Talk:William Travilla

Questions of authenticity of claimed Marilyn Monroe worn William Travilla costumes arises -- 'lost' collection exhibit ultimately stopped

I just wanted to post some links to the biggest controversy in terms of the William Travilla 'lost' collection of claimed Marilyn Monroe worn costumes. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2567587.ece The exhibition was canceled by the hosting Hilton Hotel group after the first stop and showing in early October, 2007, in Brighton, United Kingdom. Here is a link to the website which claimed all of the seven dresses were worn by Marilyn Monroe. http://www.travillacollection.com/ After some research and comparison to the real costumes, the difference was obvious and also visible. http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/21512/-Fake-claim-over-Monroe-show After being featured in England's HELLO! magazine, modeled by Peaches Geldof, 19, Bob Geldof's daughter, for which the tabloid paid 7,000 British Pounds to the Travilla team, the hoax was getting very obvious, since the people behind the Travilla project were repeating their method with other newspapers as well. http://www.southyorkshiretimes.co.uk/news/Lucy-steps-out-in-Monroe39s.3364714.jp Bill Sarris, the former partner of William Travilla (who died in 1990), Andrew Hansford, the person in charge for this project in England, and others would sent a Cease & Desist to collector Mark Bellinghaus, (who was very successful in stopping the biggest exhibition fraud in recorded history), Jennifer J. Dickinson and author Ernest Cunningham, who despite the Travilla team threat did not stop to warn the public about this costume memorabilia fraud. http://www.pr-inside.com/marilyn-monroe-lost-william-travilla-costume-r234197.htm Collector Mark Bellinghaus does own a real and authentic William Travilla made costume which was worn by Marilyn Monroe. http://www.pr-inside.com/marilyn-monroe-lost-collection-stopped-r242619.htm This exhibition fraud which was committed with the name of Marilyn Monroe was the second one within two years. A Marilyn Monroe exhibition which was on display for seven months in Long Beach, CA, from 2005 to 2006, was ultimately canceled after a class action lawsuit was filed by Ernest Cunningham and Emily Sadjady, on May 26, 2006. The 'lost' Travilla collection has not moved forward and to other venues, since this project was canceled by the appointed host, the Hilton Hotel Corporation. http://www.pr-inside.com/marilyn-monroe-lost-collection-stopped-r242619.htm 76.170.67.99

Removing "posthumous controversy" section

The section titled "posthumous controversy" deals not with Travilla himself, but with the authenticity of some dresses in a touring display. It appears to have been added to promote a person unrelated to Travilla. Since it appears to be a coatrack section and gives undue weight to something having nothing to do with Travilla himself, I am removing it. I'm not sure there's enough for a separate article, but someone is welcome to start one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted back to version by John. Historic events relevant to the estate of William Travilla.--Monnai (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The section I removed has little, if anything, to do with Travilla's estate. There appears to be a difference of opinion as to the authenticity of dresses attributed to Travilla. Even labelling it a "controversy" seems to be WP:NPOV. I'm sorry, but you haven't provided any reason for the section to stay, so I'm removing it again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The new issue you're claiming on this article was not an issue to you well over a month ago when you reverted the Parischap edit, as this section was then in existence.

(cur) (last) 21:51, 3 June 2008 Delicious carbuncle (Talk | contribs) m (3,622 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Parischap; Rm blah blah blah.) (undo)

This section should be kept for the following reasons: WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN and WP:RELIABLE.

Notation was made on the discussion page for my previous edit. Thanks--Monnai (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make this an attack on me or any other editor (and check what I was reverting on that occasion). You have yet to offer a justification for the section, which violates the guidelines of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, and is not relevant to the subject of the article. I don't see the relevance of the guidelines you have offered, since they relate to sourcing, not to content. Please do not revert again. Perhaps you could ask for a third opinion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not making this an attack and I'm fully aware about WP:CIVIL but simply inquiring why this is suddenly an issue when you had edited this article before and did not remove it then.

These links and this section should stay for the following reasons:

WP:VERIFY - these are verifiable sources.

WP:BURDEN - none of these sources are unreliable which is why I feel I'm permitted to challenge your removal of this section.

WP:RELIABLE - third party published sources were used.

This is also not covered under WP:BLP which is one reason that I question why WP:NPOV should be a concern. Additionally this section simply states the facts with properly sourced references.

WP:3RR works both ways.--Monnai (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this a question of content, not sourcing, so WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, and WP:RELIABLE are not relevant. WP:NPOV is always a concern - it is "a cornerstone of Wikipedia". Coatrack sections or giving undue weight to sections necessarily violates that policy. I have explained my rationale for removing the section - no explanation is required or can be given for why I or any other editor did not remove it earlier. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)