Talk:Judy Garland as a gay icon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge

Resolved

Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? I obviously oppose the notion of merging the articles. Judy Garland is already 44 kB long and will be getting longer as more material is added in an effort to get it to Featured Article status. There are plenty of independent reliable sources that are specifically about or discuss in some detail her status as a gay icon, more than enough to support the article as a standalone per WP:SUMMARY. In response to a suggestion at Peer review I plan on adding a "legacy" section to the main article which will mention her iconic status but the material if merged would give undue weight to the sub-topic. Otto4711 (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging would take the Judy Garland article to 47 kB, well below the 60 kB threshold cited at WP:SIZE.--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY states that articles larger than 40kB will likely need to be divided. It also says that 30-50 kB is the range at which readers will tire. Regardless, the point still stands that the sourcing exists to support an independent article and that merging would unbalance the article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this topic warrants a separate article. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do. Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Found another, perhaps better place for it: Gay icon. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to merge this into Gay icon without putting undue weight on Judy Garland there. I think this article is fine as a standalone given Judy Garland's status as "the mother of all" gay icons. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even see this thread but came to the same conclusion. Way too much weight on one icon for that article and editors would have quickly spun it off unto it's own. Benjiboi 16:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible move?

Resolved

Perhaps this article could be generalized a tad bit to be Judy Garland in popular culture? Actually, the only other "So-and-so in popular culture" is Adolf Hitler. How about Cultural depictions of Judy Garland? There are 15 other articles with that kind of title. I guess I'm suggesting a change because "gay icon" is pretty specific, and that could possibly lead to deletion. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is already large enough and well-referenced enough to avoid deletion. Why water it down by generalizing it? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I could maybe see as LGBT icon but that seems unneeded. There's plenty to add still and we've only just begun. Benjiboi 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose any attempt to make this an in popular culture article. Foo in popular culture articles almost invariably suck. They turn into massive sprawling useless lists of trivia, larded with "in this movie someone said 'Foo'" crap. List of Judy Garland awards and honors used to be the de facto IPC article, having been split off from the main biography at some point. It was a complete mess until I took it in hand and, if I may dispense with false modesty, turned it into an encyclopedia article. The sourcing is there for an article that is specifically about Garland as a gay icon just based on what I've found so far and I haven't even looked at the material that Benjiboi has linked on the talk page yet. Don't think of the article as "specific." Think of it as "focused." Otto4711 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Re "LGBT icon," I don't think that's necessary. The article is at gay icon and "gay icon" is as near as I can tell the near-universal phrase. Otto4711 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree and LGBT can be added into the article text as needed. Benjiboi 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We really shouldn't say "LGBT icon" if the evidence only shows her being an icon among gay men. Is there any evidence that she's iconic among lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals/transgendered? I heartily disapprove of blindly replacing the word "gay" with the non-word "LGBT" wherever it occurs. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As do I and I don't believe I suggested doing so. She has been an icon for the LB and T but generally speaking I don't think that really needs going into as much as being more inclusive that she's an icon to more in the LGBT communities than just gay men. I also wouldn't support replacing every use of gay with LGBT but do support it's use in the lede to spell out what I've suggested here, not just an icon to gay men although gay icon seems the most accurate term for it. Benjiboi 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the current article title is perfect. Great article, btw! Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall might deserve a mention. Fireplace (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just worry that this is the only article titled Foo as a gay icon. That could mean the scope of the article is too small. Or that the LGBT project hasn't produced these articles yet :) Or another possibility is the POVness of the article... Does anyone see what I mean, or am I worrying for no reason? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think ___ as gay icon articles could be built if the references support it. I doubt you're worrying for no reason but this seems a minor concern for now at least. Benjiboi 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, there's an incongruity between the titles of Judy Garland as gay icon and Madonna as a gay icon (extra 'a'). Fireplace (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

sigh, thanks for catching that I'll deal with it now. Benjiboi 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel in lead

Resolved

The lead currently reads: "Judy Garland has long been considered a gay icon. The Advocate has called her 'The Elvis of homosexuals.' The reasons most frequently given (beyond her enormous talent as a performer) for her standing, especially amongst gay men, are the way her personal struggles supposedly mirrored those of gay men in America during the height of her fame and her value as a camp figure." I don't have access to the cited source, but without a quotation or even a page number, I suspect it says something identical without any quantitative factual basis. Did the author conduct an exhaustive survey of literature about Judy Garland as a gay icon and publish a statistical analysis of the frequency of reasons given for Garland's status? Was a poll conducted? If not, the statement is without evidentiary basis and should not be repeated in an encyclopedic article. The bit about "her enormous talent as a performer" is pure POV and unquestionably does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Robert K S (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Her enormous talent as a performer is given as a reason for her status as a gay icon. You're reading that bit incorrectly. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from being non sequitur as a reason for status as a gay icon (not all talented performers are gay icons), the sentence is written ambiguously. Since it can be interpreted the way I interpreted it--as a statement of fact rather than a reason given--it should be re-written to preclude such an interpretation. I'd try to do so by being bold, but since I've been reverted once by the article's author, I'll let the author try to resolve my concerns before I dive back into it. My objection to the "reasons most frequently given" language could be resolved with a revision as simple as to make it read instead "Frequently given reasons include..." The "most" part is really the kicker. It's not verifiable. ETA: Well, even then, such a statement wouldn't be attributed, so it would still be weasel. It needs to say who's giving the reasons as well. Robert K S (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be sources later in the piece that back up the "long been considered a gay icon" part, the "struggles supposedly mirrored those of gay men" part, and the "her value as a camp figure" part. so is there a problem with anything other than the "enormous talent" part? if so this is a matter of the icon part of her gay icon status. talentless people rarely become icons. her talent is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of her status as gay icon. citing might prove difficult though, as "icon status generally requires talent" is one of those self-evident things--Mongreilf (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
also i like that madonna has the indefinite article in her title. beside it the absence in judy's suggests she's the gay icon--Mongreilf (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the word "most" from the sentence which I think addresses the objection. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible material

As i think of it there is some material in the Friends of Dorothy article and I recall digging up some Stonewall Inn refs as well. There certainly was some connections even if was only that her funeral was on that day. Benjiboi 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Update, I added the FOD refs I thought made sense although there could be more. Here is the Stonewall riots info. To call it an urban myth isn't quite accurate. i'll try to address it with a quote. Benjiboi 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
To get a sense of what the street kids, patrons and queens were like here is an excerpt from Martin Duberman's book "Stonewall"[1]

More:

  • Thousands Line Up to View Judy Garland's Body[2]
  • Madonna As Postmodern Myth: How One Star's Self-Construction Rewrites Sex, Gender, Hollywood and...[3]
  • Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sensibility[4]
  • The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality, and the Meaning of Sex[5]
  • End of the Rainbow[6]
  • Talking Stonewall - Stonewall Inn riot; gay rights movement, Interview magazine, June 1994 by Jeffrey Slonim[7]
  • The 1960s: The Stonewall Riots and Their Aftermath[8]

Possible sources

  • here. I'm working on another project, I add myself if no one else does. Benjiboi 17:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

Has anyone considered nominating this article GA?— Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not GA quality yet. At the very least the lead would need to be expanded to better summarize the article. If you think it's at or near GA quality, you might want to put it up for peer review instead. Otto4711 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree, the lead isnt a sufficent over view of the article, however I imagine if you were to nominate it then it would be put on hold, giving sufficient time to resolve any problems raised. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 02:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's as likely that it would be failed and personally I hate seeing the failed GA "blemish" on articles I've worked on. I suggest you work on expanding the lead first (I have another couple of quotes I'll add when I have a minute to find them again) and then go through peer review. Otto4711 (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, unfortunately I know little of Garland or homosexual identity, im probably no use to you in that area sorry. You obviously have control of it and will nominate it in your own good time, there is no rush afterall. Best of luck. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 03:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh please, don't feel like I'm trying to chase you off or anything. If you feel like putting in any time on the article, please don't let my comments stop you. Otto4711 (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is a target for deletion. Unless it makes you feel better about yourself. Please folks this is not encyclopedic at all. Kidshare (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Every article could be a target for deletion but this one will quite likely survive as it has notability and references intact. If you insist on sending it to AfD, which I don't recommend, it's likely to be a speedy and WP:SNOW keep. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Banjeboi 06:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really sure why you're feeling the need to attack this article and the mention of Garland's status as a gay icon in her article, but clearly this subject is notable based on the reliable sources cited in the article, it is verifiable and as near as I can tell complies with all applicable policies and guidelines. ". Unless it makes you feel better about yourself" is rude. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold links in "title"

I have removed these per WP:MOSTITLE. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:MOSTITLE does not refer to the titles of articles. It refers to the titles of things mentioned in articles, like books, songs, etc. Article titles themselves are bolded, per the examples offered at Wikipedia:MOS#First_sentences. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Then the links should not be wikified. Since the title does not match the first sentence exactly, it should not be bolded. Also, links should not be bolded per the above. Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:BOLDTITLE. Banjeboi 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I did. It says not to bold links in the lead sentence. Also, the lead sentence is not a match to the title of the article. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you consider the spirit beyond the letter of those guidelines. For instance it says to avoid linking, not that we can't. In any case I've reverted your edits on all three articles and reworked them all to meet the letter and spirit of the manual of style. Banjeboi 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
ok. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed "long" from the intro of these gay icon articles

How long is "long"? Not really needed. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

as gay icon

Surely the title of the page should be "as a gay icon" --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • All similar articles use the same naming construction. It's fine as is. Otto4711 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think either is fine although brevity would say keep it simple. If we go for featured article status this might be a simmering debate but I agree that it's fine for now. Banjeboi 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because one article is named wrong does not mean others should follow suit as gay icon is not a proper title.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Judy Garland as gay icon → Judy Garland as a gay icon — as gay icon is not a proper title for a page — Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - the construction is fine as it is, it makes perfect sense and is in reasonably wide usage in both the popular and scholarly literature. It does not violate any Wikipedia naming guideline. It ain't broke; it don't need fixing. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What exactly is nonsensical about the article title? Do you not understand based on the title what the article is about? As for its use in the literature, Google books turns up a number of uses as does Google scholar. It also mirrors such constructions as "as tragic figure". Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition, neither "Judy Garland as gay icon" nor "Judy Garland as a gay icon" is a "sentence" so the argument that "the current sentence makes no sense" itself makes no sense. Article titles are rarely complete sentences. Otto4711 (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed. We've been here before. Grammatically this is fine and there is no need to change to add another word to the title. To spell out that Garland is a singular icon rather than something else gives less credit than our readers deserve. If they had some doubt it would likely be solved by reading the article. Banjeboi 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Try the same searches using a [9] [10] [11] and the article is about her a singular person --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. I'm sure both variations can be found in abundance but luckily we are not bound by google hits to adjust policy. It's fine where it is. And with the moves that have occurred, anyone using either phrase here will be directed to the correct article. Banjeboi 08:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Frank Gumm not gay?

In Me and My Shadows, Lorna Luft found no proof at all that Judy's father Frank Gumm was gay, based on public records and documents from Grand Rapids newspapers from the early-mid '20s http://books.google.com/books?id=jLmp4MF3UK4C&lpg=PP1&dq=lorna%20luft&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false--98.226.9.223 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow flag

Baker was in his words against a "sound of the closet".

  • Gilbert Baker is still waving the flag By Cory Stottlemyer, reporter, 365gay.com, 06.29.2009 4:27pm EDT: Baker put to rest rumors that he created a rainbow flag in honor of Judy Garland’s “Somewhere over the Rainbow” from the Wizard of Oz. / “I came from the Streisand generation. She was all about not conforming and not being a victim,” Gilbert explained, the opposite of what Garland stood for. “She was a tragic woman who rose from her abuse,” Gilbert said about Garland, something he said the gay movement related to during the Stonewall Movement. His generation was all about fighting the system and not being persecuted, like Streisand. / “It was all about ‘She’s a Rainbow’ by the Stones, not ‘Over the Rainbow,’” added in Baker with a laugh.

The today connection comes after creating the flag. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate content

The last paragraph of section "Stonewall riots" is mainly a repetition of the first paragraph. They should be merged. --176.0.2.114 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judy Garland as gay icon. 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) 23:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judy Garland as gay icon. 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) 06:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Title is not neutral (July 2021)

Per WP:POVNAMING, "descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue." The title of this article does exactly the opposite, using improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a conclusion. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 01:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of improper editorial synthesis that is present? – The Grid (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Well none of the sources declare Garland a gay icon, rather they mention her LGBTQ affiliations and/or her reverence by members of the LGBTQ community, so the title making the claim that she is a gay icon from those sources is the synthesis. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 02:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
But is it not that she is perceived as a gay icon by the community? – The Grid (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
There's no sources that claim she is perceived as a gay icon by the community though. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Sources that state Judy Garland is perceived as a gay icon by the community (h/t to Beccaynr, at the AfD, for most of these):

There is extensive media coverage of "Judy Garland as a gay icon." HouseOfChange (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, HouseOfChange - I have planned to participate here after the conclusion of the AfD, because in my experience, it can be unhelpful to split a discussion that essentially seems like a continuation of an AfD !vote onto an article Talk page while the AfD is pending. You and I have posted more sources than the ones listed above at the AfD discussion, and it remains to be seen what the WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS will be. Beccaynr (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Clearly I did a bad job evaluating the sources. It looks like the title of the article is fine. My apologies. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judy_Garland_as_a_gay_icon/Archive_1&oldid=1140102258"