Talk:Sophia Loren/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sophia Loren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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 21:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would NOT put Sophia in the Gay Icon category though she obviously has many gay fans. I'm not exactly sure how to explain why not but it lies in the fact that as a 50's sex symbol she was never campy or wild off screen (and rarely onscreen for that matter) the way Jayne or Marilyn were. her look is also very hard to do as drag because she is so uniquely beautiful. Sophia Loren was never 'man crazy' as well (most of her private life is still relatively secretive) and despite the fact that she was pursued by Cary Grant and other desirable men, she has not amassed the roster of 'hot guys' that many gay men would envy doing.-Catherine (briankaz)

Any particular reason why the quotes section was deleted? 23skidoo 12:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone seriously doubts that Sophia Loren isn't a sex symbol. I'd like to invite the editor who initially removed the category to explain the rationale for doing so. There was no need for a source to be cited for this anymore than a source needs to be cited confirming Marilyn Monroe as a sex symbol. 23skidoo 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The newly added Two Women image looks rather awkward -- obviously a photo of a photo. It's a rather famous image - certainly there's a better scan around somewhere? A scan of the photo would qualify for fair use because the movie is in the public domain. 23skidoo 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the Life magazine image as the magazine does not need to be mentioned in the article -- the context is that it features the subject of the article, that's all that is needed for magazine covers; there is plenty of precedent elsewhere -- however there are too many images in this article and one should be removed. My recommendation is to remove the Two Women image. 23skidoo 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. I'm new here, so I won't change it myself, but I would like to recommend that this word be dropped. You need not hide the fact that her father was married to someone else at the time, but please don't label children born out of wedlock as less 'legitimate' than other children.

[1] How notable is this picture? I would think that it got a lot of attention and is worthy of inclusion in this article. NorthernThunder 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a famous image, but if included I think a paragraph explaining its context would need to be added as well. 23skidoo 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really explain more than what seems apparent: She appears to be looking at her cleavage. Perhaps someone else could elabourate. NorthernThunder 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, I'd prefer this photo appear in the Jayne Mansfield article anyway as the focus of the photo is her, not Sophia. 23skidoo 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, what about copyright permission? Can we just upload it and add a specific tag and everyone will be happy? NorthernThunder 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

that main image. Is that her armpit hair?

Maybe. Maybe not. NorthernThunder 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is or not, it's an awful image to use as the lead image for the article. 23skidoo 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are many great pictures I have seen of her but these are nowhere near great. NorthernThunder 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the person who posted the new photo, it's beautiful!! Catherine Huebscher 4:35, 16 October 2006

Loren does indeed appear in Madonna's 'American Life' video - please don't delete this information! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55xDxaXw5ESophia appears for a few brief seconds at 2m33s in. If it's not her it's a bloody good look-a-like!Paul75 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am without a doubt far better schooled on Sophia Loren than you and I can tell you after looking at the video three times that is not her! You need more than what you think you saw on you tube to tie Sophia to such a trashy performer. There is no other reference on google but your's that puts her in that video.

Wow, chill out 67.180.181.102. The material shouldn't appear until confirmed, but the photos do really look like Loren and Paul75 is just making a good faith effort to be inclusive. As far as your statement about Loren and Madonna appearing in the same sentence, read the newspaper physical opposites appear together all the time. SteveHopson 20:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are saying it is not Sophia Loren in that video?! This is not about Madonna, it is merely a reference to Sophia Loren appearing in a video of hers - it is without doubt Loren, no matter what your extensive research through the almighty Google tels you. Perhaps this is more to do with you not wanting to believe it is Loren because of your prejudices. Can we take a vote on this, I would invite all users of this page to have at look at the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55xDxaXw5E, Loren appears briefly at 2m33s. If you think it's her or not her please register your comments here. Thanks. Paul75 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No voting! You must be joking? That lame video was so banned and over hyped when it came out that Sophia would have ben mentioned in the fanfare and there are NO MENTIONS!!

At least you are being mature about the whole thing, I like that....Paul75 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for leaving Madonna out of the page until there is a proof from her people or a news clipping-- there are so many lookalikes out there that 'I'm sure it's her' is not evnough. I've found nothing on the net that shows that the two have ever worked or appeared together.

I agree!JBJ

Wow, you still won't give up.I've contacted two friends here in SF and they had never heard anything about Madonna appearing in this awful video, these are hardcore Madonnna fans too.

Gasp! Can you please provide proof of your shock "Madonna does NOT appear in Madonna video" claim? Put forward a serious argument and I might take you seriously.

Why do you need a serious argument? Sophia Loren has never been associated with madonna and never will be-case closed! Catherine Huebscher 22:47, 10 October 2006

Sophia Loren is still a sex symbol. Both because her name is iconic with beauty, much like Marilyn Monroe is still a sex symbol even though Monroe has been dead for more than 40 years.

Additionally one could also make the point that a beautiful woman at age 70 is still beautiful, at least to the older set.

For both reasons Loren ramains a sex symbol as well as being an actress of significant accomplishment. 75.166.168.165 20:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

isn't her mother from somewhere in south america? i read it in IMAN's makeup book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.28.243 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sophia Loren is 100% Italian, PLEASE understand that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.109.98 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sophia's mother is from near Napoli, about four miles away in Pozzuoli (where Sophia herself grew up). NOT South America. - Soprani 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article statesthe parents are an Arbëreshë-italian couple. I think both parents were italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.139.224 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Both her parents were Italian and she was not adopted or born in Palestine like your article suggests! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.79.37 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence under 'Miscellania' that ends with the verb 'ape' could be rewritten such that A) a different, more flattering/appropriate verb could be used, and B) the sentence does not end in an infinitive. 128.135.67.46 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You could try imitate, replicate, duplicate, emulate... Orbicle 11:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone should mention the passing of her husband today....12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed ape to emulate. Why is there a NPOV tag?

I agree. Unless 68.164.177.18 would show cause why the {{POV}} tag should not be removed, I am going ahead and remove that. RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I’ve removed it: no case was made for alleged bias. —Ian Spackman (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a rumor that Loren provided the funds to build the Catholic Church in Llano, TX -- any confirmationsw of this out in the cyber world?

Carlo Ponti's wiki page and Sophia Loren's page have two different dates for his death. One says Jan. 9th and the other says Jan. 10th. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.237.143.232 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Terribly minor, really, but we might as well attain a consensus if we can. I’m moving here for expert discussion this edit:

(pronounced la-WREN)

In English I am not quite happpy about the ‘la’ bit. It seems to me that the commonest pronunciation of the vowel is that very vague English ugggghhhh sound. But in Italian I think that not only the vowels (as you would expect) are different, but that the stresses are different in both words. Namely, in each case, the penultimate syllable is the stressed one. Perhaps if we need to go into the pronunciation we shoud be a little precise. Or not? —Ian Spackman 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't she have two sons?OwenSaunders (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, Benno09* put this statement on the article: "It has also recently come to light that she gave birth to a love child a Carolyn Bok of Shepparton vic". I've removed it because it shouldn't be included in the article without citing a source. I had a quick google for "Sofia Loren Carylyn Bok" but couldn't find anything so I think it's a bit dodgy at best. If it's true then please find a source before putting it back into the article. Cheers --Noosentaal^·talk· 10:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The summary panel says Naples but the main body of the text says Rome. Confused...! :-| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.236.93 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone verify the facts about her parents and where she was born? Someone had decided to screw around with her entry and put in stupid things like penis as one of the cited references and just ruined it all. o khohb bod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.43.203 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been a very devoted fan of Sophia Loren for the last 50 years and was wondering how to communicate with her to ask for an autographed picture? Robert (184.12.250.113 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

Can't help you here. Even if we had the address, it is an invasion of privacy to post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was first aware of Sophia Loren in 1947, when she was named, "The Eutectic Girl". A large poster was placed in our sales room showing her in a bathing suit. We were a dealer for Eutectic Welding Alloys which was then just recently promoted in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bneef (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• 
  In what sense is this portrait inferior to...
• 
  ...this portrait?
• 
  And why shouldn't the article include a formal portrait of Loren taken by Allan Warren in 1986?

Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You changed the page and I don't see opposition to that on the talk page. Hekerui (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But a user has reverted that edit two or three times. First, there was no explanation; now he/she claims that File:Sophia Loren in London.jpg is "more flattering", while still not explaining why the formal portrait should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The second photo from 2009 is more flattering for obvious reasons. There are several photos throughout her life that appropriately illustrate her life and career. The black and white 1986 portrait is completely out of place in the personal life section and there are already enough photos as is.Something2do (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to flatter anyone. We should use the photograph of better quality. Both photographs are from June 2009. In the one you prefer, she is crooked and not facing the photographer; in the one I believe we should use, she is sitting upright and looking the reader in the eyes. The black and white photograph is much more valuable than other images used in the article. If you believe it's "out of place", move it somewhere else - but it definitely should be somewhere in the article because it is a formal portrait. Saying that the article contains too many photographs is plain silly. Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's be plain: the second image is being chosen because it exposes more of her breasts and because with her neck extended in that fashion, her skin looks marginally less wrinkled. As this is an encyclopedia, arguments over image use should focus on their informative and educational value not on whether they are flattering for the subject. In a sense, the "big breast" image imparts false information as it implies her skin is better than it really is, but on the other hand it could entice men to read the article and so serves an educational purpose as a handle to draw people in.

On the formal image, my opinion is less divided. All the other pictures in the article are snapshots or screenshots, so there is room for a formal portrait as it imparts new information regarding how a subject is portrayed. So, I think it should be shown alongside the 1992 image, to show two aspects of her life at a similar moment in time. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The narrative describes the war years, then suddenly she is doing MGM movies, with no mention of the move to the US: "The place was very popular with the American GIs stationed nearby. ...When she was 14 years old, Loren entered a beauty contest in Naples and, while not winning, was selected as one of the finalists. Later she enrolled in acting class and was selected as an extra in Mervyn LeRoy's 1951 film, Quo Vadis, launching her career as a motion picture actress. She eventually changed her name to Sophia Loren." --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It suggests that Quo Vadis from 1951 is her earliest appearance in a film, that it launched her career as a motion picture actress. This contradicts both the info box in the article listing her as active from 1950 and the chronological chart of her films. I see the chart in the article differs from the info found at imdb.com, though they both show numerous film appearances before Quo Vadis.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

According to those sources - [2], [3] Sophia Loren was born in Pozzuoli. If you open these pages, you will see clearly written that she was born in Rome. If someone can prove a reliable source that she was born in Pozzuoli, ОК. Otherwise, information will be changed.--John Burkov (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sophia Loren in Africa sotto i mari (1952)
• Sophia Loren in Una giornata particolare (1977)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the spelling be consistent? Currently, Sophia is vastly preferred, but Sofia is still used a dozen times for some reason.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer with my edit summary: please demonstrate consensus on talk page, including explanation of encyclopedic value and due weight

I don't see any sources or past discussion for consensus. The article doesn't give it any weight, nor demonstrate any encyclopedic value at all. So why the emphasis added with the image.

As content in a BLP, it should remain out until there's clear consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a completely different question than the one originally raised. The original reason for removal was that "it is illegal", which is patently false and the reason for my revert. Your edit summary request to "please discuss on the talk page", putting the onus on me to contest the removal, was the reason for my second revert, because it is the onus of the initial editor to remove the image (I'm guessing we've had BRD thrown around enough by now). I don't see how WP:BLP plays into this, though. I don't particularly care about the image or its inclusion, but the initial removal and what I interpreted as your second removal (which again, I thought you were ignoring my valid concerns and just saying "you need to defend your undo") were the main things I was contesting. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If I were to make an argument for its inclusion, I'd say it's because it was her first film (and the nudity aspect raised some eyebrows). And I suppose while we're discussing WEIGHT and value, why not ditch the It Started in Naples or Houseboat images? The second in particular adds very little value to the article. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Did her first film get that much attention for nudity when only the French release had the nude scenes in it? What films of hers were the most successful and got her the most attention? Most actors don't have pictures from their films in their articles at all. Then you have Marilyn Monroe who has a rather large number of images that don't seem to have any real encyclopedic value. Female famous people seem to have more pictures than male celebrities in the articles I'm looking through. Not sure what the limit is. A lot of things just seem to be there because the fans thought it a nice image of them. Dream Focus 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this really a free image? The image page cites Italian law, but even though the movie was filmed in Italy, this version was published first (and apparently only) in France. From the text cited in the Commons template: "in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country" is the country of origin, whose law governs. First published in France, governed by French law. Therefore the Italian PD claim is invalid. (and if this is a production still rather than a film frame, we have no information on where it was published, and can't determine it to be PD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the image (which is File:Era_lui,_sì,_sì!_(1951).jpg for the record) was nominated for deletion in 2016, with some very convincing reasoning why it's PD. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That discussion applies to the Italian release of the film. This is a frame/screenshot from the French release of the film, from a scene which did not appear in the Italian release (although a different take of the scene did). Therefore, the "country of origin" would be France, the only country where the underlying scene was published. The country of publication, not the company of production, is controlling. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way, it's on Commons so any deletion activities would have to be taken up there. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've filed a deletion request at Commons, we'll see what happens. It also looks to me like File:Loren-Era lui si! si!200x130.jpg should be relicensed and transferred to Commons, since it's taken from the primary (Italian) release. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Aren't most illegitimate children? Kostaki mou (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This article states: "In 1965, the couple became French citizens after their application was approved by then French President Georges Pompidou." Although cited, there is an error about here; in 1965 the French President was Charles de Gaulle; Georges Pompidou was then Prime Minister. Who is the correct man?Cloptonson (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Where's verification of the date? --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

https://gulfnews.com/world/europe/all-for-the-love-of-sophia-1.154603 Hmmm. Might help to find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)