Talk:List of bow tie wearers/Archive 1

Deleted for "no possibility for useful commentary"

The deletion sign put on the top of the article says: "It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern: Useless, ridiculous, no possibility for useful commentary"

The "useful commentary" is obviously in the Bowtie page which is the first thing linked to on the top line. Any commentary here would be duplicative, obviously, and any commentary belongs on the bowtie page. Pages for Monacle and Top hat have lists on the page itself. This list is much longer than the ones on the pages, because bow ties are more widespread. I think there's a good case to be made for either merging or keeping this list separate.

As to "useless" -- whenever a piece of male (and perhaps female?) clothing is considered by a person, the cultural symbolism is considered, and a good part of that is "what comes to mind when people see this". One of the things that obviously comes to mind are famous figures seen wearing the same thing. Think cigarette holder. Franklin D. Roosevelt comes to mind, and perhaps The Penguin from Batman. Same with bow ties, monacles, top hats, canes.

As to "ridiculous" well, if the article is useful and useful commentary is already linked from another article, then we can afford to have ridiculous elements here, although I think it's more accurate to say "humorous." Heaven save Wikipedia from having something humorous in it.Noroton 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment:Perhaps this list should be merged with the bow tie page. I'm going to make that suggestion on this page and that one with a merge proposal. I'm neutral on merging, although I think the list looks better and is easier for readers to look over than the single paragraph list on the Bow tie page.Noroton 00:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See discussion on Merge suggestion: List of bow tie wearers page about merging the lists.Noroton 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a "prod" deletion attempt, but this would require it to be an "uncontroversial deletion", which it is not (see WP:PROD). I therefore removed the template. And, as I wrote on Talk:Bow tie#Merge suggestion: List of bow tie wearers: "About the attempt made to delete the List of bow tie wearers, I feel having such a list is quite pertinent, even useful. Showing how many prominent people became closely identified to the garment certainly conveys its importance and mark upon human culture. It is also amusing. That is not a criteria for deletion on Wikipedia." --Liberlogos 04:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of four characters from fictional list

I removed these characters because I found contrary evidence that they don't always wear bow ties by looking at the images in their Wikipedia articles:

• James Bond, character in movies and books
• Jimmy Olsen, character in Superman comics, movies and television program
• Pink Panther (cartoon character in movies and cartoons)
• Yogi Bear

If anyone can provide evidence that they wear bow ties in circumstances where neckties are worn or no ties are worn, then we should put them back, but we should be able to document it with a footnote, particularly since the Wikipedia articles show evidence to the contrary. If Jimmy Olsen, for instance, always wore a bow tie in the old Superman TV show, then he's worthy of inclusion, but can we document that other than with a single photo from the show? A publicity still would be good enough, I'd say, but better would be a citation from a book or article showing he always had one on. If that's the case and we put him back, we should mention that he had one on in the TV show (or wherever else) and note that he did NOT wear one in some of the comic books. Same pinciples should apply to the rest of these characters. Noroton 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[[1]] Seems to show Jimmy wearing his bow tie, although I admit it's not conclusive. He's wearing it [[2]] here and as shown here: [[3]] tended to wear it in Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen. Webrunner 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not well known

Norbert Schedler -- his place on the list seems not to serve any useful purpose, so I'm putting him here for now. It's hard to find a reference to him wearing bow ties that doesn't seem ultimately to have come from anywhere but this list. If anyone wants to make a case for him, let's discuss it here.

Jeffrey Tucker, ditto. Noroton 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are two others -- if a case can be made, and if proof of bow-tie wearing can be found:

• Kai Larsen, Danish botanist
• Zolliker, J.S. (writer)

Also, long-time science fiction fan and convention organizer Ben Yalow is well known (among some groups) for his bow tie and sweater wardrobe; however, he does not currently have a Wikipedia page. Wyvern (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't find a reference to bow-tie wearing

Peter Lorre, he may have worn a bow tie in some of his better-known films, but I can't find something to footnote even for that. Unless we can find something to footnote, he should stay off the list. Is there some reason to think he was well known for wearing bow ties? Noroton 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

Just a quick look at the Sigmund Freud article on Wikipedia shows numerous pictures of Siggie with long neckties, maybe one with a bow tie. If it can be shown he's associated with bow ties, we can put him back, but looks unlikely. Noroton 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

rename

Based on discussion at AfD, I suggest that this article be renamed and reworked slightly under the title of "stereotypes of bow tie wearers" See talk:bow tie from more discussion. Comments? MPS 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying MPS's comment from the Talk:Bow tie page and putting it here because this is a discussion of possibly renaming this article. His comment follows ... Noroton 18

45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about ongoing Afd regarding the list of bow tie wearers article... they are thinking of renaming it. Based on this AFD and a review of the original article here, I had the idea that perhaps that the bow tie article could have a separate section about stereotypes of bow tie weareres. This could be easily assembled from current bow tie content on James Bond and architects. The list of bow tie wearers article could then be renamed and reworked as a [Stereotypes of bow tie wearers] article to convey (with an exhaustive list of cited examples) evidence that pundits have used to bolster theories of stereotypes of bow tie weareres. I will be bold and aggregate the content on the bow tie article as y'all discuss. MPS 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ok new section creation done. MPS 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think casting "List of bow tie wearers" as a "main article" for the subject of stereotypes is fair. It's reasonable, given the contents of that section and the current contents of the List article that there be a link, and a link at this spot isn't a bad idea, as long as there is a link elsewhere in the article (there is, at "See also"; although I think I would prefer that eventually the link be put in a summary list of the most famous bow tie wearers).

Here are some possible names for this article and what I see as their strengths and weaknesses. It matters what the article is titled because that tends to be considered Holy Writ by future editors and tends to control what they think should be added to the list or taken out, regardless of what guidance may be put at the top of the article:

In general, the name should help reflect the fact that the list has two limitations on it: (A) the people on the list are well-known, and (B) their bow tie wearing is something notable about them. These limitations make the list a useful article for looking at the impact of their public personas on the image of the bow tie (and, for that matter, the impact of the image of the bow tie on their public personas). The topic of notable people who wear bow ties is notable because many observers (as noted in the article) think it is important (and it may, therefore, be important to people who are considering wearing bow ties). Given all that, here are some strengths and weaknesses of various possible name changes for the article:

• 1. List of bow tie wearers
  • STRENGTH: It's brief.
  • WEAKNESS: It could be considered overly broad. Does anyone who ever wore a bow tie fit into it? Some seem to think the article's name would call for that.
• 2. List of famous bow tie wearers
  • STRENGTH: Still brief and it limits the list.
  • WEAKNESS: How are you going to judge "famous"? Even if we limit it to people with Wikipedia biographies, the list could be too long. If we set the bar very high, we could have endless battles. On the other hand, having disagreements over what or who is notable and what or who is not is pretty standard fare for Wikipedia discussions. Another objection would be: Do you really want to limit it only to the famous? Would you want people who are notable in their own field and who may influence others in their field to wear bow ties. (In my opinion, no, you don't, because that's just not significant enough for Wikipedia.) Another objection is that the title limits the wearers but might allow for any famous person who ever happened to wear a bow tie. A guidance paragraph at the top could be useful here, one that said the list is about people who are notable and whose bow tie wearing is notable — and which can be sourced. All in all, I think this is the best option.
• 3. List of famous people noted for wearing bow ties
  • STRENGTH: This has none of the weaknesses noted for the above names.
  • WEAKNESS: It doesn't seem very concise, but nothing shorter would fit the concept as well. Also, this list includes fictional characters, so you either insert "and fictional characters" (3. (a))and make the title that much longer, or perhaps lose the fictional characters from the list, which belong in if we're talking about what images influence potential bow tie wearers.
• 4. List of the famous noted for wearing bow ties
  • STRENGTH: meets objections from the previous idea
  • WEAKNESS: the wording is too confusing. Most readers would have to stop and think about the title a bit. Not a good sign

These are my thoughts so far. Again, my preference is "List of famous bow tie wearers"Noroton 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As a significant contributor to the WP:RECENT essay, I am obviously a big fan of the 10 year/100 year test... If this is truly an encyclopedic article and not an arbitrary collection of facts, then someone in 10 years (or 100 years) is going to be really nonplussed when they read about how Janusz Korwin-Mikke, (Polish "liberal conservative" commentator) and William Durden, (president of Dickinson College) both were knon for wearing a bow tie. So What? Who cares? Why is this notable? etc etc etc. Both of these are real examples from the current 'list.' ... hmm... what about History of notable bow tie wearers]? That way in 10 years (or 100 years!) future editors and readers might be able to add to this article by adding their generation's opinions on bow ties. I am still open to whetever discussion, so don't take from my tone any kind of summary rejection of previous suggestions. I just want this article to be on a notable topic, and not an arbitrary list. Peace, MPS 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that if it's a history article, the organizing principle for the article could be a chronology/timeline. MPS 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about some of the same things you have. Just before the AfD discussion was ended, I wrote a long reply to one of the pro-delete editors and talked about some of the ideas below. I'm becoming more convinced that "famous" ought to be added to the article title and that fame be a criteria for inclusion on the list. Here's how I'd define it:

1. The person must be known to people nationwide. I don't think, if there was a dispute, this would be too difficult to prove, and in most cases it should be pretty obvious. How do I define "nationwide"? Any nation, no matter how big or small. I don't think we're going to get overrun by Lichtenstienians or San Marinoans. I think it's fine that we keep that Polish commentator and Belgian politician. Some people will say "so what" but some will also be glad to see that the phenomenon we're talking about (famous bow tie wearers being noticed) is not limited to a few countries.
2. The person must be known beyond his own profession Someone famous within the field of psychiatry, for instance, should have some recognition outside that field, such as Alfred Kinsey. You can measure that with a few feature articles from a respected publication, much the same way we do with notability. Not a perfect standard, but Wikipedians make similar judgments elsewhere.
3. The person may be famous in the past or present What we're talking about is not the notability of an article but the fame of people listed in it, and the standards are different. If someone was famous in the past, it would seem to fit the criteria of the article — precisely because the article is about a phenomenon, not just a list showing an interesting fact about a number of people.

Once we've established that someone is famous (and with the above criteria, we can footnote it if a dispute comes up), all we need do is establish that they also wear or wore bow ties habitually. I've already shown in the article that that can be done, and we should insist on it. To me, this is a workable, efficient way of keeping the list from becoming indiscriminate.

I hate to do it, but if we can change the name to "List of famous bow tie wearers" then I think we should remove the three university presidents, because they don't meet my criteria. I'll miss them. What do you think?Noroton 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked over your comment again and noticed I haven't responded to your suggestion about putting "History" in the title. I think a lot of time-related organization, nevermind a timeline, is too difficult to work out and then too difficult for future editors to add to, although I put up some broad time-related section titles. I'm even a bit uncomfortable with those, because Edison, for example, was as much a 20th century as he was a 19th centurey person. I think if there were some good source to cite who gave a history of bow tie wearing with regard to specific "eras" of bow tie history, then we could do it. I don't think we have enough information on history overall to focus the article title on it, and I don't know that we ever will. Will the article go out of date? I don't think so, because it's still useful to know that certain figures of the past wore them, and new, younger people continue to take up the practice. I think that's the relevant criteria. By removing time considerations for figuring out how famous a person is, I think we avoid most questions of becoming dated. Notice that game-show guy on the list? I can't even remember his name. I think anyone who seriously researches bow tie wearing is going to want to look into the past, however, and he was a prominent person in the 50s, so I'm very comfortable with keeping him, even though I'd never heard of him before and don't expect to ever again.

WP:RECENT is an interesting article, by the way, but in my opinion, recentism isn't a bug, it's a feature (well, in good part it is). I think articles that focus on recent events should probably be tagged for eventual editing or even automatically put into an AfD process after a few years, and if there isn't enough support for them, dump them or drastically edit them down. I think the standards for Wikipedia need to become even more independent of the traditional idea of an encyclopedia because Wikipedia is almost a different species from encyclopedias. It is really great that Wikipedia can get information up quickly, something no print encyclopedia can do (even encyclopedias on the Web couldn't do it faster without a wiki feature). Wikipedia SHOULD have some bias in favor of the recent because that's one of its strengths. Either that or Wikipedia could calve off these articles into WikiNews or some kind of "WikiCurrent" setup, much like WikiQuote.Noroton 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Dave Garroway??

I can't believe Dave Garroway was missed. He was the first host of the Today Show. Apparently, he took to wearing bow ties after he had a TV guest showing him some sort of food blender--and he caught his (straight) necktie in it. 140.147.160.78 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Thanks, someone, for correcting this oversight within hours of my raising it. 140.147.160.78 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Fred Allen

The photo of him on the air (radio, that is) at the Meuseum of Broadcasting show him in a bow tie (as does one of the two caricatures on the Fred Allen page.

http://www.museum.tv/rhofsection.php?page=159 —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Just a comment that some balancing and possibly disparaging information against the wearing of bow ties should at least be alluded to in the lede. Benjiboi 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Dave Garroway citations

Both of the photos of him at Dave Garroway show him wearing one. htom (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Les Nessman citation

Les Nessman The small, balding, bespectacled man always wears a bow tie and always has a bandage somewhere on his person, a running gag that began with his first appearance (when he actually needed it). htom (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Whipple

Mr. Whipple, the character who was famous for telling others not to squeeze the Charmin, usually (always?) wears a bow tie. Youtube has lots of clips. htom (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• There's no question that these people wore bow ties, but the article should be supported by WP:RS citations. Other Wikipedia articles don't count... --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of names from More 20th/21st century people subsection, unsourced for one year

I myself added at least one of these, but since Feb. 2007 there have been no citations added. These simply do not belong on the list at this point. If anybody can find citations, please add them back:

• Chippendale Dancers
• Keith Dunstan

'Affecting'

i have changed 'affecting' to 'effect on'. the former could easily be interpreted to mean wearing as an affectation - a seriously negative connotation.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Charlie the Tuna and the Vlasic Stork

OK, I looked, Charlie's not a regular bow tie wearer (someone asked.) He does wear one in the commercial "Charlie's Girlfriend" ( http://www.starkist.com/template.asp?section=charlie/index.html ; direct link not possible) but usually, at least to my memory, he does not. (I remember more in an ascot than a bow tie.)

The (nameless?) Vlasic Stork ( http://www.vlasic.com/ ), I think, always has had the red bow tie and the pince-nez.