![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? I obviously oppose the notion of merging the articles. This article 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) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Judy Garland is credited with being one of the people photographed as a pinup for the YANK magazine
I can not find any reference to her being in YANK. Can anyone provide issue/date information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.202.183 ( talk) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It was a pleasure to copyedit this entry — just a comma here, a link there. Kudos to everyone who made this such a great article. Only that every Wikipedia entry could be this good and fun to read. Kinkyturnip ( talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to laud the contributors of this article for being it up to featured status, and exceptionally illustrating it w/o any usage of copyrighted imagery. That must have been a bear to find and vet all of them, and I congratulate their application. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I have never before heard it claimed that "Garland, Rooney, and other young performers were constantly given amphetamines, as well as barbiturates to take before bed". The placement of the sentence suggests that Garland was under sixteen at the time. The reference is "Judy Garland: By Myself". American Masters. 25 February 2004., which means nothing to me. Is it American Masters, a TV programme which I have essentially no chance of seeing? If this claim is "common knowledge" it should be possible to source it properly. Mr Stephen ( talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw on a documentary on TV (most likely American Masters) that Judy's abortion was coerced by the studio and her mother in order to keep her image wholesome. -- Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Judy Garland | |
---|---|
![]() Garland in
A Star Is Born (1954) |
The main image that Otto4711 keeps placing up is a cropped, blurry, grainy image of Judy Garland and not at all a good image to start of an encyclopedia biography with. In the interim we have a screen capture from "Till the Clouds Roll By" that is clearer, shows her features better and has more detail. Otto, while your enthusiasm and dedication to this article is appreciated whether or not you find the image of Judy in "Till the Clouds Roll By" attractive - or in your words - "fug-lee" - it is irrelevant when working to make this article as good as it can. If you can find a better example of the photo from a Star Is Born that is clearer, sharper, not pixellated or poorly re-cropped, please put it up - but in the meantime please leave the image from Till the Clouds... up. -- Ozgod ( talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why was my Johnny Mercer edit reverted? I can understand that it's a bit "disastrous affair" overkill in that section, but it is well sourced and interesting. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is somewhat confusing. Is it referring to Judy Garland herself? If so referring to her as the performer in the context is rather odd and confusing. She or Garland would be better. I can't check the ref easily as it's a book Nil Einne ( talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Jusda fax 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You're both long term editors. If you can't work this out, I'll block both of you. See WP:DR if you can't figure it out yourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
How could she have been a singer at two years old that needs to be changed -- GuineaPigWarrior ( talk) 21:41, 24 June, 2009 (UTC)
Judy Garland/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
![]() Garland in
A Star Is Born (1954) |
Is that (see picture to the right, which is currently the photo being used as the main photo) the clearest/best photo that anyone has that can be used here as her main photo? It is very blurry, and inferior quality for an FA article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the only objection to the Star is Born image, that it is blurry? Are there any other images in Commons that each of us is happy with as an infobox image?
Epeefleche you commented above "Unless we are trying to show people how she appeared to herself when she looked in the mirror during the times that she was drunk or strung out..." - I think you've hit upon part of the reason I don't like the Till the Clouds Roll By image. She doesn't look the way she is best remembered (although "best remembered" means a different thing to different people), and she's got the big dirty splotch of her forehead - it's not a bad image in terms of picture quality, but I don't think it depicts the most appropriate style for the infobox. I think that is somewhat what Otto has also been saying, and Otto please correct me if I'm wrong. When I have time I will go through Till the Clouds Roll By and try to find a reasonable number of screenshots, and hope that there is something in there we can use. To the best of my knowledge, it's the only Garland film to have passed into the public domain. I'm hoping that there might be at least one good image that shows her face clearly, and that doesn't "type" her to particular role, ie a nice, clear, generic face-shot. Could we leave this for now and continue discussing this when I've been able to find some alternatives? Shouldn't be more than a few days, and then perhaps we can decide on something that everyone can live with. Rossrs ( talk) 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a belated reply to Epeefleche's request on my talk page, I will say I'm glad someone replaced the image from A Star Is Born, which is indeed too blurry to use as the lead image; if possible we should replace it altogether. The one from As the Clouds Roll By is an improvement, albeit still somewhat blurry in full size. However, I could be wrong, but I somehow had the impression that a lead photo of the actress as herself, i.e. not in character, would be preferable to one of her playing a role, to emphasize the topic of the article is Judy Garland, not the characters she played. Of course, we would also have to take into account image quality of the available pictures. I don't have a strong opinion about it, and realize some other articles have lead images of the subject in character, but it's just something that makes sense to me. My $0.02. Fletcher ( talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to current langague that states: "[In] 1956, Garland performed ... for a salary of $55,000 per week, making her the highest-paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas to date." (emphasis added).
I have a few questions/problems. 1) There is no citation. There should be one.
2) What does it mean? Is the intent to say that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas at the time that she was paid that amount? If so, the language has to be fixed.
3) Does it mean instead that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas through the time the publication cited to was written? If so, the language has to be fixed.
4) Or does it mean instead that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas through the date the edit was made to this article? That is what it means. But inasmuch as we never know at the time of the article when it will be read, and if that fact will be true at that future point in time, it is un-encylopedic to make such an assertion, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. That is why when there are entries of comparable assertions they are made with reference to a date certain, such as "at the time" or "through 2008".
Otto, I know you have been reverting me without addressing the questions/comments I have made in my edits, so I am making them here instead both to avoid an edit war and so that you and others can address this. And if your answer is yet again that it must be fine as-is, because it passed an FA review, my answer is as above. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made my first edit on the subject of Garland the Dancer, and hope that it will put an end to the edit warring on the subject. Otto -- dancing was certainly part of what Garland did in her performances. I've given you five citations, and there are more to be had if necessary. The others who were adding the entry to the effect that she danced were accurate.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Both Otto and Rossrs refer above to something called a "lede". What is that?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That "appeared in vaudeville" is ungrammatical will be quite a shock to the 444,000 people who used it on web pages (including any number of Wikipedia editors) and the hundreds of published authors whose editors seem to have missed it. "Appeared in a vaudeville act" is used far, far less frequently, and it is a clunky construction. So let's refrain from fixing things that are not broken, shall we? Eddie's Teddy ( talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
"In vaudeville" is by no means incorrect, any more than it is incorrect to say that a performer appears "on television." It is in fact the traditional usage for referring to this particular genre of performance. As Danny Kaye said of his career, "You bet I arrived overnight. Over a few hundred nights in the Catskills, in vaudeville, in clubs and on Broadway." (emphasis added). Robertissimo ( talk) 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see any basis cited for saying "appeared in vaudeville" is incorrect. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just my two cents--I agree with those who don't have a problem with "appeared in vaudeville". Just as I would not have a problem with the phrase "starred on Broadway." I think both are commonly accepted and understood phrases.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands? I don't see any mention of the area in the article, although maybe I missed such a reference. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are nose discs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 ( talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Per edits by User:Tbhotch who is restoring text that was deleted using erroneous rationales: Judy Garland as gay icon is a "non-notable" article? Take this to the talkpage or you will be reported. His rationale for his edits, his first on the article, are erroneous. He did not respond to my initial detailed rationale for the original deletion which said nothing about anything being "non-notable:"
After he and User:Blake Burba, another editor who's first edits to this article likewise restored the material, I responded to both by suggesting that if they had any issue with the rationales given, they should talk rather than instinctively restore the removed text, with comments like "Seriously?" or meaningless ones like "non-notable article?" However, since they are unable to understand any of the reasons stated clearly, I'll expand on my original rationale:
The added section has corrupted her Legacy section and does not belong. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Portrayals in fiction section there is a factual error. The current line reads "End of the Rainbow (2005) featured Caroline O'Connor as Garland and Michael Cumpsty as Garland's pianist." Caroline O'Connor played the part in Edinburgh and in an Australian production, neither of which involved Michael Cumpsty. Cumpsty played Anthony Chapman, Judy's fictional pianist, in the 2012 Broadway production with Tracie Bennett as Judy. 174.57.141.216 ( talk) 16:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the main image a fitting encapsulation of the woman? I don't think so. Dorothy was a defining role, yes, but also a unique one which doesn't fit with her later image.
http://theredlist.fr/media/database/muses/icon/cinema_women/judy_garland/14-judy-garland-theredlist.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseofAcheron ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed a clause, and it's source which was simply "as she told an audience...". Since sources used in Wikipedia must be at least potentially able to be validated, and no location of this recording is given, this is not a valid source. No one can validate what you heard sixty years ago. You can refactor this with a source able to be located and validated if you wish. Wjhonson ( talk) 19:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
i love you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.72.244 ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
And once again, CastellanetaFan is creating a revert war instead of a discussion. Alright, I'll open the discussion again. So he believes the category "American mezzo-sopranos" should be there while others don't. CastellanetaFan: Do you have any reference to support this or is this WP:OR? -- Lyverbe ( talk) 11:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Virginia Gumm was one of the Gumm Sisters, a singing trio of whom another was Judy Garland. I'm not sure she was notable on her own (though I'd have thought there'd be a Gumm Sisters article), and per IMDb she was uncredited in nearly all her films, included the one cited here. I'd just have redirected but because there's the information about her vital statistics, including her husbands (apparently IMDB) I thought maybe someone would have another idea, or at least want to make a logical place in Judy Garland to copy the information to. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I can spot a fair few unsourced paragraphs, adult stardom and After MGM are especially poor and the last section is completely unsourced. This passed in 2008 but I believe if this ran for FAC today in its current condition it wouldn't pass. Please make sure it is fully (and properly) sourced and where possible bring the sourcing and content up to 2014 standards. Refs 1-5 are shocking for somebody like Garland. It also has a fair bit of POV and unencyclopedic cruft like "At age 21, she was given the "glamour treatment" in Presenting Lily Mars, in which she was dressed in "grown-up" gowns. Her lightened hair was also pulled up in a stylish fashion." Garland has dozens of books written about her and the sourcing and overall comprehension I don't believe meets 2014 standards. If there is no effort to start to bring this up to today's standards I shall be opening an FAR on this in two weeks..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I know what you mean, others (like Ghmytyle) feel the same. I have some GAs which I personally think are better than some of our older FAs but generally FAs are of a superior standard to most. The best quality article is what matters above all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A "filmography" section in this article would really be nice. Most of the articles in wikipedia on film stars have such a section.
I've reverted an addition by Utzdman55 about Bing Crosby inviting Garland onto his radio and stage shows, principally because the sourcing does not appear reliable enough. Imdb is user-generated and definitely not a reliable source. Stevenlewis.info doesn't give any indication of its credentials - who publishes it? This is a featured article and the sourcing should be watertight. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I last questioned this one almost a year back. I still spot a lot of missing sources and I think in parts, given that it's Garland, the article isn't quite as broadly researched it could be. User:SandyGeorgia, User:Jmabel and User:Bede735, thoughts? It would be a shame to have to delist it but it really needs quite a bit of work I think to stay listed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Jmabel: I didn't mean working on it, I wanted some opinions on whether it can be salvaged and whether or not it still meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thursdon or Thurston? 219.77.82.59 ( talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Have often wondered why there is no mention of Judy Garlands oldest sister's suicide in 1964. Thought about adding myself but seemed more prudent to mention here on Talk as such a HUGE figure. But am sure that impacted her greatly. Jstevh ( talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC) [1]
References
I hope I am not premature about this, but here goes. Is it necessary to mention "widowed" in the marriage template regarding her last husband, since Garland died in 1969? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Judy Garland's third child is Joseph Wiley (Joey) Luft b. 1955. (See: Sidney Luft)[
[5]]
- BDCoop ( talk) 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
According to "Don't Shoot, it's only me" by Bob Hope and Melville Shavelson, she was a regular on his Pepsodent-sponsored show in 1939. It's on pages 54-5, though he gives her age as 15 in 1939 when she should have been 17. It's also kind of confusing about the chronology of the "Wizard of Oz" and he handles the drugs with kid gloves. I'm pretty sure the "Mexican cigarettes" are a reference to marijuana. Why no mention in the article? Shanen ( talk) 11:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
There is documented information that Judy Garland was sexually active when she was a minor and before the filming of "The Wizard of Oz." Nothing is mentioned about this in her article. I would like to know if it OK for me to add reliably sourced information about Garland's sex life when she was employed by MGM. If this information is true and verifiable, it deserves mention in the article. I decided to make this request before I added the information. Imprimatur! Anthony22 ( talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
201.214.241.209 ( talk) 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
...is regularly associated with the role in Oz that went to Garland: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. It's not just James Juneau who says it. DrKay ( talk) 08:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The bio badly needs a Persona life section. Anyone reading the last paragraph in the lead will understand why, as all of the supporting details are spread out throughout this 7,000-word article. That makes it too difficult for readers to learn more. For example, her tax problems noted in the lead are explained in The Judy Garland Show section, where few would think to look. Is there any reason why a Personal life section was left out? -- Light show ( talk) 08:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I was reading about Amazon Studios, Culver City, and I am wondering if some of those employed there have a family history that might lead to relatives who knew her as a friend or worked with her. Maybe some of these people can help make the connection. What is the best way to pursue this if it sounds reasonable? JG Research ( talk) 05:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a little confusing. It states her first "adult role". This could be easily confused as meaning "her first role in an adult film", which is of course not the case. There is a similar issue with the title of the section. I'm not sure what would be the best improvement here. IWI ( chat) 03:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says, "After her break-up with Mercer, Garland and Rose were wed on July 27, 1941. 'A true rarity' is what media called it." I don't have access to the cited source, but what does the latter sentence mean? What was, supposedly, so rare about Garland and Rose's marriage? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubbles (film).
Platonk (
talk) 15:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? I obviously oppose the notion of merging the articles. This article 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) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Judy Garland is credited with being one of the people photographed as a pinup for the YANK magazine
I can not find any reference to her being in YANK. Can anyone provide issue/date information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.202.183 ( talk) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It was a pleasure to copyedit this entry — just a comma here, a link there. Kudos to everyone who made this such a great article. Only that every Wikipedia entry could be this good and fun to read. Kinkyturnip ( talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to laud the contributors of this article for being it up to featured status, and exceptionally illustrating it w/o any usage of copyrighted imagery. That must have been a bear to find and vet all of them, and I congratulate their application. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I have never before heard it claimed that "Garland, Rooney, and other young performers were constantly given amphetamines, as well as barbiturates to take before bed". The placement of the sentence suggests that Garland was under sixteen at the time. The reference is "Judy Garland: By Myself". American Masters. 25 February 2004., which means nothing to me. Is it American Masters, a TV programme which I have essentially no chance of seeing? If this claim is "common knowledge" it should be possible to source it properly. Mr Stephen ( talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw on a documentary on TV (most likely American Masters) that Judy's abortion was coerced by the studio and her mother in order to keep her image wholesome. -- Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Judy Garland | |
---|---|
![]() Garland in
A Star Is Born (1954) |
The main image that Otto4711 keeps placing up is a cropped, blurry, grainy image of Judy Garland and not at all a good image to start of an encyclopedia biography with. In the interim we have a screen capture from "Till the Clouds Roll By" that is clearer, shows her features better and has more detail. Otto, while your enthusiasm and dedication to this article is appreciated whether or not you find the image of Judy in "Till the Clouds Roll By" attractive - or in your words - "fug-lee" - it is irrelevant when working to make this article as good as it can. If you can find a better example of the photo from a Star Is Born that is clearer, sharper, not pixellated or poorly re-cropped, please put it up - but in the meantime please leave the image from Till the Clouds... up. -- Ozgod ( talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why was my Johnny Mercer edit reverted? I can understand that it's a bit "disastrous affair" overkill in that section, but it is well sourced and interesting. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is somewhat confusing. Is it referring to Judy Garland herself? If so referring to her as the performer in the context is rather odd and confusing. She or Garland would be better. I can't check the ref easily as it's a book Nil Einne ( talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Jusda fax 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You're both long term editors. If you can't work this out, I'll block both of you. See WP:DR if you can't figure it out yourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
How could she have been a singer at two years old that needs to be changed -- GuineaPigWarrior ( talk) 21:41, 24 June, 2009 (UTC)
Judy Garland/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
![]() Garland in
A Star Is Born (1954) |
Is that (see picture to the right, which is currently the photo being used as the main photo) the clearest/best photo that anyone has that can be used here as her main photo? It is very blurry, and inferior quality for an FA article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the only objection to the Star is Born image, that it is blurry? Are there any other images in Commons that each of us is happy with as an infobox image?
Epeefleche you commented above "Unless we are trying to show people how she appeared to herself when she looked in the mirror during the times that she was drunk or strung out..." - I think you've hit upon part of the reason I don't like the Till the Clouds Roll By image. She doesn't look the way she is best remembered (although "best remembered" means a different thing to different people), and she's got the big dirty splotch of her forehead - it's not a bad image in terms of picture quality, but I don't think it depicts the most appropriate style for the infobox. I think that is somewhat what Otto has also been saying, and Otto please correct me if I'm wrong. When I have time I will go through Till the Clouds Roll By and try to find a reasonable number of screenshots, and hope that there is something in there we can use. To the best of my knowledge, it's the only Garland film to have passed into the public domain. I'm hoping that there might be at least one good image that shows her face clearly, and that doesn't "type" her to particular role, ie a nice, clear, generic face-shot. Could we leave this for now and continue discussing this when I've been able to find some alternatives? Shouldn't be more than a few days, and then perhaps we can decide on something that everyone can live with. Rossrs ( talk) 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a belated reply to Epeefleche's request on my talk page, I will say I'm glad someone replaced the image from A Star Is Born, which is indeed too blurry to use as the lead image; if possible we should replace it altogether. The one from As the Clouds Roll By is an improvement, albeit still somewhat blurry in full size. However, I could be wrong, but I somehow had the impression that a lead photo of the actress as herself, i.e. not in character, would be preferable to one of her playing a role, to emphasize the topic of the article is Judy Garland, not the characters she played. Of course, we would also have to take into account image quality of the available pictures. I don't have a strong opinion about it, and realize some other articles have lead images of the subject in character, but it's just something that makes sense to me. My $0.02. Fletcher ( talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to current langague that states: "[In] 1956, Garland performed ... for a salary of $55,000 per week, making her the highest-paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas to date." (emphasis added).
I have a few questions/problems. 1) There is no citation. There should be one.
2) What does it mean? Is the intent to say that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas at the time that she was paid that amount? If so, the language has to be fixed.
3) Does it mean instead that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas through the time the publication cited to was written? If so, the language has to be fixed.
4) Or does it mean instead that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas through the date the edit was made to this article? That is what it means. But inasmuch as we never know at the time of the article when it will be read, and if that fact will be true at that future point in time, it is un-encylopedic to make such an assertion, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. That is why when there are entries of comparable assertions they are made with reference to a date certain, such as "at the time" or "through 2008".
Otto, I know you have been reverting me without addressing the questions/comments I have made in my edits, so I am making them here instead both to avoid an edit war and so that you and others can address this. And if your answer is yet again that it must be fine as-is, because it passed an FA review, my answer is as above. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made my first edit on the subject of Garland the Dancer, and hope that it will put an end to the edit warring on the subject. Otto -- dancing was certainly part of what Garland did in her performances. I've given you five citations, and there are more to be had if necessary. The others who were adding the entry to the effect that she danced were accurate.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Both Otto and Rossrs refer above to something called a "lede". What is that?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That "appeared in vaudeville" is ungrammatical will be quite a shock to the 444,000 people who used it on web pages (including any number of Wikipedia editors) and the hundreds of published authors whose editors seem to have missed it. "Appeared in a vaudeville act" is used far, far less frequently, and it is a clunky construction. So let's refrain from fixing things that are not broken, shall we? Eddie's Teddy ( talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
"In vaudeville" is by no means incorrect, any more than it is incorrect to say that a performer appears "on television." It is in fact the traditional usage for referring to this particular genre of performance. As Danny Kaye said of his career, "You bet I arrived overnight. Over a few hundred nights in the Catskills, in vaudeville, in clubs and on Broadway." (emphasis added). Robertissimo ( talk) 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see any basis cited for saying "appeared in vaudeville" is incorrect. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just my two cents--I agree with those who don't have a problem with "appeared in vaudeville". Just as I would not have a problem with the phrase "starred on Broadway." I think both are commonly accepted and understood phrases.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands? I don't see any mention of the area in the article, although maybe I missed such a reference. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are nose discs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 ( talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Per edits by User:Tbhotch who is restoring text that was deleted using erroneous rationales: Judy Garland as gay icon is a "non-notable" article? Take this to the talkpage or you will be reported. His rationale for his edits, his first on the article, are erroneous. He did not respond to my initial detailed rationale for the original deletion which said nothing about anything being "non-notable:"
After he and User:Blake Burba, another editor who's first edits to this article likewise restored the material, I responded to both by suggesting that if they had any issue with the rationales given, they should talk rather than instinctively restore the removed text, with comments like "Seriously?" or meaningless ones like "non-notable article?" However, since they are unable to understand any of the reasons stated clearly, I'll expand on my original rationale:
The added section has corrupted her Legacy section and does not belong. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Portrayals in fiction section there is a factual error. The current line reads "End of the Rainbow (2005) featured Caroline O'Connor as Garland and Michael Cumpsty as Garland's pianist." Caroline O'Connor played the part in Edinburgh and in an Australian production, neither of which involved Michael Cumpsty. Cumpsty played Anthony Chapman, Judy's fictional pianist, in the 2012 Broadway production with Tracie Bennett as Judy. 174.57.141.216 ( talk) 16:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the main image a fitting encapsulation of the woman? I don't think so. Dorothy was a defining role, yes, but also a unique one which doesn't fit with her later image.
http://theredlist.fr/media/database/muses/icon/cinema_women/judy_garland/14-judy-garland-theredlist.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseofAcheron ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed a clause, and it's source which was simply "as she told an audience...". Since sources used in Wikipedia must be at least potentially able to be validated, and no location of this recording is given, this is not a valid source. No one can validate what you heard sixty years ago. You can refactor this with a source able to be located and validated if you wish. Wjhonson ( talk) 19:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
i love you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.72.244 ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
And once again, CastellanetaFan is creating a revert war instead of a discussion. Alright, I'll open the discussion again. So he believes the category "American mezzo-sopranos" should be there while others don't. CastellanetaFan: Do you have any reference to support this or is this WP:OR? -- Lyverbe ( talk) 11:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Virginia Gumm was one of the Gumm Sisters, a singing trio of whom another was Judy Garland. I'm not sure she was notable on her own (though I'd have thought there'd be a Gumm Sisters article), and per IMDb she was uncredited in nearly all her films, included the one cited here. I'd just have redirected but because there's the information about her vital statistics, including her husbands (apparently IMDB) I thought maybe someone would have another idea, or at least want to make a logical place in Judy Garland to copy the information to. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I can spot a fair few unsourced paragraphs, adult stardom and After MGM are especially poor and the last section is completely unsourced. This passed in 2008 but I believe if this ran for FAC today in its current condition it wouldn't pass. Please make sure it is fully (and properly) sourced and where possible bring the sourcing and content up to 2014 standards. Refs 1-5 are shocking for somebody like Garland. It also has a fair bit of POV and unencyclopedic cruft like "At age 21, she was given the "glamour treatment" in Presenting Lily Mars, in which she was dressed in "grown-up" gowns. Her lightened hair was also pulled up in a stylish fashion." Garland has dozens of books written about her and the sourcing and overall comprehension I don't believe meets 2014 standards. If there is no effort to start to bring this up to today's standards I shall be opening an FAR on this in two weeks..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I know what you mean, others (like Ghmytyle) feel the same. I have some GAs which I personally think are better than some of our older FAs but generally FAs are of a superior standard to most. The best quality article is what matters above all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A "filmography" section in this article would really be nice. Most of the articles in wikipedia on film stars have such a section.
I've reverted an addition by Utzdman55 about Bing Crosby inviting Garland onto his radio and stage shows, principally because the sourcing does not appear reliable enough. Imdb is user-generated and definitely not a reliable source. Stevenlewis.info doesn't give any indication of its credentials - who publishes it? This is a featured article and the sourcing should be watertight. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I last questioned this one almost a year back. I still spot a lot of missing sources and I think in parts, given that it's Garland, the article isn't quite as broadly researched it could be. User:SandyGeorgia, User:Jmabel and User:Bede735, thoughts? It would be a shame to have to delist it but it really needs quite a bit of work I think to stay listed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Jmabel: I didn't mean working on it, I wanted some opinions on whether it can be salvaged and whether or not it still meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thursdon or Thurston? 219.77.82.59 ( talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Have often wondered why there is no mention of Judy Garlands oldest sister's suicide in 1964. Thought about adding myself but seemed more prudent to mention here on Talk as such a HUGE figure. But am sure that impacted her greatly. Jstevh ( talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC) [1]
References
I hope I am not premature about this, but here goes. Is it necessary to mention "widowed" in the marriage template regarding her last husband, since Garland died in 1969? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Judy Garland's third child is Joseph Wiley (Joey) Luft b. 1955. (See: Sidney Luft)[
[5]]
- BDCoop ( talk) 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
According to "Don't Shoot, it's only me" by Bob Hope and Melville Shavelson, she was a regular on his Pepsodent-sponsored show in 1939. It's on pages 54-5, though he gives her age as 15 in 1939 when she should have been 17. It's also kind of confusing about the chronology of the "Wizard of Oz" and he handles the drugs with kid gloves. I'm pretty sure the "Mexican cigarettes" are a reference to marijuana. Why no mention in the article? Shanen ( talk) 11:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
There is documented information that Judy Garland was sexually active when she was a minor and before the filming of "The Wizard of Oz." Nothing is mentioned about this in her article. I would like to know if it OK for me to add reliably sourced information about Garland's sex life when she was employed by MGM. If this information is true and verifiable, it deserves mention in the article. I decided to make this request before I added the information. Imprimatur! Anthony22 ( talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
201.214.241.209 ( talk) 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
...is regularly associated with the role in Oz that went to Garland: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. It's not just James Juneau who says it. DrKay ( talk) 08:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The bio badly needs a Persona life section. Anyone reading the last paragraph in the lead will understand why, as all of the supporting details are spread out throughout this 7,000-word article. That makes it too difficult for readers to learn more. For example, her tax problems noted in the lead are explained in The Judy Garland Show section, where few would think to look. Is there any reason why a Personal life section was left out? -- Light show ( talk) 08:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I was reading about Amazon Studios, Culver City, and I am wondering if some of those employed there have a family history that might lead to relatives who knew her as a friend or worked with her. Maybe some of these people can help make the connection. What is the best way to pursue this if it sounds reasonable? JG Research ( talk) 05:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a little confusing. It states her first "adult role". This could be easily confused as meaning "her first role in an adult film", which is of course not the case. There is a similar issue with the title of the section. I'm not sure what would be the best improvement here. IWI ( chat) 03:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says, "After her break-up with Mercer, Garland and Rose were wed on July 27, 1941. 'A true rarity' is what media called it." I don't have access to the cited source, but what does the latter sentence mean? What was, supposedly, so rare about Garland and Rose's marriage? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubbles (film).
Platonk (
talk) 15:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)