Talk:Frank Sinatra/Archive 2

I heard Frank Sinatra testified before Senate (Congress?) that rock and blues music are "lewd" and "immoral". Can anyone confirm or refute this? I don't know if this has anything to do with PMRC tho'. - Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.22.212 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It has alot of information, but thats just fine. It's a real feature article, and almost everybody will find what interests them here. Infact, it should be expanded. Somebody asked here about his vocal range, someone else might be interested in his political views. Anyway, the article isn't to long, it's an example for a normal-sized article for its theme. M.V.E.i. 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's quite long compared to say McCartney, Beethoven or Elvis...Could we move the bio to Life of Frank Sinatra, leaving a shortened versh? I've already created Frank Sinatra Filmography, List of Frank Sinatra's awards and accolades and Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy for similar reasons. Gareth E Kegg 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The filmography is now at Frank Sinatra filmography. -- Beardo (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I think it's admirable how much content is in this article, I really think it is too long. It's exhausting just going through the Table of Contents. The length is really what's holding this article back from being Featured. Williamnilly (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we delete Life of Frank Sinatra or add to it and condense the bio on the main page? We do need to strip out a lot...should a new article be created detailing Mob allegations? Or is this further evidence of my descent into Sinatramania? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sintra lived a lot longer than Elvis did, and rather longer than Paul has so far, and there is a lot more info available from living sources about Frank than there is about Beethoven, I daresay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, but what do other think of my proposal? Gareth E Kegg 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is a pain in the ass! Stop comparing Frank to McCartney or such jerkheads! --Shifty86 11:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax please. I was comparing the artists in terms of article length. The page has been cut by a third already. Gareth E Kegg 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my girlfriend and I split today and it's oh so maddening. Please keep doing your good work - will you forgive me? --Shifty86 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall. There's no one better for break up songs than Frank. Try In the Wee Small Hours, Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely, Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim or She Shot Me Down. Gareth E Kegg 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of his painting and artwork? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.132.98 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

another thing, i put in the article that he is a member of Alpha Phi Delta fraternity which he is a part of because I am in that same fraternity so I added it in because it's another piece of information about him.

If this is the case, we need a citation to support it. I've requested one with a {{fact}} template. Feel free to add a reference if you have one. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt figure out how to do an edit, but the piece states that Frank was less popular as a singer than Bob Crosby. I think the writer meant Bing Crosby. Can someone with edit privileges please oblige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.146.244 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be at least a request for an image. 194.79.44.109 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was one, and the deletionists killed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that Frank's favorite song to sing was "Summer Wind." Does anyone know a reference for that? --cda 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just added a note to the Palumbos article and one the newer article on Frank Palumbo looking for some sources. Palumbo, a local celebrity in Philly, was a prominent club owner and very popular with a number of groups for his various philanthropic efforts. He also had powerful friends in local politics and entertainment, including controversial mayor Frank Rizzo and Sinatra. Mob tie allegations and an apparently fixed fight (Jake LaMotta-Billy Fox) haunted his life and tied prominantly to Sinatra (the two were close and were reps for Lamotte and Fox).

However, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for anything including the words "Palumbo" and "mob", "Mafia", "mothers and fathers in association", etc. Since I'm sure allegations re Sinatra have been through the ringer here, does anyone have anything that might be of use in the Palumbo dyad? Mdbrownmsw 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds intresting. Have you tried Kitty Kelly's Sinatra bio His Way? That is the most detailed in reference to Mob allegations, though I admit I haven't heard of Palumbo before. Gareth E Kegg 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon's Search Inside finds no instances of "Palumbo", "Palumbo's", "Click Club" or "Nostalgias". Thanks, but nothing there.

Mdbrownmsw 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

May 14, 1998, was a Thursday. The obits say he died Thursday. The article says it occurred at 10:50 pm, which means Thursday, not past midnight into Friday. It's hard telling where the May 15 stuff is coming from, but it appears to be incorrect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the page to illustrate that sintra not only lost the role of Sky Masterson to Brando, but also that of Terry Malloy. The IMDb entry for On the Waterfront staes in the trivia section that Sinatra was offered the part after Brando turned it down, yet Sam Spiegal was hell bent on getting Brando. After losing the 2nd part to Brando it did in fact cause a rivalry between the two that only increased as they advanced in years. Sinatra even used to call Brando 'Mumbles'. I feel that this is a significant development in SInatra's career to warrant inclusion. Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.222 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple issues with the inclusion. The most significant issue is that IMDB isn't considered a reliable source because it depends on user submissions for trivia and is not fact checked by an objective 3rd party nor is a source required for the inclusion of trivia. Another issue is that a source must be provided for material, which was not offered in the material entered. If you can provide citations for this, then by all means, it can be included. What you added left the paragraph reading:

In 1954 Sinatra was offered the part of Terry Malloy in On The Waterfront after Marlon Brando had turned it down. Brando later U-turned on his decision leaving Sinatra out of the frame. The following year Sinatra missed out on the role of Sky Masterson, in the hugely popular and successful Guys and Dolls. Losing the part was not made any easier with the fact that Brando had again 'stole his thunder'. Sinatra played the second male lead Nathan Detroit. It was the beginning of a lifelong feud between the two stars which also made for a tense shoot. Despite the rivalry the movie became the highest grossing film of 1955. Also in 1955, Sinatra's first 12" LP In the Wee Small Hours, his second collaboration with Nelson Riddle, was released.

Some of the wording is a little tenuous, such as the "U-turned on his decision leaving Sinatra out of the frame" and should read more to the effect of "changed his mind." It sounds a little biased as it was and needs to be more neutral. A similar problem lies with the "stole his thunder." I have no doubt a rivalry existed, but it needs to be professional sounding and requires sources, which is why I removed it. Please feel free to include this, worded neutrally and with sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of work that went into this article and the accompanying biography expansion. It was a lot of work. However, I do have some concerns regarding how much this article and the "Life of" article are duplications of one another. I don't have a strong opinion on which article needs the greater work, but one or the other needs to be condensed and rewritten with an eye toward making the material more unique. Since this is about Sinatra in general, I would suggest that the personal life material be pared and the career material remain here. The article is also in need of improved referencing. There are a lot of facts, figures and quotes included with no reference whatsoever, although it's obvious that material for referencing is available given the bibliography and further reading sections. Another issue concerns the puffery and use of weasel word descriptions and peacockery. Use of language such as "gave an acclaimed performance," etc. aren't encyclopedic and violate WP:NPOV, WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel. I started working on some of this, but frankly, it's overwhelming. Hopefully, contributors will jump in and work on this. On the plus side, it's a lot cleaner than the Life of Frank Sinatra page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you put an article up for GA when it has "This article needs additional citations for verification" at the top? Sorry, but's a waste of time.--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's getting there, but it's too soon. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the above and the quick-fail criteria, I am quick-failing this article's GA nomination. When the issue is fixed, please nominate the article again. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Under Frank's photograph I think "'ol two eyes" should be "'ol blue eyes."

72.24.28.73 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 03/03/08

Yes, I think you are correct. But it should be " ol' blue eyes," with the apostrophe in the place of the "d." There is no letter replaced befor the "o." DJMsings (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible not to mention the famous portrait by Gay Talese ? It surely is a fine piece of journalism, and a big document on Sinatra. Isn't it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.115.24 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a discography. There are so many "compilations," "collections," and "best-ofs," that it is hard to know what was originally released by the artist and what wasn't. This is of particular import to Mr. Sinatra, since he is lauded as having made his albums works of art as a whole, because of the way that the songs fit together and flow. I would really like to see at least a list of the albums he released with publication information, and somehow a way to know whether the album as a whole was created by Mr. Sinatra, or thrown together for remarketing by a record company.DJMsings (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wish is granted! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of detail, but after reading through the article, I still don't have the answer I came here for in the first place: What the heck was the big deal with this guy? Why was he so famous and popular? I've heard him sing, I've seen him act; he's pretty good, but nothing all that special. I've never been able to figure out why all the adulation, the almost religious ferver people have about the guy. The only clue I found here is that it started as a bobby-soxer thing (and really, who knows how bobby-soxers think). Seriously, I would love to see maybe a short paragraph or something explaining just what all the fuss was about, what it was about him that people adored and continue to adore so much. Get someone who's a real fan to write it or something. 24.16.111.20 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He predates bobby soxers by a fair bit. And if you've heard him sing (the good stuff, I mean, not "New York, New York" or anything after, oh, 1964) and don't get it yet, there probably isn't much an encyclopedia article is going to do for you. You have my condolences! Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a forum, but the appeal of Sinatra is, well, ineffable. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that it is true that many "stars", both actors and singers, are not necessarily the greatest practitioners of their art. But I think the article does need to make clearer his importance in the history of popular music. (As someone born after he had passed his peak, I can see taht when he was good, he was very good. And he continued to be good into the 1970s, at least.) I also have a fondness for him as an actor - and I admire the fact that he didn't always play "star"-type roles. -- Beardo (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy. -- Beardo (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There must be plenty of quotes that can sum up Sinatra. How about this one:

"Sinatra — this is both his gift and, on occasion, his downfall — is always Sinatra. Beyond his technical prowess as a jazz-influenced pop singer, building on the innovations of Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby and Billie Holiday, there is the sheer force of conviction, feeling, the weight of personal history in his voice. In this, only Holiday is his rival — perhaps even his better. Both exemplify what people in my generation like to flatter ourselves is unique to rock 'n' roll and its offshoots: the immediacy, the idiosyncrasy, the genuineness of expression. Sinatra is the century's musical equipoise, the pivot between the carefully crafted pop of its beginning and the looser, fiercer sounds of its end." Sourced from Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We might also add as a partial answer to this good question that Sinatra was the kind of Hemingway of popular music - you may like them or not, but their influences were far-reaching and culturally transformative. Just as Hemingway's spare prose style made it nearly impossible for subsequent stylists to construct the florid, lengthy, prolix sentences of a George Eliot or Henry James - Sinatra's phrasing (which included the slightly off-tempo syncopation for which he was famous and that EVERYone since has imitated) and naturalistic tonality (almost conversational) changed pop vocalizing forever. Pre-Sinatra - listen to Rudy Vallee and Bing Crosby (OK, Frank's contemporary but definitely old school in style) and you might begin to get the idea of just how different his style was from what came before. Listen to the way that he transforms Cole Porter's smooth, preppy, crooner type songs like "Night and Day" or "I Get A Kick Out Of You" into robust, masculine, slightly jazzy pop classics.

In short - a large part of his genius is nearly invisible to younger generations cut off culturally from their own heritage in, say, film or books or popular music, by the immediacy and shallow contemporaneity of TV in its different iterations. You don't see Sinatra's greatness because now it's literally everywhere, part of the environment, like air. Virtually everyone who sings pop music today is doing some kind of Sinatra - even when they don't realize it.Sensei48 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention in the main article or his personal reltionship article about his arreest in 1938 on charges of adultery and seduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See Biography of Frank Sinatra. -- Beardo (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole layout of this article is confusing and contradictory. The history of his works is under "biography" while his personal life gets a three-sentence mention in a separate section. A clearer split needs to be made between the Life/Works aspects of this article. Or, if the catch-all "biography" format is to be maintained, it needs serious cleanup. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable that we're using the Kelley bio as a source of factual biographical info. Kelly's an author of trash bios that are the book-bound equivalent of supermarket tabloids, and every single thing she's published has been lambasted, by her subjects, by the media, by her peers, as being full of lies. Seriously, every book.

I think using it as a reference--particularly for potentially controversial claims like mob association--is damaging to the credibility of our article. Surely if there is truth to these things, we can find references in the more reputable biographies. The fact that her bio is even mentioned in the article is embarrassing. Ford MF (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a huge Sinatra fan, and love or hate Kelley's book, It's still the best and most comprehensive biography of Sinatra ever written. It is incredibly detailed, and whilst she hates to admit that he has any good points, there are plenty of other biographies of him which offer little or no criticism. The way Sinatra reacted to the publication of "His Way" was shocking, and he was laughed out of court. Kelley has never been forced to retract a word of her biographies, and there ARE extensive proofs of his Mafia associations in other books. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While that's true, when Kelley's bios are mentioned in any of the other articles whose subjects she's written about, that mention is generally there only to reiterate that everyone thinks Kelley is unreliable and full of shit. Imagine sourcing biographical details in the George W. Bush article to her Bush book. It's absurd. If there are other sources for the mob ties--and I'm sure there are--we should use them. Ref'ing them to the Kelley bio gives them an air of fatuous scandal-mongering. Using her as a source only makes it seem like we're regurgitating the claims of the yellow press. Ford MF (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Kelley is a poor reference for a encyclopedia like Wikipedia. She angles everything toward a trash agenda - for instance, saying that Sinatra had "lunch" with Nancy Reagan - the quotes give it a certain connotation. These public figures are always laughed out of court because they are public figures, and if they want to sue, they have to go through what's called discovery. NONE of them are willing to do that, so people who have complained about Kelley, such as Elizabeth Taylor, never follow through. Writers like Kelley therefore know they're safe.Chandler75 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article hardly mentions his acting career. Surely, we should have something about that ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

...especially to Britney Spears. I could be wrong, but I removed it anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.16.214 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have an article on Franks Hat the link is http://www.dominichalpin.com/site/Franks_Hat.html Do you think this could go on the external links section of Franks Page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domh333 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an original article, and very litle of it deals with Sinatra. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There are still issues with the dire lack of inline references. I just did a bit of clean up and wondered what the heck am I doing? I don't know who would bother to clean up weasel words/peacockery if there was a chance stuff was going to be deleted because it isn't sourced properly. if I'd written any of it, I'd put the inline references in, but I've only done one main edit. Come on guys, Mr. Sinatra deserves better!! By the way, please see "Fails to answer the big question", above.Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dreesen was on the Late Show with David Letterman and was talking about Frank Sinatra. He was telling a story of how Frank Sinatra met a wife of a fan. She told him that her husband was ill and would really love an autograph. As Frank was signing the autograph she made a passing comment on how she liked his cuff links (worth $2000). After signing the autograph Frank promptly took off his cuff links and handed them to her. She tried to refuse, saying that she was only admiring them but Frank insisted that she take them. Afterwards Tom asked Frank why he had done that. Frank then replied:

"If you possess something but you can't give it away, then you don't possess it ...

... it possesses you."

Awesome quote. Akadewboy (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Born in 1915 in Hoboken, New Jersey, Sinatra's parents had immigrated to the United States in 1895 and 1897..." If his parents were born in 1915 in New Jersey, as the sentence states, they could hardly have immigrated to the US in the 1890s. Sinatra's birth date and place are already covered, including in the infobox, so the incorrectly-descriptive introductory clause was simply deleted. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been a ridiculous pokemon reference in the first line that keeps coming back, and one instance of it stayed over several edits. I've changed it back, but it isn't going to last. Either the mod for this page starts actually paying attention or this page needs to be locked or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.206.189 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In his own article, Anthony Martin Sinatra is referred to throughout as "Marty". But here, he's "Tony". What gives? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censoring certain external links to Frank Sinatra fan sites and 'unofficial' sites. I have tried to add a link to the expansive sinatraguide.com site, and have had it removed twice by Wikipedia, saying that it does not 'conform' to their guidelines - and yet similar links may be found on other many other artists' Wiki pages. I understand that 'fan' or 'unofficial' sites are not always valuable, but some of them are useful, and I think deserve a link. Iambret (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSPAM, including the note that just because bad links appear elsewhere is not justification for another bad link. It is no disrespect to your site. MusicaBaroque (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article currently reads: "His professional career had stalled by the 1950s ..."

"Professional career" seems redundant -- are not all careers professional? -- and not as accurate as it might be. The article then goes on to talk about his success in movies. Is not his movie career also part of his professional career?

A better phrasing might be:

"His musical career had stalled by the 1950s ..."

Opinions, anyone? I'm not an expert on Frank.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, sorry. I wrote the intro. He was hardly recording, and his moves were quite dreadful at that time. I just needed to convey the fact that he was at his nadir. How best can we put it? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "His professional songmanship" 68.35.62.144 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)12 March 2010

The Rat Pack. Oh, Wikipedia, will press agents ever stop reverting your alleged encyclopaedic content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.30.104 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra was Italian American Sammy8912 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows this. However his ethnicity was not part of his notability. Paul210 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit silly. Information should not be excluded on the basis that "everybody knows this". I think his ethnicity is at least as notable as some of the information that has been included. His alleged Mafia connections were certainly notable and widely commented upon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but I don't think that "alleged mafia connections" should be tied in any way to "Italian American heritage". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Last words were "I'm losing it," not "I'm losing." See] and many other places on the Web. "I'm losing it" is the kind of "hip" talk that he favored. "I'm losing" goes against everything that is characteristic of his life and behavior.Lestrade (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

When did Sinatra undergo his major dental reconstruction? In his early photos, he did not have his signature rows of artificially perfect, straight, even, white choppers. It was obviously a good career move, as he can be seen smiling widely in most photographs. All of Hollywood emulated him in this, and still does so to this day. A related question would be: when did he start wearing a toupée? Sinatra was in the Kennedy coterie. Membership required vigorous hair and teeth.Lestrade (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I've seen very early pictures of him--like in his early 20's--where his teeth appeared remarkably well aligned. 68.35.62.144 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)12 March 2010

Please look at the top of this talkpage. This talkpage is meant for discussion about how to improve this article and not fansite type chit-chat. --Morenooso (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody please help me change the link in the "info" tab on Facebook from the BBC obit link to his official website, www.sinatra.com? Thank you!User:FSE_Admin (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)FSE_Admin

I have this article on Watch and have noticed that frequently the picture gets deleted by anon IPs more than on any other article I have on Watch (approximately 800). I wonder if Single-purpose account(s) are doing this? --Morenooso (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The 112.203.x.x range dynamic IP vandal socks belong to a block-evading puppeteer. You can report them on sight as socks don't need to be warned before blocking. Prolog (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this article needs semi-protection as this deletion is on-going. --Morenooso (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protecting one of the many targets would not do much good. A range block would work, but there could be too much collateral damage. Prolog (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to start a new category in which items like the Broadway show "Come Fly Away" could be listed? Bryates999 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Bryates999

Last week, I got two photos from the Library of Congress for the Crooner page. The Frank Sinatra one is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frank_Sinatra_ca._1947.jpg

More here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/p?ammem/gottlieb:@1(Gottlieb+Collection+Assignment+No.+455+):heading=Gottlieb+Collection+Assignment+No.+455+

While at LOC, I saw there's information on his Major Bowes appearance as well as a copy of the application made to the show for the audition. They're at:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm018.html

in case you might want to add any of them.

We hope (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The article claims Sinatra supported Henry Wallace's Progressive Party candidacy for president in 1948. If so, that would be a controversial move by Sinatra. Some supporting evidence would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.142.97 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the section, the reference was in Martin Smith's When Ol' Blue Eyes was a Red. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the lead it says that he's an actor, but I couldn't find a single film with his performance in it. Can you name at least one? 92.46.98.220 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can name at least a dozen.. please see imdb.com for an extensive list. ttonyb (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• • A Dozen?!!! It's shame!!! Frank Sinatra plays in 61 movies and he was top-billed in many movies. Frank Sinatra has 3 Oscars and 3 Gold Globes. --LordWeller (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodness! He was indisputably an actor. Better known as a singer, perhaps, but just off the top of my head he appeared in On the Town (film), The Manchurian Candidate, and Anchors Aweigh (film). I think he also had a role in Guys and Dolls (film). These were all pretty big films; it's not like his credits are obscure. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only was he an actor, but he won the OSCAR (I think as 'best supporting actor') for "From Here to Eternity". His film work was highly praised, and in fact it was his oscar-winning performance which played a big role in resuscitating his musical career at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorMartin (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FFS see Frank Sinatra filmography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I added that to the "see also" section, but we ought to find a better place to put it on the page. DougHill (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no sample of his singing included in this article? - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Perry Como page has "watch" and "listen" subsections in its "External Links". That should make it easy to find songs to hear or watch, so I'll add such subsections here. DougHill (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The info box gives his birth name as "Francis Albert Sinatra". I'm fairly sure that his birth name was simply "Francis Sinatra". Mr. Sinatra gave himself the middle name "Albert". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do realize that there are websites that give his birth name as "Francis Albert", but does anyone have a WP:RS that states this? Joefromrandb (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph about the Cosby / Kennedy incident puts the date as 1962, but the Rat Pack article puts the date as 1963. Which one is it? Looking at the references, reference "lpo" (http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/WestwoodObituaries/peterlawford.htm) has no date for the incident, and lists Wikipedia as its source, so surely it doesn't qualify as a reference. The other reference for the paragraph: http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/sinatra-turned-violent-after-kennedy-snub lists the date as 1962.Jesselong (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I normally dont bother with these things... but I had reason to look this incident up, coming to Wiki, I find theres much less information about this than one might imagine, specifically beyond the 'fags, pims and hookers' Mr Sinatra address one female reporter specifically as a 'Two bit Hooker, and the fall out was severe amongst her peers solidaritous unions. I recall Mr Sinatra was basically sieged in his hotel room, without services such as water, or power, initially.. before Union chiefs calmed them waters, I believe the meeting between Bob Hawke and Mr Sinatra was in itself so .. confrontational, as worth mention. This whole incident gives some important incite into the man and his relationship with the media at time, and was such an evident miscalculation on his part, as far as gaffs go, that it surely has to be one of the more imfamouse Celebrity blunders. It wasnt just a tit fot tat, it almost unravelled the tour. Well thats just my two cents.. I dont know who works these things.. but something I thought worth mentioning, upon finding a lack of information on the subject the one place I thought I would find some details.

There is a more detailed description of the incident at Biography of Frank Sinatra#1970s Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why do this thing indicate in the biography? --LordWeller (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Many people consider Sinatra to be the finest singer of American popular music that ever lived, his only real rivals, artists such as Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Sammy Davis Jr., Dean Martin and Michael Jackson"

Why can't this be stated in the opening paragraphs with out someone always feeling the need to remove it? There are countless articles that were written over the years in many famous publications including Time, Downbeat, The New York Times and many more. And someone feels the need to say that this is an un-supported opinion? IT CERTAINLY IS SUPPORTED!

We are only trying to state facts, for those who are learning about Sinatra for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.90.50 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are "countless articles" in reliable sources saying this is what "many people" (whatever that means) think, then add an appropriate paragraph to the main text of the article establishing that as fact, and then it may be possible to add to the lead also, although that sort of non-specific puffery is usually not acceptable for article leads in any case. And if you have some sources saying his only (or closest) rivals are Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson, then use those sources to support a claim in the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 124.179.90.50 has raised some very valid points. Fat&Happy, there is countless evidence all over the internet and many decades of publishing work that proves all of this to be true. Why don't you try showing a little bit more respect and not resort to name calling and poking fun at 124.179.90.50's writing style as you did on the edit history page. I think you're the one who's trying to have an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.44.36 (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I am so impressed. Three different anon IPs from Canberra; Ol' Blue Eyes must have quite a fan club down under! Why don't you try reading, comprehending, and following the Wikipedia guidelines linked in my edit summary? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

G'day. I would love to put such a description in the lead, as it is undoubtedly true, but I must hold my fingers back, for is sheer puffery. The Stephen Holden quote used to in the lead, BTW, but that was taken out. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there are a few of us down under that feel this way about Sinatra. We have spoken about it often. Why don't you have a look at the entry on Elvis Presley? " was one of the most popular American singers of the 20th century" Why not take that out as well? I will gladly undo your edits so new comers will get to know Sinatra as they should. And so will my friends here in lovely Wagga Wagga Australia which is linked to the main Canberra internet data stream for our part of the world. How can one person change their ISP so quick in this world of "always on" ADSL connections? Don't you like a few young Sinatra fans getting together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.192.128 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you want references eh? There are thousands. Give me a few days to find some. This aint over. I'll give you your references then I hope all you Wikipedia people won't undo my edits.

"One of the most popular singers in history," "widely revered by music historians as one of the best artists of all time..." Those are facts that show how amazing he was. Just saying that he was one of the "finest singers" without reference is not encyclopedic. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra was the greatest popular music singer that ever lived. This can be evaluated objectively based on the way he interprets a song. The most important aspect of a song is the interpretation of the words. Everything else is secondary. Listen to Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World." It's not just the diction and phrasing that made Mr. Sinatra the greatest but when Mr. Sinatra sang a word such as lovely, the listener can feel it. No singer ever came close to Mr. Sinatra in the terms of gettinig the words across. He was the best at emphasing certain parts of the word in a subtle way without over emphasising, so the listener can feel the words being sung. For example, in the song, "Just the way you look tonight," Listen to when Mr. Sinatra sings "yes you're Lovely...," for the first time. Mr.Sinatra sings the word lovely with an ever so slight emphasis on the L, then going into a very soft open uh vowel with an ever so slight vibrato, then ending the word quickly with ..."vley." When Mr. Sinatra sings each subsequent word "lovely" it is sung differently according to it's context. Unlike other popular music singers, every single word that Mr.Sinatra sung was sung in such a way as to break that individual word down to interpret that word's meaning and context. And it's done so masterful that it's invisible. He also was the greatest at using the mobile microphone. The microphone was Mr. Sinatra's instrument. He knew every part of whatever mike he was using and what parts were good for the higher notes, the lower notes, and how to angle it to capture a whisper. He also was born with absolute pitch. I've read people writing things on the internet such as, "My father says that Sinatra sings flatter than a pancake." When you read something like this it's clear that the writer is talking out of their bazooka. No one born with perfect pitch is going to sing out of key. The list of objective reasons that makes Mr. Sinatra the greatest popular music singer that ever lived is endless. The above facts should be used to improve this article. I see nothing on here about Sinatra's technique, his use of the mobile microphone, his use of timing, nor the fact that he was born with absolute pitch. The above is not discussion or opinion, these are objective facts about Mr. Sinatra's techniques and abilities. So Fat&Happy please stop deleting my contributions. I'm not making discussion but I'm pointing out facts so maybe someone can pick up on them and do some research and use some of these facts in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but unsupported by reliable sources, facts from the above:

• Mr.Sinatra sings the word lovely with an ever so slight emphasis on the L, then going into a very soft open uh vowel with an ever so slight vibrato, then ending the word quickly with ..."vley." When Mr. Sinatra sings each subsequent word "lovely" it is sung differently according to it's context.
• every single word that Mr.Sinatra sung was sung in such a way as to break that individual word down to interpret that word's meaning and context. (though "every single" is highly dubious)
• The microphone was Mr. Sinatra's instrument.

Everything else in the original post was pure opinion. A post scriptum suggestion that these opinions be used to improve the article is a slim thread on which to hang this diatribe. Perhaps you could suggest some usable additions based on actual, cited, verifiable facts? Or, failing that, citations to notable experts who share your opinions? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this your gut feeling that what I stated was highly dubious? If not, what is it based on? Frank Sinatra broke down every single word and this is a fact. I know the technique he used and I believe Mabel Mercer pioneered it and Frank Sinatra perfected it. After you understand it well enough it just comes second nature. Even singing the word 'it' was broken down in the technique that Mr. Sinatra used and sung according to it's context. Yes, even the word it. As for notable experts that share my opinions look for Sinatra by John Rockwell. John Rockwell is probably the best authority on the voice of Frank Sinatra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in doing research to find sources that support your opinion. If you come up with any, get back to us. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra "An American Classic" by John Rockwell is a source that will support everything I stated above. Saying that, what is your source when you called my statement regarding Mr. Sinatra's technique of breaking every word down that he sung "highly dubious"? Do you even have any knowledge, other than what is widely known about his diction and phrasing, regarding Mr. Sinatra's singing technique to make such a statement? ---FattyJoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the one attempting to cram your opinions into the article. I don't need a source for my belief that they're overstated; you need a source that establishes them as true. For starters, what person – other than Sinatra himself – can be established as having heard "every single word" that Sinatra ever sang, and if such a person exists, what method did they use to analyze "every single word"? It's little nagging questions like that which keep most reputable commentators from loosely throwing around words like "always" or "never".

But you're making progress; so far we can probably justify "In Sinatra: An American Classic, noted music critic John Rockwell built a case for his opinion that Sinatra is the "greatest singer in the history of American popular music". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Some may say Mr. Sinatra used diphthongs in his phrasing, which he did. However his technique went beyond the use of diphthongs. I believe Rockwell's book says that Sinatra used Mabel Mercer's method then perfected it and made it his own. The technique does require the singer to break down every word for the proper phrasing technique. The word is inititally broken down as a dipthong. Then you have to look at the word that follows in order to evaluate how the initial word will be pronounced. For example, some t ending words will be pronounced as a soft d, and some s ending words will be pronounced as a soft z for smooth phrasing. It's a complex phrasing system that was pioneered by Mabel Mercer but perfected by Frank Sinatra. Fortunately I know the phrasing system very well. Unfortunately I don't believe Rockwell covers the details in his book. I learned the technique from a voice teacher in Philadelphia named Harold Singer and he called it the Mabel Mercer method. James Darren was one of Harold Singer's students and if you listen to him singing you can hear his use of dipthongs. On Sinatra's LA is My Lady album he cut "It's Alright With Me." The album was cut in the 80's. If you can listen to Mr. Sinatra's version and get a copy of Mabel Mercer's version which was cut at least 25 years prior, you don't need to be an expert to hear that the phrasing and timing are almost identical.

What I do remember in Rockwell was a story regarding Frank Sinatra's use of the microphone. When Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra did Guys and Dolls it was no secret that they didn't get along. In spite of this when Mr. Sinatra was cutting his tracks in the recording studio and Brando being present Marlon Brando was amazed at the fact that he could hardly hear Frank Sinatra sing even though he was relatively close to him. This was so key to Mr. Sinatra's phrasing. Along with Frank Sinatra's intricate phrasing technique, he was able to use the microphone to capture the softest sound in order to emphasise the feeling he wanted to get across. According to Rockwell, Frank Sinatra's use of the microphone was better than any other singer in the world and a close second was Johnny Mathis. Paul Anka speaks frequently about him picking up Mr. Sinatra's microphone to discover that it was very hot, set on real high volume. ---FattyJoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.9.8 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, this article almost entirely ignores Sinatra's extremely important movie career. WTF???????? Upsmiler (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Frank Sinatra filmography. It would have been impractical to list his entire acting resume on this article, especially since, even though he was a great award winning actor, history remembers him much more for his almost unrivaled impact upon music history. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

did Sinatra ever write a song or did he interpret only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.13.253 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He co wrote one of the greatest torch songs that was ever written. "I'm A Fool To Want You" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why this garbage from 'the queen of gossip' is linked (without reference to real pages) to the article so often? Kelley never knew Frank Sinatra, she did not speak with his relatives or real friends. Her book is the collection of gossip and speculation about Sinatra from the tabloids. Why is the article not linked to 'Frank Sinatra: An American legend' by Nancy Sinatra, practically authorized biography of Frank Sinatra? Or other objective sources, for example, Earl Wilson's book, 'The Cinema of Sinatra' by Scott Allen Nollen etc. Is the artcle paid advertising of Kelley's dirty book? --LordWeller (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley's book on Frank Sinatra is so obviouly biased that it is clearly not a reliable source. For example: Kitty Kelley allegedly did extensive research on the life and works of Frank Sinatra. If this is true, she would have easily known that since the early 50's when Mr. Sinatra signed with Capital until the time of Frank Sinatra's death that it was common knowledge that Frank Sinatra was an album artist and that singles way outsell albums. In spite of this, in Kelleys biased book written about Frank Sinatra, she compared Mr. Sinatra's record sales to artists who primarily sold singles. This comparison is so blatantly biased against Mr. Sinatra that it should prove that her book is not an objective reliable source to cite in this article. --FattyJoe

• • Absolutely right. I have a lot of books and vintage magazines about Frank Sinatra and made an analysis of some of Kelley's 'original' research. Her research has been fabricated and exaggerated. Kelley managed to find nothing good of Sinatra's character, only selected from all the versions of events the most negative. For instance, Kelly nothing wrote about Sinatra's generosity, but colorfully described as Fred "Tamby" Tamburro, the former leader of Hoboken Four, came to well-known Sinatra, asked him for help and Frank refused. Tamburino beat to unconsciousness young Frankie. Kelley ignored that Sinatra's generosity saved people from death, but she was more interested in what Frank refused to help his enemy. Next. When Sinatra organized The World Tour for Children he personally pays all his expenses that was quite costly to him. He supplied facilities for five orphanages in Japan and helped build an educational hall in one; he raised money for an orthopaedic hospital in Flong Kong, created a youth centre in Nazareth, provided money for a nursery in Athens, helped a home for crippled children in Paris and the Boys Town of Italy in Rome. Kelley wrote only that Sinatra satisfied his vanity. And it's most important, Kelley is ignorant of Sinatra's artistic heritage.For instance, according to Kitty Kelley, Sinatra `seemed to have forgotten that when MGM had dropped him, Ava had gone to Hughes to get him movie work at RKO, Hughes's studio'. It's nonsence. This movie, `Double Dynamite', was completed during 1948 prior Sinatra started work on great box-office 'On the Town', and well over a year before his exit from MGM. On the contrary, Hughes banned to realize `Double Dynamite' for three years. Sinatra was excluded from the promotion for `Double Dynamite'. Billed first on the original 'It's only money' movie, Sinatra found himself to third place. It was Hughes' revenge.

Unfortunately, I cannot edit this article. I'm Russian and my English is not good. --LordWeller (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this article IS a biography of Frank Sinatra, it is extremely redundant to have a separate article entitled Biography of Frank Sinatra. Time to merge the latter into this article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not. I wrote both articles, and shall help with the merging. I am pleased the biography article still gets a good number of views. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think both articles are quite semi-literate. For instance, Sinatra did have some hits during this time — "Birth of the Blues", "Goodnight Irene", "Castle Rock", "Bim Bam Baby", "Mama Will Bark" It's absoletely noncence. "Bim Bam Baby", "Mama Will Bark" were the worst songs of Sinatra and they failed. I cannot understand, you, Americans, can not write good competent article about an American singer? I'm from Russia, I see a lot of inaccuracies and myths about Sinatra, which contradicted in serious literature about him. You took as an objective source of such garbage as books by Summers and Kelley?!! This is a collection of rumors and gossip from the tabloids? Kelley's lying about somebody interviewed. Compare her book with Earl Wilson's book and you'll see she took uncertain sources from the second or third hand. If you're too lazy to read or look for objective sources of Frank Sinatra, do not write any articles. Do you write the articles once again to defame Sinatra? --LordWeller (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, it's appropriate to have sub-articles if the main article gets too large, and have a summary in the main biography. See, for instance, the dozen or so articles about Barack Obama or Joseph Smith. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with Mmyers1976. The article Frank Sinatra is the biography of Frank Sinatra. If it were skillfully handled, it would contain all the most important points of Sinatra's life. There is no need whatsoever to have the "Biography of" article serve as a catch-all for extra little bits that somebody decided should be presented to the reader but not in the main article. Those bits are simply not needed! The catch-all article serves as a POV-fork, one that should not exist. If there is some specific aspect of Sinatra's life that has so much material and notability that it requires a separate article, then make that article. Call it something specific, such as Frank Sinatra's love life or Conjecture about Sinatra and the Mafia (just kidding here people) so that the separate article is very focused and not a shadowy duplication of the main biography. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Merge. would expect an article called Frank Sinatra to be a biography.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's extremely odd to have this distinction and two separate, general pages (separate sub-pages on specific aspects of Sinatra and his career are another matter altogether). I'm no expert on the technical aspects but can't we just do this asap? N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe a section of Wikipedia needs to be assembled for the Americas most important and influential figures. Or at least mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.156.151 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

13 1/2 pounds at birth? That's bullshit, be serious.

It's possible. I was 12 pounds.99.150.201.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Please watch your language. Children come on here. Iluvmarchingband 21:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvmarchingband (talk • contribs)

And especially not in an article about Frank Sinatra, an American, describing events that mostly take place in the USA. --63.25.100.198 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:MajorMarco2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of work that went into this biography expansion. It was a lot of work. However, I do have some concerns regarding how much this article simply duplicates and expands the main Sinatra article. I don't have a strong opinion on which article needs the work, but one or the other needs to be condensed and rewritten with an eye toward making the material more unique. Since this is about Sinatra's life, I would suggest that the more extensive career material be pared and the personal life material more expanded. The article is also in need of improved referencing. There are a lot of facts, figures and quotes included with no reference whatsoever. Another issue concerns the puffery and use of weasel word descriptions and peacockery. Use of language such as "the results were, typically, outstanding," "in many ways could be considered the apex," "highly revered," "widely considered," "many considered," etc. aren't encyclopedic and violate WP:NPOV, WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel. I started working on some of this, but frankly, it's overwhelming. Hopefully, contributors will jump in and work on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent condensing work. This article was originally the bio part of Frank Sinatra, and the bio there reprensents a condensed versh of this. I think most of the relationship discussion should be in Relationships of Frank Sinatra, another fork. A lot of the puffery derives from the fact that I've only rewritten birth-1940s and 1970s till death, which been puffed since, adding to the 1940s-1970s Frank love-in. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In favour of the merging of the two articles, as suggested. I see no real reason for two distinct articles. Improved referencing is also required; I aim to do some of this from the enormous Kitty Kelley book, which is very thorough. FrankEldonDixon, 12:05 p.m. GMT+5, 5 August 2008. FrankEldonDixon (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - two similar articles is a joke. But so is spending time merging material that has no source, and loads in both articles contains no inline references, despite this fact being picked up eight months ago. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason whatsoever to have an article on Frank Sinatra and a separate article that is a biography of Frank Sinatra. Needlessly redundant. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing. Two articles were written by people who took the information from two of the most hideous and unreliable sources about the legendary singer and actor - Kelly's and Summers' books. One sentence was taken in an article on Oprah from the Kelley's book. In the article about Elizabeth Taylor one paragraph was taken. In an article about Frank Sinatra Kelly's is general source of Frank Sinatra's life. It's a shame. Nobody read Sinatra's interviews in 'Life', 'Look', 'Coronet', reliable sources of him. For instance,

• 'SINATRA: An Unauthorized Biography' by Earl Wilson;
• 'The Frank Sinatra Reader'. Edited by Steven Petkov & Leonard Mustazza;
• 'Legend: Frank Sinatra and the American Dream'. Edited by Ethlie Ann Vare;
• 'Sinatra! The Song Is You: A Singer's Art' By Will Friedwald;
• 'Frank Sinatra: An American Legend' by Nancy Sinatra;
• 'Rat Pack Confidential' by Shawn Levy;
• 'The Frank Sinatra Film Guide' by Daniel O'Brien;
• 'Sessions With Sinatra: Frank Sinatra and the Art of Recording' by Charles L. Granata;
• 'The Cinema of Sinatra: The Actor, On Screen and In Song' by Scott Allen Nollen;
• 'Sinatra: Twentieth Century Romantic' by Arnold Shaw;

--LordWeller (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote both articles, and I think Kelley is alright. A few books above ref her as well. Her research on Sinatra's life was groundbreaking. As a fan I may not like the way she writes about him and her dislike for Sinatra is evident, but I can distinguish between fact and opinion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are not fan. The articles about Frankie Laine, Perry Como, Tony Bennett were written by real fans. The articles about Sinatra are libelous, sketchy, biased, have many incorrect or missing important facts. For instance, you did not use information about Lee Mortimer, who was the main person who started to destroy Sinatra’s career. You didn't write about the conflict between Sinatra and Mitch Miller, who forced Sinatra sing disgusting songs and humiliated him. You don't write about Howard Hughes' revenge, when he banned to realize `Double Dynamite' for three years. Sinatra was excluded from the promotion for `Double Dynamite'. Billed first on the original 'It's only money' movie, Sinatra found himself to third place. ['The Frank Sinatra Film Guide' by Daniel O'Brien, p49] This played a role in reducing Sinatra’s career. The most disgusting and smear part of main article is Alleged organized crime links. It's a absolutely defamation. This part has only real link to the BBC website. In 2005 BBC made the silliest TV 'documentary' 'Sinatra: the Dark Star'. If you watched the TV documentary you knew that there was a garbage, which was easy to refute. FBI dossier of Sinatra is online. His file contains no evidence of the criminal connections to the Mob. Nothing. Everything else was black PR, a black legend created by Sinatra's enemies on the basis of his Sicilian origins in the early forties. Most of the fables were created by Lee Mortimer, who never attempted to prove his charges [Earl Wilson. 'Sinatra', p80]. Robert Ruark attacked Sinatra about Sinatra's visit to Havana. Several years later, Ruark recanted some of these accusations [Earl Wilson. 'Sinatra', p74]. It seems you didn't read objective, full book about Frank Sinatra. You only took small quotes from the sources from Internet and garbage of Kelley and Summers. I have a lot of books and vintage magazines (from e-bay) about Sinatra from Kelley took the information. I can see how she manipulated them to discredit and defame Sinatra. Kelley had not even seen the books. Her literary slaves chose from these sources only negative information about Sinatra to put it in her book.
  • For instance, Kelley wrote that Sinatra needed in positive criticism in beginning of his career, cited George T. Simon of Metronome: "pleasing vocals of Frank Sinatra, whose easy phrasing is especially commendable", and made a poisoned comment: "That wasn't good enough for Frank. He needed raves to get where he was going. Pleasing vocals and commendable phrasing would never catapult him to stardom." In fact, young Frankie was so happy to get this George Simon`s comment that after a lot of years Frank Sinatra made wonderful foreword to Simon's book `The Big Bands'. If Kelley really saw this book, she could read about Sinatra's gratitude to George T. Simon. But she ignored it.
  • Next. Kelly wrote nothing about Sinatra's generosity, but colorfully described as Fred "Tamby" Tamburro came to well-known Sinatra, asked him for help and Sinatra refused. Tamburino (who was jealous because of Frank Sinatra enjoyed great success with young female fans of Hoboken Four) beaten to consciousness young Frankie. Kelley ignored Sinatra's generosity saved people from death, but she was more interested in what Frank refused to help his enemy.
  • Kelley did not write about Sinatra's fight against racism, but with pleasure said how he was rough with his black servant (never spoke to him please, thanks).
  • More. Earl Wilson wrote, when Sinatra organized The World Tour for Children he personally pays all his expenses that was quite costly to him. He supplied facilities for five orphanages in Japan and helped build an educational hall in one; he raised money for an orthopaedic hospital in Flong Kong, created a youth centre in Nazareth, provided money for a nursery in Athens, helped a home for crippled children in Paris and the Boys Town of Italy in Rome. Kelley wrote only that Sinatra satisfied his vanity.
  • More. Ava Gardner wrote in the autobiography that Frank was the only love of her life. Kelley devoted a lot of pages how much Ava hated Frank and she made abortion because of it. Ava Gardner had an abortion because of fear of losing her contract with MGM, which forbade her long breaks at work.
  • More. Kelley gladly devoted a huge number of pages of links of Sinatra to Mafia boss Sam Giancana. This part looks like a Latin American soap opera. But serious biographers admitted Giancana was Sinatra's plague. Frank lost his gambling license, all of his five music publishing companies, his reputation because of the association with Giancana. After the summer of 1963 the relationship between Giancana and Sinatra cooled. When Frank Junior was kidnapped in December 1963 Frank Sinatra refused to accept Giancana's help and contacted his enemy, Robert Kennedy.
  • Kelley always described in detail Sinatra's mistakes, failures, and never talked about his success, efforts. She knew nothing of his artistic heritage.
  • In the article you use the information, that ‘Sinatra is said to have introduced Kennedy to Judith Campbell, who had been a girlfriend of both Sinatra's and Giancana.’. But even in the WIKI article about Kelley it says that ‘Exner had been paid $50,000 to talk with Kelley, was terminally ill, and did not mention these "revelations" in her own autobiography, which had been published years earlier.[2] A former FBI agent also came forward and said that Giancana had been under a federal wiretap, so these multiple meetings with President Kennedy would have been impossible to cover up’.
  • This is just a small example. I can not refute all of her libel. It takes up too much time. I can only say if you trust her book and the Summers' book you defame Sinatra.

There is a book ‘Frank Sinatra: an American Legend’ by Nancy Sinatra. It is fully available online. Nancy gathered an incredible amount of facts about her father in chronological order. If she loses specifically negative aspects of his life, this information could be taken from the sources were written by people who knew Frank Sinatra : Earl Wilson, Ava Gardner, Mia Farrow, Doris Day, Nelson Riddle, Charles L. Granata etc. Kelley did not know Frank Sinatra, she really did not speak with any friend or relative of Frank. I doubt Kelley even spoke to anyone, all her information from the second and third hand from Sinatra's enemies.

Unfortunately, I can not edit the articles and add information. I’m Russian and my English is not good enough for this. I can only say these articles are shame for English-speaking people. I’m the administrator of the largest Vkontakte group of Frank Sinatra and always I will be advised Sinatra’s fans to ignore WIKI information as not objective. --LordWeller (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you write. Kelley's dislike for Sinatra is evident, and it has a terrible effect on her writing. I shall attempt to rewrite the article, but I cannot agree that a fan is always the best chronicler of a stars life. I do not wish this page to be an endless recitation of feuds. Mitch Miller did force Sinatra to record some clangers, but Sinatra also did this to himself in later years. Tony Bennett has more of a nuanced view of Miller in his biography. Kennedy's philandering is well known, but what do you think of Tina Sinatra's comments on Giancana? and James Kaplan's biography? Thank you for your criticism. I'm listening to "Dindi" to cool the atmosphere :)Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Tina said the same thing about Giancana and Kennedy that Nancy did.

FEBRUARY 1960: Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. ambassador to England during World War II and father of Jack Kennedy, met with Dad to ask for his help in West Virginia, where JFK had to win the primary election in order to win the Democratic nomination for president. Since anti-Catholic sentiment ran high among voters there, the senior Kennedy suggested that my father ask Sam Giancana for help in swinging the election;

NOVEMBER 26-DECEMBER 2, 1962: Frank, with Dean and Sammy, played the Villa Venice in Northbrook, Illinois, a nightclub owned by Sam Giancana. The shows were Dad's way of paying back Giancana for the help he provided to the Kennedy family.

There is nothing new. It’s well-known fact. But this is the only confirmed fact of Sinatra’s relations with the Mob. I have been studying the question of Sinatra’s links with the Mafia. And I did not find any positive effect of these relationships in his life. He was connected with the Mafia no more and no less than any other person of show business in those years. All serious biographers wrote about it. All Sinatra’s allegations criminal ties based on Sicilian origins of his parents. Frank liked to chat to gangsters because he grew up in a social environment of the gangsters but he did not have criminal deals with them. And I didn't want to say Miller destroyed Sinatra's career as Frank claimed. I'd love to say there was a conflict between them, because Miller had an unflinching sense of low-brow commercial appeal [The rough guide to Sinatra by Chris Ingham] and Frank was a musician of exemplary taste. Do you read Frank’s interview in ‘Metronome’, February 1948 ‘What’s wrong with music?’ He really hatred the commercial songs of those years.

James Kaplan's sympathized with Sinatra, but his book suffers from mythical details of those situations where he was not a witness. It's more a fiction book not serious biography. I think one of the best Sinatra’s biographies is ‘The Cinema of Sinatra: The Actor, On Screen and In Song’ by Scott Allen Nollen. He describes Sinatra’s life, movies, studio records, live concerts. He does not avoid the negative aspects. This is an honest, well-written biography. He makes absolutely correct citations and links to sources you can trust. If you have noticed, Kelley never gives exact quotes and links to sources to avoid being accused of slander and distortion of information from these sources.

I may assist you something in writing this article. And I do not want to you write as fans do. Frank was no saint and no great martyr. I think for the encyclopedia you should take serious sources written by people who understand Sinatra’s artistic heritage well. Kelley enjoys the dirty gossip about Frank’s personal life, but she knows his work very poor. Good luck! --LordWeller (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the most crappy articles about singer or actor, the most important popular music figure of the 20th century. It uses as main sources are second-hand, defamatory, fabricated rubbish books as Sinatra: The Life by Anthony Summers and His Way: Frank Sinatra by Kitty Kelley. These books should not even be mentioned as a source. It's the personal opinion of the writers that specifically manipulated the gossip and rumors from tabloids to slander Sinatra. It's shame to have such a lousy article in an encyclopedia. --LordWeller (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He was never known as 'ole blue eyes' it was an invented marketing device to relaunch him the second time. Show me one single piece of evidence he was ever referred to as OBE prior to 1973!!! This is what happens when you get history written by musical ignoramuses who wern't even there at the time...... 80.5.101.158 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here to read up on the scandal of Sinatra not being allowed to sing for/meet Prince Charles (with the Reagans) because of his mafia connections (I was hoping to read some of the quotes that Prince Charles said - I have a hazy recollection of them - he actually commented on Sinatra's gangster connections). Anyway, nothing about that at all in this bio. Zero. Zilch Nada. Clean as a whistle. The whole bio is laughable. I mean, why don't we have a bio of John Gotti and completely cleanse it of any mention of the mafia. It is these sorts of bios - this one of Sinatra - that make Wikipedia a less than useful resource. The information exists in print - in books like Kitty Kelley's book "His Way: Frank Sinatra" - but those books get criticized as being "fabricated" - well, if they were fabricated, then why didn't Sinatra sue? Or at least get the book prevented from being printed. It's because he couldn't - it would come out in court that it was true. Anyway, Sinatra was a choir boy according to this bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Because there was NO scandal. Sinatra performed a lot of times at the best halls of UK and often before the Royal family. This is simple information. You absolutely do not know anything about the Sinatra's biography and only came trolling. Sinatra sued Kelly for a libel, but in the U.S. there is the so-called Second Amendment, which allows such slanderous book. And Sinatra never was 'choir boy'. This is complete nonsense. You have not read any of Sinatra's biography, and I have more than 30 objective biographies and huge amount magazines about Sinatra. --LordWeller (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• To add the pure facts: Sinatra did perform, along with Dionne Warwick, George Burns and Perry Como, in a special Command Performance at 20th Century Fox soundstage in LA for H.M. The Queen on February 27, 1983, and on the following day, followed H.M.'s invitation to a gala dinner held aboard HMY Britannia anchoring off Long Beach. (There is a widely publicized photo of H.M. The Queen greeting Sinatra.) That tells a lot, does it not? --Bvo66 (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The part of the article which characterizes Frank Sinatra's relationship with Tommy Dorsey as being "troubled, because of their contract" is not true. Sinatra and Dorsey had a mostly 'father/son' type relationship that was not overly troubled. The contract dispute which is being referred to occurred only at the end of Sinatra's professional relationship with Dorsey, the contract which allowed him to leave the band after he had already been happily associated with it for over two years. This information was obtained from the excellent biography of Frank's early career entitled "Frank: The Voice" by James Kaplan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.85.204 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In the Early Life section is says that Frank "sucked other men's penises to make some quick cash". I don't know much about Sinatra, thats why I came to this article, But I'm pretty sure this is vandalism. Can somebody who knows more fix this?

Few years ago, i had read that the sales figure is above 500 million, but now i am reading here, that it's 150 million? I am sure that something is wrong, or maybe they are misinterpreted somewhere. Again, i am not sure, but you can have a look, , . Capitals00 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for querying, but it's virtually impossible to find reliable citations for record sales figures. I'm in favour of removing them entirely from articles, we don't need to gild this lilly. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Do it, sales doesn't effect his image anyway, as he's not certainly best selling or current pop artist. Capitals00 (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is still unclear if Ronan Farrow is in fact Sinatra's son. The article probably should omit him from the list of Sinatra's children. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A line has been added to the Mia Farrow section of the Personal relationships of Frank Sinatra. There is a similar unresolved situation with Julie Sinatra. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will say, If I were Ronan Farrow, I would rather tell people I was Frank Sinatra's son than Woody Allen's. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Frank Sinatra by Gottlieb c1947- 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 5, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

American singer Frank Sinatra (1915–98) in 1947, at the Liederkrantz Hall in New York. Sinatra began his career in 1935, reaching unprecedented success after being signed by Columbia Records in 1943. After a lull in the late 1940s, his career regained new vigor in the 1950s.Photo: William P. Gottlieb

Archive – More featured pictures...

Wow, someone managed to write an entire article without once mentioning Frank Sinatra's infamous trips to Havana? Total whitewash job. And to add to the point, I noticed a certain level of defensiveness in the earlier talk sections when someone mentioned his relations to the Mafia. 67.172.20.73 (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed "Atheisim" the reference did not support it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just nominated Sinatra as a vital article, with Jimi Hendrix being the candidate for removal. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Induct_Frank_Sinatra.2C_remove_Jimi_Hendrix.MackyBeth (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of his vocal style and legacy here ? What is his contribution to that singing genre - surely near the very top ? Did he develop Bing's contribution or not ?

86.138.151.92 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

what about his history of domestic violence and sexism towards women?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What about it? Do you have a reliable source? What is the appropriate context? What do you feel needs to be included, remembering that extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources? Yes, he certainly had a reputation for "womanizing", and he also had a reputation for violence, and not just towards women. In other instances he is/was viewed as a progressive. Constructive thoughts regarding a complete, encyclopedic picture are always welcome, from anyone. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @We hope:, @This is Paul:, I've done some preliminary work with the books (by the way, I can add "Sinatra in Popular Culture" back to the list, I have it available at my library and on cursory review would be useful for a "legacy/impact" section) and would like to discuss they layout. Should discussion continue here, or should the re-write discussion take place at Wikipedia talk:Frank Sinatra? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I do want to get cracking with this. The grant request is currently being processed. I think for now we should work and discuss it at the Wikipedia: page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Did a preliminary round of image formatting, basically with two goals: 1) Fixed image sizes are discouraged, as users can set different size defaults and a fixed size does not scale if that parameter is altered... for example, 180px is the default, but if someone sets their prefs to default at 300px, an image at 250px can look smaller, not larger. The lead image I kept a bit larger, which appears to be what others wanted, by use of the "upright" parameter combined with a scale as to how much larger... (i.e. "upright=2.0" would make an image double the default size). Open to size changes if needed, but within better formatting syntax. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

2) Did some very, very preliminary rearranging, mostly to avoid sandwiched text (at least, as it appears on my screen), played with the "upright" parameter on some of the images that otherwise seemed a bit too large, but that's not anything I'm real wedded to. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Montana but your "Fixed image sizes are discouraged" is starting to look preachy and petty again. I don't want to see that sort of thing from you. Some images do look better at a bigger size, sometimes they're needed. It should depend on the actual case, not on some invented "rule" by some pious numpty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone, I did not intend to be preachy or petty, just was explaining why I did what I did. Didn't realize it sounded that way. (Note to self, how do I convey a friendlier tone when intentions are friendly?) Let me know if you want some of the images bigger, I'd be glad to fix, or one can a) remove the "upright" parameter from the tall images, which will automatically make them default width and hence bigger or b) change the "upright" parameter to "upright=1.2" (for some bigger) or a larger number if you want a bigger image. I was a fan of fixed image sizes to get them bigger and didn't move easily away from them until understood the reasoning, which makes sense to me now. I'll post an example here, just to explain. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I generally like 250px, standard thumb for portraits. I won't object to all standard, though I do think some look better larger on my screen.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, according to my prefs, the default thumbnail is now 220px... I thought it once was 250px, and maybe it is, but I use the monobook layout...? I think that "upright=1.2" will give you the equivalent of 250 px if you want/need it. There are going to be some layout decisions that will have to be made at some point in the article, as there are more images that we can effectively lay out. I'm wondering - and willing to do the syntax - if we could do some multiple image layouts (like I did [] or (less elegantly) here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems to be a problem with matching up page numbers. I have the 2008 Sinatra in Hollywood book and there's a quote which was supposed to be on page 122 in google books of the 2009 book but it's not there in the book I have. In fact coverage of that film is around page 84, can't find the Till the Clouds quote either. Was it published by a different publisher in 2009 or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Found it on page 81 but somebody needs to check the Santopietro page numbers now with the 2008 book. I'll do it after I've gone through the book if nobody else can!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is going to get pretty massive during the writing stage. It needs to be researched and made as comprehensive as possible first. It might head towards 200kb before I come to the cutting. Obviously we're going to have to create a number of sub articles and trim it down later. But it is one of the most "core" biographies on wikipedia, it's to be expected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A good place to start farming-out might be the material on his political views. This could be summarized into one paragraph, with the remaining stuff moved to its own article, assuming that's justified and necessary. RO^(talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll see how it goes. I agree that his political views shouldn't be given so much weight in a main article. But I don't know what's in each of the biographies. Better to read them all first and add material and then split.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that "write first, spin off later" is wise. You need to have the section developed pretty completely before a spinoff with a link can be done with a summary that meets FAC quality. You may remember that my California Chrome article (which I believe you reviewed at FAC) got pretty long and ultimately wound up having two other articles directly spun off from it, plus two or three related articles were created or expanded as well. If you want to discuss weight and importance of the political material, you might want to consult someone like Wehwalt, as he did the FAC on Richard Nixon and would be a good resource on those issues. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The politics stuff is totally undue here, unless it's needed to explain Frank's association with JFK, but that was much more about fame than politics. In the end, this will prove a good place to reduce bloat, but I also agree with Dr. B; these choices are better made after a proper survey of the biographical material. RO^(talk) 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, we agree on something. Let Blofeld do his work. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote the political views section, I think it originally had its own article! It's very important as he was one of the first celbrites to dabble in politics (with FDR), his mother was a Dem activist, he narrowly escaped being blacklisted as a Communist, he used his Mafia connections for Kennedy and was a key figure of the glamour side of Camelot, and he personified the dissatisfaction of his generations lurch toward the right in the 70s and 80s, his relationship with Agnew was curious as well. I do think it needs retaining, but trimming. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gareth E Kegg: The material you wrote was already very good and all relevant, and I agree, with some reading I see that it does need a fairly chunky section. We might still have to split and trim a bit though when we come to the chop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how it goes and what I find in the books. Obviously we don't want to exclude anything of importance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely going to get pretty enormous in the next week or two as we really ensure it is comprehensive. When we pass 200kb we might have to start the condensing process in parts of the article as it might prove problematic for some computers in the meantime. It'll be worth it once done though. I've ordered the next two books now. We'll find a way to split and keep most material though but condense in the main article once done. I think you'd expect an article on Sinatra to be a very long one anyway given the two major careers and other important things like politics and mafia etc. Last time I checked around lunch time it was 102kb of readable prose. Perhaps we should be aiming for something in 90-100 kb range once completed. We'll have to debate that one as some people would still find that too long. I think you'd expect this to have to be longer than the Laurence Olivier article which is about 70kb readable prose. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I know I said about Skelton being a good role model, in many ways I still think it should be. But given the fact that certain songs Sinatra sang go hand in hand with some of his films and were vehicles for his releases, not to mention my preference for reading about somebody's life chronologically as one, I'm thinking actually of merging both into one. I think if we do that the overall thing will deem less daunting to research and read. You get through a big singing career section and then have to read a big film career section. For me personally after reading a hefty singing section I'd probably not want to read the film career section. I'll see as it develops, but I really think merging is likely here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, chronology is the more elegant method, at least where the music and film have a lot of overlaps. Maybe the political and personal stuff belongs elsewhere, but "Entertainment career" probably must be chrono. If it's any help, though, look at how Wehwalt and I handled Homer Davenport, who had distinct careers as an editorial cartoonist and a horse breeder; we did different sections for those, but it WAS tricky to integrate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I've done the merge albeit haphazardly as to be expected for now. The 50s and 60s read poorly at present though given the awkward combo of mostly film info with some stray album sentences. Naturally when completed there'll be a decent balance there. I've not even begun researching his albums and songs yet! So it's going to be poor and unbalanced for a while but a temporary blip in the grander scheme of things and needs to be done I think to make it more straightforward to read in the long term. Any help from anybody to improve the musical coverage especially 50s period and sourcing the 80s and 90s will be much appreciated to help to start balancing it out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be in the best position to just wikignome the organization overall and focus on specific areas for research; it's what I did on Yogo Sapphire - I worked on the history and georgraphy sections the most, others did the geology, etc., but I went through the entire article with an eye to just keeping it readable and spotting problems, Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It has its wikignomes already, but it needs is proper researchers to cover the material on him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, based on what I found at the early life section, best to start by making sure each existing ref verifies what it is supposed to verify . the ^{[failed verification]} tag is a beauty for flagging problem areas you can't get to right away. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, somebody needs to go through it as some sources were added from the original, but as I was doing it I was aware that a fair bit of what was written wasn't in the sources. If you compare to the earlier version you can see what was unsourced previously. It will all need checking before it goes to FAC. If you, or anybody here can check as many of them as you can this would be a great help. I'll try to check the Santopietro ones this evening which seem to have the wrong page numbers in places later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Consider restructuring the Career section into his recording phases, which reflect a more common division of his career.

• Hoboken Four and Harry James, 1935–39
• Tommy Dorsey years, 1939–42
• War years, 1942–45
• Columbia years, 1946–50
• Capitol years, 1954–62
• Reprise years, 1961–81
• Final recordings, 1982–94

A separate Film career section could still be included, but limited to a summary of three or four paragraphs. Bede735 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable structure but I think including some descriptions like "Sinatramania" and "Career slump" etc are needed in places. Also a big timeline like 1961–81 would need to be sub split into digestible sections. I did think it might be best to cover his film career in chronologically but it might be too bloated with all the musical material. Perhaps we could return to a film career section, I don't know. I do think he had enough of a substantial film career to qualify for more than three paragraphs. But I think the best thing might be to create a Film career of Frank Sinatra detailed article and then a more condensed section in the main article which people would still be willing to read after the detailed musical section. Let the film material all remain for now anyway and let's try to write it in chrono order and make it as comprehensive as possible, as once it's written we can then rearrange the film material again, fully split and condense so it is still comprehensive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having a complete film section following his music career section would be too much. I see you've integrated the two chronologicaly. While that may be the better solution, it might create awkward breaks in the narrative of his music career. His Capital recordings, for example, deserve a more developed treatment in the main article, given they represent some of his strongest, most vital and innovative work. If you decide to go back to a separate film career section, I agree that it should be a summary, with a link to a main article. Bede735 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was my main concern, that is might disrupt the narrative of his music career. The problem of course is that numerous films featured songs which won or nominated for Oscars etc and would have to be mentioned twice. It would also have to be a fairly substantial summary as he did have a major film career too. Let's see how it goes in chrono order anyway, we can decide how to shift the material when we come to the condensing. It might indeed be smoother with flowing music sections and then a film summary and a main article in full detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bede735: I'm going to go back to the separate film career section. It works together in the 1940s but for the 1950s and 1960s along with the bulk of his record stuff and concerts it's too bloated and convoluted all in together. We'll have to find a way to deal with the overlap in parts where songs were recorded for film. Film career of Frank Sinatra has been started anyway so I think I'll re-sort again and condense. That should make it easier then to develop the music career in 50s and 60s without the bloat on both careers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MBW, per this revert: (), with the accompanying edit summary: Material fails verification at source cited, which source did you check? Because the material that I added () and you removed is verifiable to the source I cited, which is Kaplan 2011. RO^(talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See below. Ping my talkpage, don't bother repeating yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Sfn}} is giving out a few citation errors, because four of these templates don't link to any source. I've hidden three of them, but there is one that I am unsure of: "Levinson 2005, p. 138", currently citation #198. Is anyone willing to fix that, as well as any of the other citation errors? I am not confident as to where "Levinson 2005, p. 138" should link to. Epic Genius (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a book on Levinson in the sources, it should be there. Perhaps Sagacious can fix anything remaining.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've fixed Levinson (and another one for Lees that had been introduced). The other ones that Epicgenius has now hidden cannot be fixed until someone can find out which books they actually refer to - I had looked at them previously. Personally, I would have left them "unhidden" otherwise people may forget to go back to find either a new citation or find the details of the book being referred to. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Epicgenius please don't hide refs like that. Can you restore them so they can be fixed? It's usually the case that I forgot to add the book in the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here are the refs that need fixing:

• {{sfn|Landrum|2007|p=155}}
• {{sfn|Green|1999|p=141}}
  I've unhidden them. Epic Genius (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)