Talk:Elizabeth Taylor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article nomineeElizabeth Taylor was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 6, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 23, 2011.
WikiProject iconLGBT studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: Taylor is a gay icon
WikiProject iconWomen's History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


Ancestors

site:rosamondpress.com "Elizabeth Taylor"

69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long lead

This lead for this article is really long, longer than those of most other film stars and should probably be reduced by between 5 and 10 lines. User:Informed analysis (talk | contribs) 14:02, 4 October 2019

Sterilized / Hysterectomy

Should her entry mention that her husband, Mike Todd, had her sterilized?

The IMDb entry of her daughter, Liza Todd, mentions this:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0123654/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

As does an Express UK article (spelled sterilised):

https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/237051/How-Elizabeth-Taylor-lived-life-to-the-full

The above article also states that her sterilization led her to adopt her fourth child, Maria.

Neither article mentions if she was given any say in the matter, and husbands back then could unilaterally decide things like this, so she may have been unwillingly sterilized.

It may also be worth noting that hysterectomies have been linked to higher rates of heart disease, which was the cause of Liz Taylor's death, and also back pain (which afflicted Liz Taylor):

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/hysterectomy-linked-to-increase-in-heart-disease

https://www.hersfoundation.org/2011/03/elizabeth-taylor-was-also-one-in-three-women/ (note that this is a third source mentioning her sterilization)

This page states that her hysterectomy was a decade after Liza Todd's birth -- well after Mike Todd was dead, and also after the adoption of her fourth child, Maria -- but she may have been sterilized first by some method other than hysterectomy at the direction of Mike Todd, then received the hysterectomy a decade later:

https://www.khou.com/article/entertainment/elizabeth-taylor-spent-a-life-in-and-out-of-hospitals/285-320708562 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:ACA4:1100:D98F:94DB:6FFD:909 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: The Express article does not say husband Mike Todd "had her sterilized". It says "Taylor had been sterilised by 1964 after Liza’s difficult birth..." your description strongly implies a lack of agency, and coersion.
Your comment includes a lot of speculation. You wrote she may have been forced. Well, speculation, on the part of RS, can merit a place in articles. But would have to be properly attributed to the RS doing the speculation. Neither my speculation or your speculation belongs in article space.
Coverage of this requires compliance with
WP:UNDUE. If RS hardly touch it, it probably merits very little coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Casa Kimberly

Should Casa Kimberly be linked or mentioned anywhere in the article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrichosis

This might have come up before, but is there a reason why Taylor's reported hypertrichosis hasn't been mentioned in the section about her early life? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]