Talk:Dorothy Dandridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Dorothy Dandridge is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
On a link about multi-racial celebrities, it says Dorothy Dandrige is black and white. But on this page, it says both of her parents were African American.
Contents |
[edit] Father?
Her father Cyril was an actress who played nannies in films? Sir Rhosis 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
This page has been vandalized so far back through so many edits that I'm at a loss as to what version to go back to and save. It extends back at least six or seven edits. Sir Rhosis 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] great grand niece
I can't find any reliable reference that proves there is a retired adult film actress named "Fantasy" who is also the great grand niece of Dorothy Dandridge. Every reference found in a Google search points back to older revisions of this article.
Dautermann 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Douglas gave Dandridge a voice about her handicapped child
Someone removed a fact about Dandridge on television's The Mike Douglas Show two years before she died. She talked about her handicapped child on the air. Such candor on television helped keep the supermarket tabloid press on the back burner until the late 1970s, when people got insanely curious about Elvis' downfall.
The Mike Douglas fact had been in the article a long time. I restored it. Does anyone have a problem with that ? Immediately before I restored it, another contributor "fixed the maintenance tags and gen fixes using AWB." If I messed that up, I apologize. Anyone know how to put them back ? I don't. Please leave the Douglas fact in the article. Dooyar (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you didn't "restore" the Mike Douglas material, you completely reverted the article back to the last revision that you made. Had you looked closer, you'd have found that the paragraph wasn't even removed from the article, it was moved to the personal life section and the citations tag was added to the article. However, when you rolled back the article, as you are wont to do,
As I am wont to do ? I consider that a personal attack. Wikipedia guidelines forbid that. Dooyar (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, if you would like, I can provide a score of diffs that show that rather than edit an article when someone else comes in and edits after you, that your practice is to rollback all the edits to the last one that you made, rather than move from the newest edit.. It's a fact. And it's disruptive editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
you removed the citations needed maintenance tags, removed spelling error corrections, removed the corrected format of the books section, and undid rearrangement of sections that were in a more cohesive sequence. Don't make complete reversions in this manner and hide them under a deceptive "Restored Mike Douglas Show" tag. Despite that I moved the paragraph, there are huge issues with it.
The only fact in that paragraph was that Dandridge appeared on the show and discussed her child. The rest of the paragraph, in absence of definitive references (and indeed, this is true of other portions of this article) is conjecture and speculation. The paragraph read as follows, and I am inserting my comments in italics after each sentence:
Those who have endured similar ordeals point out that Dandridge's devastating experience with raising a mentally handicapped child was probably the straw that broke her back emotionally.
Who pointed this out? Where did this come from? For that matter, from what authority does the experience of raising a mentally handicapped child yield an emotional break? This contains weasel words (see WP:WEASEL).
It's interesting to note, however, that the actress openly discussed the issue on The Mike Douglas Show, videotaped in her hometown of Cleveland, in 1963.
It's interesting to whom? Why is it interesting? Why wouldn't she discuss her child, did it break a precedent?
Yes, it did break a precedent. Discussing mentally handicapped children was considered too controversial for TV talk shows in the 1950s and early 1960s. Shows hosted by Jack Paar and Johnny Carson avoided the topic that far back. Someone might come up with a Carson episode that discussed it in the 1970s, but that's not 1963, which is when Dandridge did it. Mike Douglas started his show in 1961. Dooyar (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- You ignore the point. We do not put in wording such as "It's interesting to note" since that is a POV comment and also a weasel word phrase. It's against WP policy. The point is, this section is to discuss her appearance on the show and what she said and discussed, hence it is supposed to address that, not the Mike Douglas Show. It is up to the reader to determine if it is interesting, not the editor who writes this, as that is a violation of NPOV.
As is the case with nearly all TV talk shows from that era, the video and audio of Dandridge's remarks are gone; however, a newspaper wire service report summarizing what she said on the program survives.
Wow, that's great. Then why does the paragraph not address what she said? Why does it talk about Mike Douglas instead and not Dandridge's comments on this subject??
Because "it" is too lazy to find the article for free in "Access Newspaper Archive," which is available in many public libraries including those of Los Angeles city. Dooyar (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you are referring to me as being too lazy to find an article in the Access Newspaper Archive, then that is unquestionably a personal attack and is done in absence of any knowledge you have of me in any way, shape or form. Please desist from making such remarks. If you are referring to the paragraph, as I was, then you should know a Wikipedia article cannot go look up information on its own. It falls to the editor who contributed the information to provide the citation for the report that is being referenced.
- What you fail to answer is the outright point that this paragraph does not address Dorothy Dandridge's remarks on the Mike Douglas show or indeed, what she said about the experience or her feelings about it, which might lend credence to the paragraph. Instead it is only used to give props to the Mike Douglas show, which is not in the scope of the Dorothy Dandridge article. If you have gone to the library and have the source which you are using, then write about IT, not the Mike Douglas Show. If not, it is unsourced information subject to being removed.
Despite the tragic loss of so many Mike Douglas episodes from 1961 - 1967, it is known that the candor of his guests, Dandridge included, kept the invasion of celebrities' privacy on the back burner until the late 1970s.
Who determined this was tragic? Using the word tragic is also a weasel word. Where did the supposition that his interviews kept the tabloids at bay come from? It is known to whom? Who said that? All of this requires 1) citations that substantiate that it was Mike Douglas' show that was instrumental in keeping them at bay, and 2) citations that actually substantiate that they were at bay. Finally, this is material for the Mike Douglas article, it's barely relevant to Dorothy Dandridge at all, save for her appearance on that show.
This isn't the forum for an essay on the effects of her child on Dandridge's emotional state nor on the relative effect the Mike Douglas show had on tabloid journalism. IF there was material that addressed just what it was that Dandridge said about her child and the issues involved, it would belong in the personal life section, and only so far as could be cited. The entire section has severe issues in this respect. Nearly the entire article contains issues like this and they simply must have references to support their remaining in the article. This isn't a new issue. I will leave time for proper citations to be added to this article, but I won't leave it intact forever, policy says to remove unsourced material that is questionable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting complete article
I went through the article and corrected capitalization, spelling and style issues such as formatting dates and wikilinking them, and formatting the books section correctly by Wikipedia guidelines. I moved one paragraph regarding an interview Dandridge gave on a Mike Douglas show to the section on personal life, since the child was being discussed in that section. In addition, I tagged the entire article for reference improvement. Another editor, Dooyar, came in once and completely reverted the article to a version prior to all of these corrections, giving the rationale of "I insist Mike Douglas should return..." As outlined above, the material was not removed. Apparently without even referring to this page, Dooyar came in again today and once more reverted the entire article back to the version with all of the errors included, with the edit summary of "You do the maintenance tags. I'll add "The Mike Douglas Show." If you want a footnote, how come you're not asking for footnotes anywhere else in the article ? There are few." I outlined the problems I saw with the specific paragraph which Dooyar insists I removed. That does not detract from similar issues, as I said above, throughout the article, with absence of citations and other problems. I am outlining this now and will take further arbitrary rollbacks to be examples of disruptive editing WP:DE and will be dealt with as such under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead paragraph
The lead paragraph is supposed to be used as a brief summary of the article, as it exists. I've tagged 5 claims in the lead paragraph which, if discussed in the article, would likely be notable firsts in Dandridge's career. However, there is no citation for any of those claims, and further, are not discussed in the article whatsoever. They do need to be addressed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, the Oscar and Life mag cites are prob only important. I'm glad you tagged them, twas pretty maddenning focusing only on her race. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A day at the races
I'm removing the claim that Dandridge sang a solo in "All God's Chillun Got Rhythm". IMDB lists her as an uncredited performer in that number, but the singer was Ivie Anderson, not Dandridge.
Bethnewt (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Adding Material From 1988 Washington Post Profile Including Gerry Branton
I hope other editors retain the material I added from a long Washington Post profile of Dandridge that was published for Black History Month in 1988. Post writer Cynthia Gorney interviewed Dandridge's close friend Gerry Branton for the piece. I included Branton's recollection that Dandridge sang Barbra Streisand's song People during a telephone conversation they had very shortly before Dandridge died.
I also added, using Ms. Gorney's Post article as a source, the fact that Peter Lawford was scheduled to deliver the eulogy at Dandridge's funeral but he backed out.
Additionally, I removed an extra use of the word "paid" in the section titled "Hollywood Research, Inc." I tightened up the sentence to make it clear that tabloid magazines published by that company paid working-class people in Los Angeles for juicy stories on celebrities, and many of these leads turned out to be false and libelous. They included the false story that Dandridge fornicated in the woods of Lake Tahoe, Nevada with a white man in 1950. The strict racial segregation in Nevada at the time meant that Dandridge would have been arrested for leaving her hotel. Nyannrunning (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
