude her mother making it up. Britmax (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the very best things about Wikipedia is that we don't have to believe a single thing. All that is necessary is to find citations in reliable sources and then write articles that are consistent with those. Wikipedia is neither an arbiter of truth nor a publisher of original thought.  Frank  |  talk  19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fawcett is not a Lebanese name, which makes it unlikely her father is Lebanese(-American); few sources state he is, and most sources do not say she had any Lebanese ancestry. Fawcett's first name always had a double r. If she really had been named after an Arabic word, and her father really is of Lebanese origin, he would have given her the correct spelling. Lots of names happen to translate to something in one or more of the world's hundreds of languages, but it does not mean that the parents even knew the translation, let alone used that name because of its meaning in a foreign language. Parents do sometimes make up new names for their children, rather than using a name that thousands of other people have. This article does not state where each of her parents were from; if that were proved, it could help in finding out her ancestry. Information yes (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Her ancestry is already cited in the article as French, English, and Choctaw.  Frank  |  talk  13:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

College years

I hope it's fairly clear to all, that she could not have appeared in an "I Dream of Jeannie" episode in the 1968-69 season, unless she was already in Hollywood. That means that she arrived in Hollywood in 1968 as "Paydirt: Divorces of the Rich and Famous" states, and not in 1969. So I've now added the conflict information. As well it's doubtful, that since she was born in Feb 1947, it's doubtful that she didn't start college until 1966. 1965 is the far more likely year, the year she was 18.Wjhonson (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As well, regardless of what the Wilson reference states. It is clear that the episode of "The Flying Nun" predates by two to three weeks, her appearance on her first episode of "I Dream of Jeannie". Wjhonson (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall, they're both right. Fawcett went out twice: first temporarily, like for the summer, and then, after returning briefly to Texas—perhaps just to convince her father or perhaps for another semester at school—she moved back to L.A. permanently. I haven't read the refs cited, as they're not online, but I would suggest editors consider my recollection and read their refs carefully to see what, precisely, they state, so we can clarify this and remove the suggestion that the dates are in conflict if I am correct. Abrazame (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment to this thread (I haven't yet checked the refs), let's keep in mind that in Hollywood, things are filmed first and broadcast (or released) later. There's no reason in the world that a series of events that occurred to us in a certain order could not have happened in a different order. That's the great thing about Wikipedia - rather than being strictly about truth we are about verifiability.  Frank  |  talk  11:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This should become a featured article

Ever since Farrah Fawcett's death, i have been thinking about this article becoming either a featured article or a good article. It may more likely meet the criteria for the latter than the former. Nearly all details of her life are shown here, including some facts that I haven't heard of until just after her death, such as Fawcett being a Roman Catholic. There is only one photo in this article (the iconic poster of her in a red maillot), and featured articles usually have more than one image. Good Article status makes an article one step closer to featured article status, and with a few revisions to this article, it should be likely to be nominated for FA status. So if Farrah Fawcett's life is complete as of June 2009, then her article should also be complete. Jim856796 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for GA. All Hallow's (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Poster/Life magazine

The citation from People claims that the famous poster image first appeared in Life. However, the account in the article and the Cleveland Scene article which it cites make no mention of Life and says that the image was taken by a photographer suggested by the poster company and no mention is made of Life. So until we can find some kind of clarification for this discrepancy, I don't know if we should rely on a passing mention in a photo caption when we have contradictory accounts. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Farrah's Lebanese ancestry - her father was an Arab American of Lebanese ancestry - corrections to ancestry needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_Americans

http://knol.google.com/k/ancestry-of-farrah-fawcett#

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166586/Brave-Farrah-Fawcett-crossed-world-search-cancer-cure–miracle.html

Farrah Fawcett, noted American actress, was born Ferrah Leni Fawcett in Corpus Christi, Texas, to Pauline Alice (née Evans), a homemaker, and James William Fawcett, a Lebanese-American oil field contractor. Her name was later changed to “Farrah”; Farah (فرح) is an Arabic word for joy. Fawcett attended Spring Branch Junior High School near Houston for one year. She graduated from W.B. Ray High School in Corpus Christi in 1965. Fawcett attended the University of Texas at Austin and appeared in a photo of the “Ten Most Beautiful Coeds” from the university, which ran in Cashbox magazine. A Hollywood agent saw the photo, called Farrah and urged her to move to Los Angeles, which she did in 1969.- Biography center:

http://www.biography-center.com/biographies/18946-Fawcett_Farah.html

CTN7776 (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Farrah" redirects here.

No, it doesn't. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting us know. Rodhullandemu 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need so much attention on cancer/death?

I have come to this article for the 1st time today. Wonder why there is so much text devoted to her cancer and death? It seems disproportionate. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB](talk) 13:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is a work in progress that has grown appreciably over the past few years. Some celebrities' illnesses are virtually unknown to the public until the publication of their obituary. Fawcett chose to document her treatments and share them with the public. The result was a highly-rated Emmy-nominated project. I agree that these sections seem somewhat disproportionate to the rest of the article as it stands now, but the way to bring them into proportion is to continue to enhance the sections about her life and career, not to reduce the sections about her illness and death. Abrazame (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but perhaps we could also reduce the "Cancer" section somewhat. Just seems overdone to me. --BwB(talk) 12:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything known on how she got cancer. --41.135.143.200 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Most cancer causes are not identifiable as such. There are certain times when we can draw a probability conclusion, like "X was exposed to high levels of radiation when..." and attribute that as a likely cause. Likewise, people with AIDS have a sharply increased risks of developing certain cancers, some of which are rarely seen except in AIDS patients. And of course, smoking and lung cancer and chewing tobacco and mouth/lip/gum cancers are well connected. But most cancers have no such specific cause that can be pointed to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very true and sensitively worded statement Fuhghettaboutit, but actually we do know what caused Fawcett's cancer. Unlike most types of cancer, those occurring in the anus, anal canal and cervix are caused by a specific strain of Human papillomavirus being introduced into that area. And the only way HPV is introduced into these areas is through penetrative sexual contact with an infected male. All anal cancer patients are gay men and "adventurous" women, almost without exception. :::::And that is why nobody likes to talk about it. Nobody talks about the cause of Farrah's cancer and it certainly explains why it was not used in the effort to create and promote the HPV vaccines: It would have raised a lot of awkward and unpleasant conversations about her sexual history, which nobody wants to do to a fragile, terminally ill woman. But let's not be fools with our hands over our eyes and pretend she just got it out of the blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.193.1 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a moron and a piece of shit. I've known people who have died of anal cancer. They were neither "gay men" nor "adventurous women." Here's hoping you get hit by a bus, soon.

And you are a child. That language is ridiculous and completely uncalled for. It IS true that anal sex has been linked to anal cancer through the HPV virus. However, it is also true that people HAVE gotten anal cancer without being gay or loose women. Both of you are being jerks. No one has any business claiming how Farrah got cancer until it is reported by reliable sources (basically, the medical people involved in her case) that that is how she got it. It is unfair and disrespectful to make such judgment about her without basis. 98.248.6.197 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

comedy central roast of William Shatner

It was one of her later TV appearances, yet it is not mentioned on the page. So many other celebrities have their appearances mentioned, why not Farrah Fawcett? 87.194.84.44 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Childhood home being auctioned

Source

• "Corpus Christi childhood home of Fawcett for sale." Associated Press at the Houston Chronicle. Friday April 13, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Load of crap

Her surname is from England but the rest of her ancestry is ludicrous except maybe Irish and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.235.217 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of illness and death

It seems to me both the sections on her cancer and death focus heavily on media, largely tabloid, coverage. Shouldn't these sections cover their main subjects? Sorry if I'm late to the game on this, but I feel like the media coverage should have its (scaled down?) section.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Commercials

I would like to see all of her commercials listed (with the approx dates of pre 1976 and post 1976) in a section because when I view them on yoututbe I am absolutely astounded by the number of commercials she landed before she was famous. And I think that is an accomplishment that should be noted. I know of no other who has landed so many commercials!! She was incredible.99.162.94.29 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)07/10/2012

Theatrical film appearances

The table showing her films does not include her most amazing film... 1984 The Burning Bed, Francine Hughes, Golden Glove Nominee 19885 Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for TV info from IMDb I don't know how to edit Wikipedia and don't have time to learn...can someone make the addition please? Many thanks. KatFix (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)KatFix

The Burning Bed is listed under "Television appearances" A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder, however, why "A Wing & A Prayer" is listed under "Theatrical film appearances." "A Wing and a Prayer" was the original name of a project that (after a change in artistic control) eventually appeared on television under the name "Farrah's Story.". Did "A Wing and a Prayer" have its own theatrical release? IMDB lists the release date as 1 November 2008 and lists the release date for "Farrah's Story" as 15 May 2009. I suggest that "A Wing and a Prayer" be deleted from the list of "Theatrical film appearances." A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to make that happen. Ckruschke (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

References

MOS:LEAD

Per MOS:LEAD, this lead is probably too long. I would start trimming it down, but I don't want to get into a conflict with anyone, so what shall we do now? Harmelodix (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The nipple

‎Niteshift36, regarding this edit, I don't know if you were around back then, but the nipple was most certainly the big deal. To add information about the poster and neglect the nipple aspect is like having information about Maxwell House and neglecting the bit about "Good to the last drop". Let me ask you this... are you just unhappy with the citation or do you object to the whole nipple thing in general? If the former we can work together and maybe we'll find something you can approve of. If the latter, I'm afraid I'll have to dig up what I can and push for inclusion over your objection. One way or another I think it should be in there. – JBarta (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Pro_Arts article got it right. – JBarta (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I was around back then. And it doesn't matter that I was, because what you or I remember as the reason is completely irrelevant. First, your edit summary focus on it as THE reason. That's your opinion. You're of course entitled to it, but it's really no more valid that any other personal opinion. That brings us to point 2....opinion. You cited an unsigned op-ed that really is just some personal opinion, but not of anyone we can identify. Even if you dig up a cite or two from someone we can identify, I don't see where it becomes relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia biography. Just because it got printed doesn't give it a free pass to inclusion. Now I don't have my mind made up permanently (unlike you, who has already decided you'll overcome my objection rather than listen to it), but including it would have to be something more substantial than just someone making an unsubstantiated statement. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and your candor. I should first mention that my edit summary was a little tongue-in-cheek. Not completely, but a little. And I'll admit I do have my mind made up on the issue... at least at the moment. I don't see how one can edit without having some notions about what should be in or not in an article. That said, I respect your chastisement that my notions appear to be primarily guided by own personal memory. At this point they largely are (although I did included a reference that at least in spirit supports the inclusion). You mention that you would want something "more substantial" before considering the inclusion. What sort of thing would you consider more substantial? – JBarta (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Marriage to Lee Majors

I was thinking that she was married to Lee Majors at some point. Then I remembered that her name was once Farrah Fawcett-Majors. I see that name is documented in this article, but no mention of any marriage to him. Were they married or not? -- Having just read the the Biography.com article about Farrah, I see that the info in this article is wrong. She was NEVER married to Ryan o'Neal. She married Lee Majors in 1973 and they divorced in 1982. Please fix this. 98.248.6.197 (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Birth name

I'm finding conflicting information. On one hand, numerous sources report her birth name as Mary Farrah Leni Fawcett, while others say Ferrah Leni Fawcett. For the former, I can't see how that's correct, because she reportedly changed her name from Ferrah to Farrah later in life. Her bio on the Farrah Fawcett Foundation website says, "Born Ferrah Leni Fawcett [...] She later changed her name to Farrah."

Sources for Mary Farrah Leni Fawcett: PBS, CBS News, The Independent, 75 results for "Mary Farrah Leni Fawcett" on Google Books

Sources for Ferrah Leni Fawcett: The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today (though sourcing is a little dubious), Smithsonian, 26 results for "Ferrah Leni Fawcett" on Google Books

Does anyone know anything definitive? Did she ever state her birth name in an interview or discuss changing her name? Melonkelon (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I should've checked the archive first, as it's been discussed previously (Talk:Farrah Fawcett/Archive 1#Farrah's name), with no real consensus. It's supposedly listed as Ferrah Leni Fawcett in the Texas Birth Index. I think it might be safe to say that's correct. Melonkelon (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Since posting this, the Farrah Fawcett Foundation has updated her bio, and it now says, "Born Mary Ferrah Leni Fawcett [...] She later changed her name to Farrah." Interesting change. Melonkelon (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)