Talk:Zsa Zsa Gabor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


All pictures related to this article are her when she was much younger. A lot of pictures for other Actors are more recent. Do we have a more recent picture of her? (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's copyright rules prevent most news-related and more recent photos. The older publicity photos are usually OK. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Also Zsa Zsa Gabor is primarily an actress, and this picture shows her at the height of her fame as an actress and is technically correct. Also it's not that often that you can use really good studio pictures for people here and need to settle for awful "on the street" pictures. We've got one, why get rid of it. Dollvalley (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 3 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

"In 1974, she purchased a two-story Bel Air home from Elvis Presley" ... —> two-storey (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Storey" - British spelling. "Story" - American spelling. Which one is used should match the form of English used in the rest of the article (which, I admit, isn't overwhelmingly obvious). (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name

As a native speaker of Hungarian, I just wanted to remark that the maiden name of Zsa Zsa's mother cannot have been "Tilleman Jánosné": This is a Hungarian married name, a composite of the male name "Tilleman János" with the suffix "né", literally translating to "Tilleman János's wife".

The article on Jolie Gábor states that her maiden name was Janka. I don't know whether this is correct, but at least it's not obviously impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Health: Gangrene, not cancer lesions

The current Wikipedia article today states that Ms. Gabor was hospitalized in early January of 2011 and subsequently had surgery "to have a portion of her right leg amputated below the knee after cancerous lesions were discovered by her doctors". According to a news article I read today the reason for the amputation was gangrene, not cancerous lesions. (Associated Press, March 2, 2011 "Zsa Zsa Gabor taken to hospital by ambulance": "Most of Gabor's right leg was amputated in January because of gangrene.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "Personal life" section appears the following: "While Gabor was still married to Conrad Hilton, she once admitted to having sexual relations with her stepson Nicky, a future husband of Elizabeth Taylor's." This leads me to ask, he was a future husband of Elizabeth Taylor's what? Surely it should read as, "While Gabor was still married to Conrad Hilton, she once admitted to having sexual relations with her stepson Nicky, a future husband of Elizabeth Taylor." (i.e. without the 's) (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the possessive is normal in cases like this. Would you say "he is a friend of mine" or "he is a friend of me"? (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not, but that is not grammatically equivalent. I certainly could and would say "he was a friend of George Washington". "He was a future husband of Elizabeth Taylor's" might now be read to mean "a future husband of Elizabeth Taylor's husband", assuming of course that Liz's future ex was bisexual. (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


There's always a sudden influx of anonymous edits, a high proportion deleted, after celebrity news stories. But continuous death announcements are way out of line, if not dangerous. Is it time to semi-protect? It seems that if a contributor is not willing to take 15 seconds to sign up as a "serious" editor, they should not be allowed to post minutia or corrupt newsworthy articles.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Porfirio Rubirosa

I found it ironic that the only picture on the wiki page depicting her with men, the most prominent guy on it is international playboy Porfirio Rubirosa whom she had an affair with while he was married to Barbara Hutton. In his home-country the Dominican Republic he is quite well known for having had said affair. A story tells of the Dominican Presidential yacht that dictator Trujillo lent to his buddy Porfirio sailing into New York harbor with a large sign on the side announcing "Zsa Zsa Slept Here". It's anecdotal at best so I didn't write it up, but thought its interesting to note here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Singularity (talkcontribs) 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "Legal difficulties" section, consider blotting out one or a few letters in the quoted profanity "This happens every f**king time I go shopping!!". Everyone who reads it, including young adults, will know exactly what Zsa Zsa said, while at the same time get the message that communities, including Wikipedia, have language standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, we all do. But no, it has to be quoted as is. There is no censorship on Wikipedia, except when required legally under relatively narrow circumstances. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Did she actually say that during (or in connexion with) the incident? Or did she just say it in the opening titles of "Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear?" Shotguntony (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The info summary shows:

Conrad Hilton (1942–1946; divorced)

but in the more detailed Personal Life section, as well as numerous other websites, their marriage is said to have ended in 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you add the category Category:Hungarian people to this bio? (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't there it is because it is too general. There are myriad other categories detailing her ethnic background and her current citizenship. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture stardom — the celebrity as role in itself

Wiki articles have trouble suggesting the pop culture importance of figures like Zsa Zsa. In this article she comes off as a minor actress, with no suggestion that she was a major celebrity, let's call it. Zsa Zsa was famous the way Paris Hilton or the Kardashians are famous-- and she stayed at that starring level of celebrity in the tabloids and gossip columns for a good forty years! That's no mean feat. She created a role, in the American mind, an ideal of European glamour combined with sex. Bob Hope, or later, Johnny Carson had only to say her first name and people were ready to laugh, knowing the role. She was not a film star, her starring role was as "Zsa Zsa" in the press and on talk shows, and she played Zsa Zsa perfectly for 40 years. Celebrity of this kind is itself a version of acting stardom.Profhum (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't compare Zsa Zsa or anyone with any class or taste or talent (however much a bitch Gabor may have been) with the untalented, the lowlife, the thuggish and the mediocre, which is what comprises most of today's music, outside of country music. No matter how successful the current crop I referred to is or may be for now, they can never be forgiven for introducing "twerking" and turning it into a popular and successful attention-grabbing gimmick. Quis separabit? 21:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was only making a point about fame, but you're quite right. Zsa Zsa was offering America something more sophisticated and elegant than their everyday life. Both Hilton and Kardashian, the exact opposite: they made porn movies of themselves. Only two years after my 2014 post, Paris Hilton has evaporated. Zsa Zsa, however, offered Americans a witty ideal of European sexual sophistication for forty years.Profhum (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Could her name's pronunciation be changed to [ˈʒɑʒɑ ˈɡaːbɔr]? ( It's a lot closer to the Hungarian pronunciation. Kapostamas (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


There reads: In 2011, her right leg was amputated above the knee to save her life from an infection.
"Above the knee"? The part of leg above the knee is thigh, so her thigh was amputated? It is called "above knee amputation" but there should read the leg below the knee is amputated. It might be okay to say it as it is, but to me that doesn't sound right. (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015

Gabor was imprisoned for 3 days for her assault against an officer. (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 12:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Format the filmography section

the roles need to be in boxes. that way, its more coherent. If no one is willing to do that, i will start doing it. Any one support or oppose this? Winterysteppe (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Filmography updated

I have completed the revision of the filmography. converted it into actual tables. 04:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Television Section of her Filmography notes 1956 Milton Berie Show. Should be Milton Berle Show. Just a simple typo. TheMouseman1212 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Light show (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I was the one who fixed all of that from a crappy bullet points

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 1965 - 1971 Green Acres cast

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That, of course, was her sister Eva. Ephraem 23:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zsa Zsa Gabor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Why does the infobox claim that her birthday is either February 6, 1917 or that same day in 1918? The personal life section already says that her 99th birthday was February 6, 2016, where she was hospitalized two days later; that means her birthday obviously was in 1917 and not 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Her birthday is February 6, 1917. IMDb confirms this. Mzimmerle (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

According to her New York Times obituary, she was "born Sari Gabor in Budapest in 1917, 1918 or 1919 — she always gave a birth date of Feb. 6 or 7, but not the year, though most sources suggest it was 1917." Pburka (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

IMDb is user edited; it's not inherently reliable & thus cannot confirm anything. Claims of her "Xth birthday" are the result of an oversimplification. Most articles, such as the NYT obit mentioned above, refer to her age as "believed to be", rather than "is". Just because some editors omit that or a contributor decided to drop those operative words, again, doesn't make it inherently reliable. (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The actual year has never been confirmed. (Fgskl (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC))
That would be my point, yes. (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that the New York Times obituary now confirms that her birth year was 1917. Pburka (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP notice

Can anybody remove the BLP notice at the top of the page? I can't figure out how. A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Update- NEVER MIND. I figured it out.

Recent death template

  • About the {{recent death}} template: its purpose is not to indicate that there has been a recent death, but to note that circumstances are uncertain.
    Useful for murders, and the like. Otherwise, put the information in the text, and that is sufficient.
    The template was never intended for, and the guide to use for the template indicates it should not be used to tag articles about recently deceased individuals.
    This death is not a surprise, it is reported, and she's been on life support for years. No confusion surrounding circumstances of death.
    By the way, this project is not a newspaper.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Editors: see also the discussion here. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Movie sources

In order to eliminate the ref tag in the filmography section, I propose to simply remove those films where there is no link to the film article or a separate source. And since most of those are for unknown films in which she probably had a small part, I don't think the article will be harmed. Anyone can feel free to cite them and add them back. --Light show (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to check that Gabor's inclusion in each blue-linked article is also referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that the films need to be removed; like plot summaries, the films themselves can serve as the reference. Moreover, that seems to be the standard practice used across much of the encyclopedia, even in FAs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No, appearances in films are not like plot summaries or else that would be added to WP:BLP or WP:V. Whether or not that's "standard practice" is irrelevant, we are here to improve Wikipedia and that means the provision of verifiable reliable sources when items are challenged. Interestingly, FLs would never be passed without inline citations for every appearance, so FA needs to step up a gear if your claim is true.
What I can do instead, is to add a bunch of inline [citation needed] tags to those items that remain after Light show is finished because I'm challenging that someone can verify that Gabor was actually in these movies and appearances. I was blocked once for adding in awards (which were blue-linked) to a biography because they weren't inline referenced. This is no different. Show me any policy that says that the appearances of individuals in films or television shows can be completely unreferenced? For the avoidance of doubt, our WP:V policy makes it clear, ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations ... note the use of must here. I'm challenging these entries. Now let's get with spending the time improving Wikpiedia rather than busting a gut to avoid doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I made unsourced or unlinked roles invisible. IMO, few if any of the blue-linked roles would be "challenged or likely to be challenged," since they're mostly in the category of "no one cares." The samples I checked had her in minor or cameo roles. Films that she had major parts in, such as Queen of Outer Space, all list her in the article. That film, BTW, is probably what got Carl Sagan and John Glenn curious enough to make a career out of checking out its accuracy. Or maybe it was that other space documentary, Barbarella. --Light show (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not about "no-one cares", it's about our policy WP:V which clearly states that if material is challenged then it "must be supported by inline citations". So I'm challenging each of these, by adding the maintenance tag above the table, and The ed17, an admin, decided to work against policy, twice, by removing my challenge. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The sample of linked films I checked all had her listed somewhere, including the cameo lists. If you come across any where she isn't, please inline tag it so we can source it. --Light show (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone confirm whether IMDB can be a source for a list of films? It seems like they've done most of the work. --Light show (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Re TRM, that's your opinion that is not in keeping with current practices on this encyclopedia and would need consensus to change. I've started a discussion elsewhere that starts us down that road. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong again. Featured lists which deal exclusively with filmograhpies (or bibliographies for instance) use verifiable third-party reliable source, usually inline, to cite every single entry. That's current practice. Consensus doesn't need to change just because one project has got it wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Light show, IMDB is not considered reliable. Here is an excerpt from the page WP:Reliable source examples:
Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence.
One exception being that certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable.
  • And here is another excerpt from WP:Identifying reliable sources:
Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites.
Thus I have been adding citations from other sources over the past couple of hours e.g. reviews and biographies. MurielMary (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Finding and adding all those cites was a project, and well appreciated! But I wonder if the validity of IMDB details might have changed enough over the years to make more of it usable as a RS. Naturally, the details would exclude "trivia" or "funtrivia" or comments from their Message Board, which BTW needs a valid user name and email to submit.
IMDB has grown substantially and reliably over the years, and now includes a $12.50/month paid-subscriber IBDBPro site. It's considered more reliable than blogs or other sites where any IP can submit facts (cough-cough). It bills itself as "The leading information resource for the entertainment industry." Zachary Quinto says it's "Hands down the most comprehensive website for industry information." Spike Lee agrees, "When I have to get credits I use IMDbPro."
Their guidelines for making even minor changes to their credit pages are detailed enough to prevent casual vandalism. They also state, "We often need to check your updates before we complete them. The time it takes us to do this can vary. Please see here for our current waiting times."
So excluding obvious trivia or message board comments, and noting their "Contributors Charter", there may be little reason left to assume that any newspaper or magazine journalist's commentary would be more valid than IMDB. And there are plenty of junk celebrity book bios out there. Should the guideline about allowing at least most of IMDB details be updated? --Light show (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting that lists from some discography sites were allowed to fill in missing inline cites to each and every song. Without such existing sources, we can expect many more actors and musician bios to be tagged and made unavailable for ITN. And IMDB has many more subscribers and watchers than discography sites. --Light show (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on the above opinions, I'd like to have IMDB re-evaluated as a RS, at least for its basic cast lists. Does anyone know where to ask? --Light show (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. There are usages of IMDB that are appropriate, inappropriate, and merely disputed. It's merely disputed (not prohibited) to use as an overarching source in filmographies, unless an entry is specifically refuted by something else. I don't believe that a case has ever been brought forth on Wikipedia of an IMDB filmography listing (of released films) being incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016 (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

She emigrated FROM Hungary She immigrated TO America

There is a difference

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No, this was done. Thanks for the heads up, IP editor. -- WV 20:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

In this phrase "In his autobiography, television host Merv Griffin, who often squired Gabor younger sister Eva socially", please change "Gabor younger sister" to "Gabor's younger sister". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, plus a little more. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. -- WV 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by deleting relevant life details

It's obviously wrong for a drive-by editor who has never contributed to this bio before to cut relevant early life details without any valid reason, other than they apparently don't approve. Doing so by claiming that some details about Gabor's mother creates undue weight is ridiculous. The details, which in effect explain how Gabor even made it to the U.S. is important, if not vital, when the facts are from reliable sources. And coming from her mother's bio, makes it pretty reliable. Why anyone would drive by and undermine just this significant and brief part of her bio makes no sense. And despite the fact that it's been part of a stable bio for over five years, and the deleter has been told to discuss their rationale on the talk page and try to get consensus, they have ignored that request and prefer edit warring. --Light show (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a drive-by editor by any means - please keep the personal commentary and attempt to dismiss my contributions out of this discussion. The over-detail about the mother does not belong in this article, it's undue weight and, because it's about the mother's life rather than the article subject, it does not help the reader to better understand the article subject. It does help the reader better understand the mother but has no direct relation to the life of the mother with the article subject. The mother has an article, that's where the content belongs. -- WV 21:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
By "drive-by" editor, I was referring to the fact that you just started trashing editing her bio a few hours ago. My other comments still stand, that your personal opinion about how Zsa Zsa and her family made it to the U.S. "has no direct relation to her life" is absurd. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't care what your reasoning is for calling me a drive-by editor. It's rude and dismissive. Not to mention that everyone has to have that first edit to an article to begin editing it. Starting to edit an article doesn't make one a drive-by editor. Aside from being rude, your name-calling is inaccurate as well as a personal attack, therefore it's inappropriate and unnecessary. Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment of the undue weight you want to remain in the article. -- WV 23:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
We have different examples of what kind of editing is "rude and dismissive." When a new editor to a bio comes by and deletes a large and relevant early life section of a stable and old article, based on their opinion, "article is about Zsa Zsa Gabor not her mother - disagree, take your concerns to the article talk page, please," that's a clearer example. You had the obligation to discuss it first, and not expect others to defend themselves to you, after the fact. And even after your deletions were restored, you simply reverted dismissively and rudely without discussing. The duty and obligation, as you know, was on you. While it's unacceptable for pre-existing editors to express ownership, it's much worse when a new editor does it. --Light show (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding my comments above. Your unwarranted attack on me equates rude and dismissive, not your edits. I am not a new editor. I'm not doing a drive-by. The old, "stable" content was inappropriate for this article, but appropriate for the mother's article. My reasoning n't in the edit summary was clear explanation as to why it was inappropriate. You started to edit war, you disagreed, therefore, as someone you don't consider a new and drive by editor, I suggested you discuss rather than get angry and revert again. In further regard to talk page "duty" and drive-bys, ownership mentality, you haven't edited this article for months until her death. All told in the six years you've been editing the article, you've produced 86 changes to it. Only 18 times, in the course of those edits, have you discussed or made changes to the article talk page. I note a number of reversions of other editors' work in six years' time, but you haven't attempted discussion at the talk page, prior to yesterday, in four years. From my observation point, that could - to many - prove ownership mentality (since you brought up ownership). As it is, with the cooperative editing among several over the last 36 hours, I think the article is now improved over its previous, so-called "stable", version. -- WV 13:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
While you are not a 'new' editor, you've been blocked before for contentious actions on Wiki - so, let's turn the wattage down a bit on your self-imposed halo, WV. (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Are blue-linked articles reliable sources for actors?

In the ITN/RD discussion for Alan Thicke, Masem implied that blue-linked articles would be an acceptable source, assuming Gabor was listed in that article as being in the cast. Is that a wrong interpretation? Most of the cn-tagged films have links to the film articles with her shown as a cast member. --Light show (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

She needs to be major cast member of a film, not just any cast member. Her name should have appeared on the movie's posters or in the opening credit roll so it is crystal clear she was in the movie, following the blue-linked criteria above. Otherwise, it should be inline sourced. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Clear enough now. Thanks for explaining. --Light show (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
One other question Masem, or anyone: where can I have IMDB re-evaluated as a RS for at least its cast lists? I needed to find a source for her in Sang et lumières, which IMDB showed as having been renamed Love in a Hot Climate (1954), for instance. IMDB was also the only place that had the poster image, which showed her as a star. And since IMDB typically has trailers which give cast names, it would be a great help if some of it was a RS. It's changed quite a bit since WP's RS guidelines were made. --Light show (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem as I understand it is that it is still user-generated. They have admins that try to make sure no absolutely bogus material is entered (much like we have here), and they may have access to better databases/source materials to check (eg like seemingly the only source for posters/trailers), but still are effectively a Wiki anyone can edit. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood. --Light show (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


In the sentence "The Gabor sisters were first cousins of Annette Lantos, wife of U.S. House Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the first Holocaust survivor elected to Congress." The fact that Lantos was a Holocaust survivor is not undue. It is a fact, and does not distract from the article. Pauciloquence (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Pauciloquence, you're right, the fact that Lantos is a Holocaust survivor is not undue weight. In his own article or an article on his wife. It is, however, undue, and just a trivia tidbit in this article, which has absolutely no bearing on Gabor's life and family history. It does not enhance the reader's understanding of Gabor, therefore, it does not belong in this article. It is rightly included in Lantos' article, where it belongs. That's sufficient. Please stop re-adding it. -- WV 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop removing this info. It is disingenuous for you to revert and then come to the talk page topic that I started earlier. We need some more opinions. Pauciloquence (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The content is not about Gabor and does not belong in the article. I will give you the opportunity to do the right thing and revert it back out. If you do not, we will have to take this elsewhere. You are now edit warring, and you need to stop. -- WV 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I will not be bullied or threatened by you. I have asked for other opinions on the matter. While a discussion is occurring here please do not remove the disputed sentence as it is right now. If you do, you will be continuing your edit warring. A discussion is occurring. Pauciloquence (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Pauciloquence, because you seem unwilling to truly discuss and see reason based on policy, I have filed a WP:DRN request for this issue. It can be found Zsa Gabor here. -- WV 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This might belong in a section, "Zsa Zsa as Holocaust survivor". But we don't have such a section, because she wasn't. It's not just failing WP:NOTINHERITED, it's failing it by about a three levels of indirection.
Zsa Zsa Gabor was driven out of Hungary by the threat of the Nazis and increasing anti-semitism. It would be relevant and interesting to expand on that, and just what conditions were like in Hungary at that time. But this wasn't the Holocaust.
Even the current section " While her mother escaped Hungary during the same time period of the Nazi occupation of Budapest, Gabor left the country in 1941, three years prior to the takeover" is sensationalist and backwards to an unwarranted level. It places her mother's exit (three years later) before Zsa Zsa's, simply so that it can get "Nazi occupation" into the first part of the sentence. That's misleading and sensationalist. The section should describe Zsa Zsa's time in Hungary, then her exit, and then her mother's - noting that by which time there was indeed a Nazi presence. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
You and I have often disagreed in the past, Andy Dingley, but I'm glad to see we agree 100% on this. It's just bad practice to manipulate an article to include Holocaust content simply for the sensationalism factor. -- WV 15:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pink box with text?

That pink box with text at the end of the article doesn't make any sense. It starts with the words "those words" with no clear reference. Remove it? Or clarify what it's about? MurielMary (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. It makes no sense to me either MurielMary. I say remove it. Pauciloquence (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree about removing it, and thank you for doing so, MurielMary. It's not a quote from Gabor, it's not notable, it's basically a piece of trivia wrapped in a pink quote box. In other words, fluffy filler and not appropriate for this encyclopedia article. -- WV 15:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The original box had only a short quote by Richard Corliss which he wrote at the end of his his Time article, which itself was a tribute to her. He was Time's movie editor. If anyone wants to read the article to get the full context, they just need to click on the source link. I see no problem with including it, either as "pink fluffy filler" box, or as an inline quote with more context to his article: Light show (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Mademoiselle Gabor, you silly delight, we can't say for sure that you're about to meet a most beautiful creature; but we're grateful for the pleasure you gave, and the fun you conveyed in being that clever little fiction known as Zsa Zsa. It was divine knowing you.

Richard Corliss, American film critic"Zsa Zsa Gabor, Hollywood Actress Whose Best Role Was Herself, Dies at 99", Time, December 18, 2016.

Well, we frown on fluffy pink boxes on Wiki. (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi occupation, Holocaust

While it makes for a romantic, dramatic, exciting kind of story, Zsa Zsa Gabor was never a Holocaust survivor (although this has been in the article prior, for years, since removed) and she did not escape the Nazis nor did she experience any of the Nazi Occupation of Hungary (just removed once again). Gabor left the country after divorcing her first husband in 1941. She left Hungary under normal circumstances, to go to the U.S. There, she joined her sister Eva who was already in the U.S. She married Conrad Hilton the following year. She was gadding about in New York and Hollywood when the Nazis occupied Budapest and the rest of Hungary. Including it in the article is dishonest and, as someone of Jewish ancestry, I see it as an insult and slap in the face to those who did experience the occupation and Holocaust by indicating there is truth to the story. I have included a Jerusalem Post article as a reference that states Gabor's mother left Budapest prior to the occupation, but that's as far as this needs to go. Even Jolie Gabor didn't truly "flee", she also left - albeit just in time - but this is the closest Gabor's immediate family came to being subjected to the horrors of the Nazis. And, there's also evidence that the Gabor women - like so many other Hungarians of Jewish ancestry - had converted to Catholicism long before immigrating to the United States. If that's the case, they were in no real danger to begin with. Whatever the case, the story of being Holocaust survivors is fiction and should neither be included nor implied in this BLP. It's inaccurate and insulting to do otherwise. -- WV 13:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Weren't Jews being severely harassed and persecuted in all those countries by 1941? And didn't everyone know about it there? And didn't many become Christians attempting to save their necks? I know for a fact I have relatives who did that already in the 1930s and even earlier. Your objections are a bit strange, to me. (And the huffiness is sort of amazing.) SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing in Gabor's past interviews has given any indication her family was harassed or even threatened by the Nazis. What you perceive to be "strange" and "huffiness" is frustration over having to repeatedly remove content from a BLP not supported by reliable sources and essentially equates hyperbolic drama to make the article subject's life story more dramatic and intriguing. We can't make stuff up or imply something because it makes for good reading or we think it might have happened that way. This is an encyclopedia -- facts are what's contained within, not Hollywood fantasy. Moreover, this is a BLP, therefore, it is imperative we get it right. -- WV 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
BLP = Biography of a Living Person. She died. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most of what you wrote is both wrong and suspect regarding your supposed intentions to clarify history and fix a few bio details.
  • Zsa Zsa has never been called a "Holocaust survivor" in the article, which you brush off as a false "romantic, dramatic, and exciting story." As a new editor to the article, claiming that it's been in the article for years is wrong, along with your giving yourself credit for fixing it.
  • Your saying that since she left the country "under normal circumstances," implies a total lack of knowledge about Europe during the war years. It's common knowledge that Hungary began collaborating and discriminating against various minorities long before they were occupied: "Very soon after Hitler came to power in Germany, the Hungarian government attempted to build an alliance with Nazi Germany."
  • Your claiming that because of you are of Jewish ancestry you felt personally insulted, and used the Jer. Post. cite to prove it, is highly questionable, since your personal background is irrelevant, even if true, while the newspaper clip you cited was a brief bit of pop trivia which included almost nothing about her emigration.
  • Claiming that her mother didn't flee or escape because Hungary hadn't actually yet been invaded, supports your other incorrect statements. You seem to be unaware of the obvious threats, dangers, and risks which can cause people to suddenly emigrate, or flee danger.
  • Writing in one of your rationales that details about Gabor's mother has nothing to do with what Zsa Zsa did, or implying a connection was "undue weight" is ridiculous. And after beginning an edit war by twice deleting longstanding context, you actually wrote, the mother has an article, that's where this content belongs - discuss on talk page rather than edit war, please. You actually wrote "Please."
  • Saying that none of the Gabors were holocaust survivors as they did not experience the camps, is another statement which undermines essentially all of your edits, since as you know, that's another ridiculous statement.
  • Your overall conclusion that because they did not actually escape under barbed-wire fences or from a camp, it is a "fiction" that they are in any way Holocaust survivors, is more of the same suspect drivel.
  • Your implication that converting to another religion at that time would have saved them also makes clear you know almost nothing about the situation.
  • Claiming that you are of Jewish heritage and feel insulted by any mention of the Holocaust in relation to the Gabors, added to your edit warring to remove mention of Tom Lantos, and all of the rest, makes me doubt essentially everything you claim and wrote and your true motive behind your apparent obsession with the subject. Note also that you've added essentially nothing to the bio about Zsa Zsa and you're still edit warring and writing essays in the talk page about this single issue. But these are only my opinions, so you can relax. Just because one editor disbelieves most of what you wrote, questions your agenda and obsessions, is no big deal. --Light show (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Europe during the war years differed for various groups, various cities, various countries, over various periods of time. Lumping it all together, as you are doing, shows your lack of understanding of WWII history.
I can and will take great umbrage and offense to anyone being called a Holocaust survivor when they aren't, anyone being thought of as a victim of the Nazis in Europe just because they were there, anyone being named as either just for sensationalism in an article (of any kind, any publication or internet presence). It minimizes what those who truly suffered due to the Nazis during the Holocaust experienced, still experience today. It turns the horror into a story arc. THAT is beyond offensive and disgusting. I can only assume that you aren't Jewish or have no Jewish ancestors who did experience the Holocaust. If you were and did, you would understand why this is upsetting.
I am a student of the Holocaust and other matters surrounding WWII. Please don't think that because my view on all this differs from yours that I am ignorant of any of it. And don't try to use this as an argument so you can WP:WIN. You're turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop doing that. It's unproductive and serves no good at all.
See the above comments by Andy Dingley. He feels the same as I (on at least some of this, if not all). -- WV 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, sure. And you still wrote that none of the Gabors were holocaust survivors as they did not experience the camps. Tell that one to Roman Polanski; and don't forget about Tom Lantos. --Light show (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
My explanation above was simplistic, but still essentially on the money, especially in regard to the Gabors, Light show. Living in a country that was affected by the Nazis in WWII does not make one a Holocaust survivor. In order for anyone (not just Jews) to be legally declared a Holocaust survivor, that individual must prove they physically suffered under or were persecuted by the Nazis. Polanski's and Lantos' experiences certainly count. None of the Gabor's ever spoke of nor implied they suffered under or were persecuted by the Nazis. They didn't escape the Nazis. Nothing indicates such. They were not Holocaust survivors. -- WV 11:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion, your honor, about what someone needs to be legally declared a Holocaust survivor, is more than simplistic. I assume, if you were a judge making that declaration, you'd prefer something like this, or maybe a photo for proof.
As for your statement, "None of the Gabor's ever spoke of nor implied they suffered...", this is some of the text you keep struggling furiously to keep off:
Gabor's mother barely escaped from Hungary after the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944. She credited Magda's lover with helping her: "For Magda's Portuguese Ambassador I thank God. It was this man who saved my life." (Adams, Cindy. Jolie Gabor, Mason/Charter Publ. (1975) pgs. 135-49, 173) Gabor's maternal grandmother and uncle Sebastian (Annette Lantos's father) chose to remain in Budapest feeling they "had a good place to hide". However, both died during a bombing by the U.S.--Light show (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Correction: I forgot that for some, even photos or eyewitness accounts are not good enough proof, since someone like Avey has been publicly defamed, ridiculed, and called a liar for coming out. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
"Your opinion, your honor, about what someone needs to be legally declared a Holocaust survivor, is more than simplistic." Tell that to a whole host of rabbis, Holocaust experts, museums, and college professors. There is disagreement within the diaspora as to what the requirements are to be considered a Holocaust survivor. There's no disagreement within Israel, however, and the definition of "Holocaust" (which delves into the definition of someone who truly experienced it) at Yad Vashem (link to description/definition here: [1]). It's obvious you're not Jewish -- if you were, you would understand what I'm saying and why I'm saying it. You wouldn't be taking cheap pot shots to prove your point and further your agenda (whatever that actually is, I've not quite decided).
But, back to the actual subject: the Gabors were not then, and are still not considered, Holocaust survivors.
Jolie Gabor left Hungary before she was ever in any danger, regardless of what the Cindy Adams source states (this was also pointed out to you by another editor, yesterday). She was never physically harmed nor persecuted by the Nazis. She was not a Holocaust survivor, period. The content you are framing above as evidence the Gabors were Holocaust survivors comes from a book by Cindy Adams. Do you know who Cindy Adams is? She's a gossip writer known for her sensationalistic and tabloid-like prose. It's at best a questionable source. At worst, it's an unreliable source. Aside from the Adams book, there's nothing - anywhere - that can be pointed to as reliable which would refer to Jolie Gabor (or any of the Gabors) as survivors of the Holocaust or as having "escaped" the Nazis. -- WV 19:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
So you don't keep wasting everyone's time, the article has never claimed she was a "holocaust survivor." --Light show (talk) 11:38 am, Today (UTC−8)
If you feel your time is being wasted, stop reading and then responding to my comments. As for how others feel, it's probably best for the to decide on their own whether or not their time is being wasted. Since you've brought it up yet again, the wording in the article has been changed more than once to lead readers to believe the Gabors were Holocaust survivors through inference, implication, and semantics -- it's never been written overtly. That's what I have been working on keeping out because it's hyperbolic, sensationalistic, and a lie. How things can be perceived are important, especially with a BLP. -- WV 20:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is no longer a BLP article, as Gabor is no longer living. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But the BLP rules continue to apply, per WP:BDP. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the BLP guidelines will apply for up to two years after the article subject has died. -- WV 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Some additions, I understand the POV of the two debating sides, but factually I'd react to some statements:
- "discriminating against various minorities long before they were occupied" - The numerus clausus law were introduced in 1920, in 1928 the racial criteria was abandoned, while such laws were still active i.e. in the U.S. Since 1938, Jewish laws were introduced.
- "Claiming that her mother didn't flee or escape because Hungary hadn't actually yet been invaded" - Despite, until 1944 Hungary remained the last safe place for Jews since in other countries the deportations already started in the early 40s, the Germans continously expressed they dissatisfaction of the way handling the Jewish question in Hungary. (As the referred article also states: "Despite the anti-Jewish measures, the majority of Jews within Hungary lived in relative safety during the war. ")
- "Saying that because none of the Gabors were holocaust survivors as they did not experience the camps" - There is a clear difference nominally regarding a "Holocaust-survivor" or someone else who left, fled or immigrated to another country
- "Your implication that converting to another religion at that time would have saved them also makes clear you know almost nothing about the situation." - the conversion of religions in many cases - regulated by law - made easier or resulted in a different effect as those who did not convert (i.e. regarding marriages or status of the child)

I think before any unnecessary escalation everybody should calm down, initially the state of the article was false since it connected the German occupation - 1941 - and the cause of leaving regarding Zsa Zsa, that was inherently wrong.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

What part of the Early life section before she died was "inherently wrong"? I found nothing. --Light show (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This sentence: "Along with her mother and sisters, Gabor escaped Hungary in 1941 following the Nazi occupation of Budapest." However, it was on a different revision, I noticed later.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
I agree with you, KIENGIR. -- WV 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I presume that your deletion of KIENGIR's comments was accidental. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Yikes! I deleted comments? Yes, absolutely accidental. There was an edit conflict, but I didn't realize comments were deleted. -- WV 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Light show, you are not just one editor that feels the same way you do as outlined in your post near the top of this thread. I agree with all the bullet points you listed. Winkelvi's wholesale removal of many points that do belong in this article is sad, and really detracts from the article. His continued edit warring about many of these points is disruptive. I notice now he has started removing information on the mother's article as well. I was wondering why he is doing all this, so I read over his contribs list to see if this was a pattern. I also clicked on his block log and could see there he has been blocked many times for his edit warring. I should hope something could be done, if he will not stop these edit warring behaviors. Pauciloquence (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Pauciloquence do you have something constructive to add? Something about edits? It's really a much better idea to talk about edits and not editors. What's more, there's a DRN started that's asking you and giving you a chance to resolve the issue you and I have regarding this very content. Are you going to take part and work for a peaceful resolution or just try to smear and poison the well against me on this talk page? -- WV 00:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I am talking about how the edits by a particular editor are harming the article. I am responding to a post about above from Light Show. I responded to the DRN request, and I will post here on this talk page as I see fit. You are not showing good faith to accuse me of trying to smear and poison the well against you! Remember, do not comment about editors, but only their edits. Pauciloquence (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Adopted" son death

Apparently, one of the adopted-in-name-only "sons" just died, as well. I don't think it deserves a mention since he wasn't actually a son and is trivia. Have removed the inclusion. Opinions? -- WV 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Look at Frederic Prinz von Anhalt's article - something about his adoptions without Zsa Zsa. Samuelsenwd (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, saw it. Not really sons, but part of a business deal. -- WV 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Year discrepancy

On this article it says she married to her first spouse in 1937, yet on the spouse's article it says 1935 and I don't know which one is right. Does anyone know? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zsa Zsa Gabor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Escape of parents - change in the wording of the time period

I revised the section on the timing of the emigration of Zsa Zsa and her mother from Hungary in order to improve clarity. This was reverted by Winkelvi on January 17, 2017. The current text does not make sense to me.

"While her mother escaped Hungary during the same time period of the Nazi occupation of Budapest, Gabor left the country in 1941, three years prior to the takeover."

What is the word "same" referring to? The same period as what? Was something removed and it used to say something like "While her mother and sister escaped ... during the same period of the takeover?" In this case "same" could mean that mother and sister left during the same period. But as it stands, I don't think it makes sense. Zsa Zsa left before the takeover, so "same" cannot refer to her leaving during the same period as her mother.

Here is what I wrote before it was reverted:

"While her mother escaped Hungary during the Nazi occupation of Budapest, Gabor left the country in 1941, three years prior to the takeover."

Maybe things can be clarified if someone explains to me what is wrong with this version. Thanks. Domandologo (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Domandologothe, the attached reference does not state definitively that they left after the Nazi occupation occured. The wording was changed to give a nod to the occupation occuring during that time period, however, nothing that has been found so far from a reliable reference proves they left during or after the occupation. Her mother is a different story: she actually escaped because she left during the occupation. Gabor only left, she didn't escape, because there's no proof anything occupation-wise was happening at the time of her departure from the country. -- ψλ 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

The sentence involving the Ceder Rapids article has a typo. The word "for" is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure that not "by" is missing? She wrote to that Gazette?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC))
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Zsa Zsa Gabor"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA