Talk:Faye Dunaway

I'm pretty sure that she was a resident of Stamford, CT at Shippan Point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippan_Point Does this qualify as information that can be used on her page?

TWillisJr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 23:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also around this area it's pretty famous that Dunaway was from Two-Egg, not Bascom. Both are tiny towns but are not really that close to each other. Two Egg in fact being one of the geographically smallest I've ever heard of (I don't know how universal the joke is but the small town that has a welcome to <town> sign on both sides of the pole? Two Egg actually does that.) . Anyways, about the only thing in Two Egg was a general store (closed fairly recently) that I believe her Uncle? was 'famous' for opening. She didn't live in Jackson County all that long but she's the biggest celebrities to ever come out of here, so certain people fall all over themselves to tell her story. And that story always involves her and her people are actually from Two Egg. 74.87.173.101 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

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 20:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A number of sources report that she has had facial plastic surgery, [1] [2], and this is also reported in an earlier version of this article, yet all mention of this appears now to have been removed from the article. Was this because of verifiability issues? -- Karada 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OMG that's why I came to this page!! I've just watched the CSI episode with her and was struck in particular by the scene at the start of the programme where she comes out from her hiding place and is lit by torchlight -- my immediate thought was "She looks just like Pete Burns" and all those other scary stretched-face people (Joan Rivers, Caprice etc) who've had too much plastic surgery - too-narrow nose and prominent cheekbones being the giveaway. Why do they do it? 82.32.238.139 00:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Prominent cheekbones? She may be of Native American descent. Just compare her with someone like Tura Satana, who still looks gorgeous. As for plastic surgery (Q.E.D.),in the Land of the Free people think they can change nature's course, including the irreversible ageing process. Facelifts make people look eternally surprised, as if they're always handed the wrong change at the counter. Frankly speaking (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does the text of the recording of Dunnaway's tirae really have that much relevancy to this article? It seems to just be an attempt to trash her. Is there some way to mention it without having it so loaded? As it's written right now, it makes her seem like a pompous ass. Of course, she may be one, but the article should at least try to be objective. --Lendorien 14:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article needs a lot of work before it can be included in Version 0.7. The career section, in particular, needs much more content. Thanks, Walkerma 04:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this paragraph from the article for several reasons. It is not sourced - an mp3 on a webpage is not a reliable source, it doesn't identify the person speaking and in fact, could be anyone. It isn't encyclopedic, it's the fodder of tabloid journalism at its worst. Finally, it garners undue weight in the article in any sense. The article needs to be expanded, but not with inane things like this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bio citing her being enrolled at the University of Florida reads simply, "and transferred from a college in her native Florida," considering the citation for her attending Florida State is the official home page of a sorority she attended, I would assume that the "college in her native Florida," is simply referring to Florida State. Maybe I'm wrong about all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.147.114 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should be noted that she (as well as Patti LuPone) sued Andrew Lloyd Weber over Sunset Boulevard (musical) roles, which lead to the production losing some $20M even though it was considered a "hit". SteveCoppock (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Notable (encyclopaedia listed) people embezzle quadrillions of dollars, and here you are talking about a lawsuit (the status/outcome of which is unclear) on what a primary and what a secondary residence is??

WTF is this? Spite and jealousy? Dragging famous people down to the gutter you, the author of that reference, inhabit? Despicable.

That lawsuit received a great deal of attention in the New York media. I haven't checked, but some reference to it belongs in the article, given its length and depth. A brief reference, to be sure, but we can't ignore it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Didn't she have some real financial problems back in the early 1980s, after she did "Mommy Dearest." I seem to recall reading in the newspapers that, as do so many other stars in the entertainment business, she entrusted her finances to an unscrupulous business manager???User:JCHeverly 09:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Didn't she have a serious financial setback in the early 1980s, after she did "Mommy Dearest"??? I seem to recall reading in the newspapers that, as do so many other stars in the entertainment business, she entrusted her finances to an unscrupulous business manager???User:JCHeverly 09:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article has been dramatically expanded by a non-logged-in user within the past day. While a great deal of this new text is interesting and informative, it does not follow summary style, seems to include substantial amounts of original research and lacks inline citations (footnotes) is unsourced. The latter is troubling given the amount of text here. While I hesitate about reverting, I think that might be needed if these problems can't be rectified fairly soon, given that this is a BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Checking a bit it looks like much of the material is accurate and just needs to be sourced. The quotes I checked are OK. And since it's well written, I'd suggest trimming the likely OR material and adding sources for the rest. But we could also just cut and paste the new text to a sub-page of talk until fixed, which is safer for a BLP. --Light show (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps. My preference is to cut and rewrite, and I worked my way through the 1970s when I ran out of time and stamina. It does seem accurate but tends to be excessive in length, and the writing is gushy and has a press agent feel to it. Dunaway is a major actress and deserving of a biography of substantial size, but the tone and sourcing have to be right. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to mention that edits such as this fall into the realm of original research and therefore should not be added to the article. Saying that her rise to prominence was "meteoric" is not neutral in tone and of questionable accuracy, as she had done quite a bit of stage work beforehand. A great deal of edits of a similar character were added recently by an IP user, and what we need to do now is reduce the volume of such edits, not add to them. Any additional text in the article requires proper sourcing in accordance with WP:V. Please do not add any further text to the article without sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The stage work was the launching pad . .

"the meteoric launch of her film career in the 1967 ``Bonnie and Clyde.``"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-01/entertainment/8703220767_1_film-and-stage-projects-deglamorized-role-film-career . . . about 12th paragraph.

But "Bonnie and Clyde" was like an EXPLOSION of meteorites! And it was Miss Dunaway's extraordinary abilities and attractions that sky-rocketed it!

If Wikipedia has decided to wish to be neutral about the phenomenon of the necessity of publicity extravagance, please, I am honored as Wikipedia's brief guest. --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you copied this from your talk page. I'll address the article issues here and your borderline WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on your talk page.

If what you say is so, then there should be ample sourcing to that effect, and it needs to be stated in the article in facts and not WP:PEACOCK terminology. A passing reference in a Chicago Tribune article does not justify use of such terminology in the very beginning of an article, unattributed. However that is an important article and should be used as a source. Miss Dunaway is a major star, has no doubt received voluminous coverage over the years. If you wish to build up the article you have to take the time to dig out those sources and use them in the article. At present it is woefully lacking in good sources. I think our main task at the moment is to prevent this article from reading like a publicity man's handout as well as to remove overstatements and other issues that present possible BLP issues, such as statements indicating that her career went into a "decline." Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I want to bookmark this current version as being a world class write-up. It has to be by far the best written Wikipedia entry I have had the pleasure to read. So when it is re-written and it completely screwed all to Hell, consider hitting the reset button and restore to this version.

One thing that is missing is her plastic surgery. It should be mentioned at least. After years of ridiculing other women she has become a hypocrite and had herself done. She looks fantastic. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Someone is making questionable photo switches, such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faye_Dunaway&type=revision&diff=1035591734&oldid=1035591617

Pardon my ignorance, but have the charges against Roman Polanski been adjudicated to the point that the allegations can now be reported as established facts? Even if so, the hot-worded 10 January 2016 addition about his "notorious" deed seems a gratuitous slap and out of place here. 66.249.174.87 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

i think most people know her from her role as a manager of the singer eddie (JOHNNY DEPP) in the TOM PETTY song INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN she plays the woman who discovers the success of the singer and when he becomes successful she will be more rejected by the singer

i think there is a connection between the two

because they played in two movies together

ARIZONA DREAMS and DON JUAN DEMARCO

plus they were both in the video INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN by TOM PETTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.130.180 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Message to user:Winkelvi,

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style states: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example, Timpani)." Why do you want every picture to be on the right ?

The picture of a sketch (the "Curse of an Aching Heart" pic) is irrelevant in the "Early Life" section. You previously wrote "sketch is unnecessary", so why do you want to keep this image ?

The Katharine Hepburn article is a "featured article" with a lot of images. What's wrong with adding a few more images to this one, like the 2001 picture of Dunaway ?

Laura4114 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Laura4114: Besides Katharine Hepburn, you can also mention several featured articles, including Gary Cooper, Charlie Chaplin, Rod Steiger or Vivien Leigh. They all have a lot of pictures, and in all of them, pictures are both on the right and on the left. You can also mention the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Alternating_left_and_right ==> "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left);" Therefore, I do not see any problem to add more pictures nor to alternate them left and right. I added two pictures to the Dunaway page. However, I would be happy to discuss this matter with Winkelvi if he's still not okay with it. Topkapi 017 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article needs to be edited more properly. Of course EVERYBODY KNOWS Faye Dunaway is married to Peter Wolf. (2601:C6:8300:2670:B0E7:23D0:3BC1:9B62 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC))Reply

Dustin Checks in is not listed 174.235.83.32 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dustin Checks In os not listed 174.235.83.32 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have restored a "Citation needed" template following "Preminger's film did not meet critical or box-office success, but Dunaway retained notice enough to earn a Golden Globe Award nomination for New Star of the Year." Another editor had removed the template with the edit summary "Already indexed right here on Wiki".

I felt that a citation was needed in the article, so I posed a question about that topic at Wikipedia:Help desk#Citation needed within article?. The reponse said, in part, "... Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for itself. The citation(s) must be copied from those other articles into this article. ..."

The response suggested using the talk page to collaborate, so I am posting this comment to explain restoration of the template and request the appropriate citation(s). I don't know whether one citation exists for both the failure to "meet critical or box-office success" and the Golden Globe Award nomination, or whether we need two citations. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply