Talk:Lillian Russell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of birth[edit]

It differs from Find-A-Grave. Lincher 16:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that her third husband was from Nevada and shot and killed another man when he refused to admit that Russell was the most beautiful woman in the world. This, the jury ruled, constituted justifiable homicide. Some one might want to check this out.

Clinton Area Showboat Theatre[edit]

It might be worth noting that Lillian Russell has a theatre named after her in her hometown of Clinton, Iowa. It's a summerstock theatre that operates for three months out of the year. More information can be found at [1]. 144.62.240.2 06:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Hans[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I assessed this article as "start" class. Does anyone think it is B-class yet? My sense is that there is much more to say about this important performer. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's rated C-class now. It needs considerably more referencing to move up to B-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name[edit]

I am concerned about this edit from April 2009. Although the edit summary did not say so, that edit removed the birth name from the lead. Per WP:Mosbio, it's standard practice to put stuff like that in the lead. More generally, synonyms belong in the lead. Any objection if I put it back?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. I just added it back in the lead. Feel free to modify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small change, based on the way similar articles seem to format it. Feel free to change/discuss as necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pastor's Casino Theatre" in section "Early Career"[edit]

I don't think there was such a thing. The information comes from eznet.net. What is that? Who publishes it and what are its sources? (Also, it currently gives the year for Russell's appearance at Tony Pastor's as 1880.) The Casino Theatre opened on Broadway at 39th Street in 1882. "Casino" should be deleted from the first reference to "Pastor's Casino Theatre" and the phrase, "Returning to Pastor's Casino Theatre in 1883…" should read, "At the Casino Theatre in 1883…". Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

According to Brown, T. Allston A History of the New York Stage, Vol. 2 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company; 1903):122-3:

Tony Pastor became manager [at 585 Broadway] Oct. 4 [1875], and presented a variety entertainment. He continued here until April 11, 1881…. Tony Pastor's reign at No. 585 will live in the dramatic annals of the town on account of the number of actors and actresses who started there and are now [1903] in the front rank of their profession.… Lillian Russell began her career as a singer by warbling "Kiss Me, Mother, Ere I Die," and kindred melodies on this stage….

Brown doesn't give a date. Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Thanks! The website apparently confused/conflated the two theaters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! On the assumption that you prefer the British spelling "theatre", I changed a few stray "theater"'s (and made a couple of copy edits). Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of forums[edit]

Please note that forums are inherently unreliable. To claim that the information is supproted by an image shown on a forum is reliable is just not acceptable, especially when it isn't shown on an image. Yes, there is an image, but the information you are trying to defend was added by someone else, claiming it to be there. If you can access the original source, then quote it, but NOT a third party unreliable one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the information can be verified as correct, albeit on different sources, what is the issue? Read the caption provided - it quite obviously applies. In this situation, are you so wrapped up around the fact it was posted on a forum that you can't accept the truth of the information? If you had given me the hour I requested, this talk would be unnecessary.--KMJKWhite (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't know it is verifiable. We cannot accept the word of an anonymous poster on a third-party forum. You need to read up on WP:RELIABLESOURCES. – 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Besides, it is too much information about the funeral; the fact that her casket was carried by Marines is not one of the 1,000 most important or interesting facts about Lillian Russell. Also, please see WP:CITEVAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poor excuse, as the changes Ssilvers made to my edit were about equal length. As for sources to verify the fact:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1922-06-10/ed-1/seq-13/
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042345/1922-06-09/ed-1/seq-1/
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1922-06-08/ed-1/seq-2/
It's quite obvious to me from your posts here that anything I add on this matter will be rejected, no matter how correct. It's a shame though. The fact she received full military honors is significant. Only a handful of entertainers get that honor. Besides her service to the Marine Corps, she essentially equipped a field artillery unit before they were sent overseas. She was a member of the American Legion, but that's not in here either. While her contributions to the military, and their mutual respect for her, might rub you the wrong way, it deserves mention --KMJKWhite (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make ridiculous assumptions about other editors here. You need to consider the balance of the whole article that you are contributing to here. Build a consensus for the changes you wish to make. See WP:CONSENSUS. Why don't you make a suggestion here that is well-written and interesting, and explain why each part of your suggestion is of such great importance to the life and career of Lillian Russell that it deserves to be added to this encyclopedia article, giving WP:Reliable sources that clearly verify each fact stated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You completely removed the military respect given to her at her funeral, despite them being easily verifiable, and replaced it with "many actors and politicians." That quite clearly states your stand on whether to include military related content here. I've stated my thoughts on including the military honors. I'm not going to add this fact to the article, hoping to get consensus from someone who apparently doesn't appreciate this particular aspect of her life. As SchroCat pointed out, its pointless for me to make changes contrary to what an editor chooses to include. If you disagree with my assumption about you, and wish to change my opinion, please feel free to make the appropriate changes to the article. I provided three WP:Reliable sources for support. There are more out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMJKWhite (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have said absolutely nothing of the sort: please do not misrepresent my words. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not verbatim, but certainly implied, "Please do not edit war on this, especially against two editors: use the talk page.--KMJKWhite (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close. Telling someone to stop edit warring when trying to force in an unreliable source is nowhere close to your claim. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[left] Look, KMJKWhite, you're not understanding what a Talk page is for. SchroCat suggested that you "use the Talk page", meaning that you come here to the Talk page to make your case and build a WP:CONSENSUS for making changes in the article. You seem to want the article to note that Russell was buried with "military honors", and you have supplied a ref, so I can add that. Currently, the article says that "During World War I, she recruited for the U.S. Marine Corps and raised money for the war effort." I believe that this statement is true, but it needs a WP:RS. One of the articles you linked to above says that Russell held the rank of Gunnery Sergeant in the marines, which might be of interest to note. Was she given this rank in connection with her fundraising for the war effort, or is there more to this story? If you would start trying to explain yourself without rancor and defensiveness, we might make some useful progress on the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the quote, "During World War I, she recruited for the U.S. Marine Corps," that comes from the University of Rochester's Lillian Russell papers. I believe some of this article has its roots there. See the specific excerpt here: https://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=969. Significant resources back up this information, just not in those exact words.
Concerning her rank, I can't confirm whether she actually held the rank of Gunnery Sergeant. I can verify she held an honorary NCO rank, given to her for recruiting purposes, but I'm not sure which rank she was awarded (references: https://books.google.com/books?id=l3Z78rt_oHsC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=lillian+russell+marines&source=bl&ots=NCMrAAlpuR&sig=FdK3f3pc9mU6KLg1fIfxi0ziyi4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0WioVPm5GY-INpO_hIgC&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=lillian%20russell%20marines&f=false and https://books.google.com/books?id=UUQ_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PR17&dq=The+Recruiters%27+Bulletin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZmyoVP6WDdHtgwTF2IDACg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lillian%20russell&f=false). In the photos of her in uniform, the rank certainly is that of a Gunnery Sergeant of the period (three chevrons over a bursting bomb on top of crossed rifles, see picture on page 193 of Armond Fields book). However, given the uniform was principally for recruiting, that insignia might have been strictly for show. I've seen more references to her rank as being that of "Recruiting Sergeant" than I have for her being a "Gunnery Sergeant," but I can't confirm the Marine Corps officially had such a rank. Some articles even refer to her as a Colonel, but Russell herself claimed only the rank of sergeant: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1918-10-27/ed-1/seq-13/ .--KMJKWhite (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll look at this carefully tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For my own curiosity, I've been trying to find out when she was made an honorary Marine NCO. This happened in June 1918, when she was appointed by MajGen George Barnett, then Commandant of the Marine Corps. Here's that information if you need it (from her personal reminisces): https://books.google.com/books?id=GATnAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA106&lpg=RA2-PA106&dq=%22lillian+russell%22+%22recruiting+sergeant%22&source=bl&ots=Rs0NP0IMRJ&sig=lbj4MGo9MJgYHsjEzzNs0GgfgcM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=moOpVMKBB8WkNp2KgIAM&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22lillian%20russell%22%20%22recruiting%20sergeant%22&f=false . Apparently, during her time serving as a recruiting sergeant, she built up a record 10,000 recruits (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19400512&id=jnIbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UkwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4214,1531248). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMJKWhite (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved a couple of the old references in-line. Around 2006 or so, Wikipedia started to require/prefer in-line references, but the parts of this article that were written before that relied on the links that were at the bottom of the article, so this exercise was overdue. More work needs to be done, but I am out of time for today. Why don't you write a couple of sentences about the most important facts concerning Russell's military background, and put them in the article in roughly chronological order, together with the refs, and I'll review it later. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a day or two. I'll put something together. I'm confident on about the aspects of her service with the Marines, but I need more information, and better references, concerning her contributions to the Army and Navy. Unless you want me to post my recommendations here, I may move some of the current text around to make it flow better. You can adjust it later if you like. Thank you. --KMJKWhite (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead when you're ready, and then we can all review and discuss. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lillian Russell. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture[edit]

I noted that Ms. Russell was referenced in a Sergeant Preston of the Yukon episode, and that Marilyn Monroe posed as her for Life, both of which Ssilvers (talk) removed, writing: "These are not all 'popular culture' references". Must disagree: for someone who is researching Ms. Russell's life, these ARE important, or, at the very least, note-worthy, so I've inserted them into Legacy section w/sources. Please do not remove. Thank you 47.152.245.51 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my comment. In any event, you cannot cite IMDB, which is a fan-written website. I have no objection to the Sergeant Preston of the Yukon reference, so long as you can cite a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, IMDb staff screens entries before it goes live; "fan-contributed", yes, but NOT "fan-written". Irony you should object to IMDB as a source as IMDb DOES NOT accept Wiki as a source for biographical info as Wiki is "user-dynamic". 47.152.245.51 (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles generally do not cite IMDB as an in-line citation. Here is the advice that is generally followed in higher quality articles in Wikipedia: WP:CITEIMDB. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture[edit]

I have heard, pretty much all of my life, of "Lillian Russell" furniture. Was this a line manufactured by a famous company, or a specific piece such as a dresser? Does anyone have any references to this? 2600:1004:B119:CBF8:EDFD:1AC8:2DCF:709C (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University archives[edit]

Hi there, I added an external source to archival material on Lillian Russell, and the editor cited that the archive needs to be the main archive of the individual. But, the rule cited does not say anything about only linking to a single archive. Wikipedia entries on women tend to be less robust, and adding external links to finding aids for archives are an important resource for those who would do further research. RochesterBatgirl (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who disputed that link. First of all, you have a WP:COI, since you work for the archive that you want to link, and you should declare it. Second, university archivists and librarians always want to add links to their collections. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. See WP:EL for more information about when it is appropriate to add links. If every collection of her papers were added, how many links would there be? See WP:LINKFARM. That's why I said that if we link to an archive, it should be her most important/extensive one, and you have not given any indication that this is the case with Rochester's. Finally, see WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, as far as I can tell, there's an exception to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for archives here: WP:CURATOR. I will add the relevant information shortly.
Second, the reason librarians and archivists want to add links to their collection is to share knowledge, and link to the spaces in which information is archived. If every collection of her papers were added, wouldn't it make this page a more useful place for scholars? Right now, the "link farm" you're concerned about is barely a kitchen garden.
Third, for Wikipedia:BALASPS, the only reason I can see to claim that the addition is having "unbalanced" weight is because there is, perhaps by your own editing hand, a paucity of archives listed. If there are so few external links to archives allowed, then any additions represent an unbalanced weight, and so no new archives could be added.
Certainly there is more than one archive for many individuals, and presumably, a researcher of Lillian Russell might be interested in her connection to Rochester, NY. In that case, the University of Rochester archive might contain more relevant materials than even the "main" archive.
I'm new at this, obviously, and am working to learn the rules, and am grateful for kind and informative correction. RochesterBatgirl (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I do not intend to be unkind, but, again, you have not explained why this collection adds significant value. It would be of interest to know where the most important/extensive collections of her papers are. The U. of Rochester's collection consists of only "one box containing nine folders of correspondence, notes, ephemera, and a photograph of Lillian Russell", so it would not seem to be one of the most important or extensive. Also, the link you added does not actually give access to the materials, it merely states that they exist at the U. of Rochester, which I doubt is news to serious researchers. However, if your review of your Russell papers suggests any encyclopedic information that is missing from Russell's article article, or any corrections, I hope you will add or make them. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lillian_Russell&oldid=1206804821"