Talk:Friend of Dorothy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion before considering re-nomination:

Contents


[edit] Young Queens Just Don't Know

I included the source. The origins are from WWII, not the Wizard of Oz and not Judy Garland. Dorothy PARKER dears, and not because she had a "lot of gay friends". Read the reference listed, "Coming Out Under Fire" by Alan Berube, (or at least watch the DVD) and let the story be told already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleyPartridge (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your persuasiveness would be bolstered by avoiding the assumptions that all those editing the article are young and/or queens. Adding phrases like young gays isn't very encyclopedic. Benjiboi 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well then, young straights know even LESS, apparently. The term "queen", much like the term "Friend Of Dorothy" is also "gay slang", and used quite appropriately here. The misconception I refer to isn't directed only at the editors of this article, it is because young GBLT people dont have much access to any kind of formal or written history, and are starved of this type of information. I don't care wether you're gay or not. It is very important to get it correct, and not perpetuate the "Dorothy from the Wizard Of Oz" tale, already a very common misconception, even AMONG GAY PEOPLE. I have to assume you are interested in telling the truth here. Given your stellar track record, I would only hope that you would be grateful that someone finally presented the facts, and a reliable source of information to this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.141.106.255 (talk • contribs), 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well let's start by sticking with improving the article here everything else will have to be dealt with elsewhere. There's no reason both viewpoints can't be presented and everything should be sourced and presented neutrally. Chronologically Dorothy Parker has the edge for existing first in a popular sense (although the book of Oz might pre-date her); however it is slang for an underground culture so (as far as I know) no class or gay 101 history book was handed out to ensure that the two common legends didn't dovetail with the Wizard of Oz (having more enduring and universal appeal) became the standard meaning with the origins being lost. as everyone agrees there is confusion and the two can be presented together with either proof as to the correct origins or compelling reasons why both are considered acceptable. In either case we present verifiable facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions when multiple interpretations are possible. Benjiboi 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I believe I presented proof. The book and documentary both contain interviews with gay men who served in WWII, and who speak directly to the venacular adopted from Mrs Parker's writings. But there is no "proof" that "Friends of Dorothy" has anything to do with "Dorothy Gale". This is simply a popular myth, created by people who didn't have access to the truth. It isn't about presenting two differing "viewpoints", and telling "Both" stories in the same article is not acceptable, since only one is what actually happened, and the other is incorrect. I included the The Wizard of Oz story, explaining that it was a popular belief, but not the actual origin of the expression. I gave you the actual origin, and a direct source where you can verify it. I have given you some answers here, answers that have been missing from this article (and from Our History) for some time. I am very disheartened that you are not receiving this vital piece of Gay/Lesbian History with even a modicum of appreciation. The complete disconnect between older and younger gay people is precisely how this type of misunderstanding got created in the first place. If your interest is in "improving" the article, as you say, then we should probably start with the actual truth. I mean, do you think I made this up? What do you gain by trying to perpetuate a total misunderstanding? Why dont you read the book first, or at least watch the documentary before you continue this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.106.255 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
ShirleyPartridge (great name, by the way--why don't you registewr it?), we actually checked the book out of a library to verify the source you provided, and could not find it under any index heading. The material you provided will be reincluded, though perhaps in another form to compliment the Garland material, after one of us reads the entire book to find the reference. Beleive it or not, we did assume good faith, which you might see if you looked at my edit summary when I reverted your edits. However, I must say that the book seems to be only oral history, and is thus merely anecdotal evidence. Many of us have searched for the source of the term many times, without success. Thank you for giving us another avenue to explore. Lastly, please do not personalize this issue by making it about "older gays vs. younger gays". It neither helps resolve this issue nor contributes to a productive working atmosphere. Jeffpw 06:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The misundertanding of "Dorothy from Kansas" having something to do with "Friends of Dorothy" absolutely DOES have to do with generational issues, I did not "make it" so, as you suggest. Young people do not have access to formal gay and Lesbian history in general, and I urge you not to perpetuate this myth. Your insistence on merely complimenting "the Garland material" is arrogant to say the least, given you have absolutely no reliable sources to prove that is the origin of the expression. Many of us grew up understanding that this was a reference to Dorothy from Kansas, but there is a much richer and more important truth to be told here. We urge you do research this and get the facts, and to make sure that you do not continue to mis-educate people. Meanwhile we will be monitoring this situation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.141.106.255 (talk • contribs), 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, lady, you're getting off on the wrong foot here. We have refs which support BOTH Parker and Garland as the source of the term, so I'll thank you to stop being so condescending. The only arrogance I see is yours, thinking that nobody took the time to research before writing. As it happens, edits were not reverted until AFTER somebody went to the library, checked out the book, and couldnt find the damn ref you claimed. now she is reading the entire book cover to cover to find it. Maybe you could provide a page number? We don't actually need it, as we have other online sources for the Parker claim now, but you would spare us some extra work if you could. And allow me to point out that the only queen I see here is you--what the hell is up with that usage of the "Royal We"? Jeffpw 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here in good faith, I corrected a longstanding error. You reverted my edits, speaking very condescendingly to the evidence I gave you. Since Wikipedia is a community-based encyclopedia I understand that people will make mistakes. I see NO references that support Friends of Dorothy deriving from the Wizard of Oz. None, no proof whatsoever. Your only proof is that you believe it to be so. Your investment in maintaining this myth is disturbing, especially given the length of time that this incorrect version has existed. I would think you would be receptive to someone who knows this history, and anxious to clear it up. And since you want to get nasty and call me arrogant and a queen, then dont expect this exchange to get any more pleasant. You have hardly presented yourself as credible or as an ally to the integrity of Wikipedia. Meanwhile you keep sabatoging the article, deleting the published reference I provided and then adding a "no references" tag. Clearly this is not appropriate WIKI behavior. Not sure who appointed you HQIC, but WE - that is to say MY FRIENDS AND I - will do what we can to make sure that this article maintains it's integrity.And by the way, since apparently you have been without any reliable sources for this article for some time, your welcome.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.141.106.255 (talk • contribs), 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sticking to just the issues I did a google book search and was quickly able to find dozens of references that support the wizard of OZ ref and only two that kind of supported the Dorothy Parker version. Others have also been trying to pinpoint something more definitive and have generally been gracious about letting the article remain flawed but well-meaning while the issue is verified. I personally now belief that Parker was the original source but when the Wizard of Oz movie came along many who weren't clued into the coded language from the literatti of New York presumed that it referenced Oz and even used it as such having no idea who Parker was. Just as we walk down streets named for generals and attend schools named after presidents that we have a lack of understanding. It's good to be able to offer that information and since we have sources for both these they should both be discussed so people can learn. If we write a good article hopefully we'll inspire people to read the articles about both Dorothy's. You and your friends (ideally each with their own separate account and acting independently (see WP:SOCK)) are welcome to edit as is everyone. Be prepared that everything is public property and will be mercilessly edited. It can be a protracted painful process but sometimes goes much smoother. In all cases feel free to ask for help and if you find any sources that people can see online (without getting an actual book or renting a video) even better. Please keep in mind that people edit this website worldwide so sometimes an online reference is ideal so that anyone can look at it to verify what exactly is stated. Benjiboi 09:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a roundabout way of saying that you now understand that what I've told you is true? As far as preferring online sources, it strikes me that not everything thats printed on the internet is reliable or credible, just as the frivolous sources which were listed for this article demonstrate. Also, given the nature of this information, much of what is currently printed on the internet will likely reflect the misconceived "Dorothy from Kansas" version. Since you've described a shortage of reliable information for this article, I'm glad to have been able to provide a more definitive and reliable resource. It seems reasonable that a book and film containing interviews with WWII soldiers speaking directly about this phenomenon provides a more reliable source than something like "Cruise Critic". Based on the great work I see you've been doing on Wikipedia, I trust you appreciate this also, as well as the importance of distinguishing between the true culture and humor that this term actually evolved from, and the faux "Wizard of Oz" folklore that developed around it. If I've read your meaning and your intent correctly, I am confident that you will help us keep this article honest and true. Thank you Benjiboi, and keep up all the great work you have been doing for Our community. ShirleyPartridge 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleyPartridge (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Well, firstly thank you for the compliment, I do try. Secondly there are quite a few folks who are also looking into this to keep it accurate and I can assure you that everyone's basic goal is to write a great article. Language changes over time with words changing meaning, significance and coming in and going out of usage. Online sources can be just as good as printed ones and are often the very same. Very soon we'll be seeing the emergence of virtual books solely available as downloads or online so just as TV was added and changed radio we should accept that media also change with time. I am presently working on another article but my hunch until proven otherwise is that Parker is the original with Oz overtaking it thus both are perfectly valid, source-able and should peacefully co-exist. There are many ways to do this without disparaging youth or people not up on literary circles, trade, trolls or other earthly offerings. The Oz etymology is just as valid as that is the only meaning to many (possibly the majority) and can be presented as such with the Parker etymology being the true origin. The use of "younger gays" seems a bit disparaging and inaccurate as all are younger until you're the oldest one and by then you probably don't care. I'll leave a welcome message on your talk if no one else has with links to all sorts of goodies and know that no one's interested in this gem getting terribly soiled and worse comes to worse we can track the history and revive and old version if we need to so nothing is truly lost. Benjiboi 11:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but remember the reason both etymology's exist is because one was invented in the absence of the other. The challenge in presenting both is that one is the actual truth, and the other a cultural adaptation created in the other's absence. I believe the revisions I made already explain that distinction, without excluding the "Dorothy from Kansas" reference completely. I do believe that context is critical to understanding its origin and cultural evolution. In other words, you can't really explain the "Dorothy from Kansas" version without explaining how it actually came to be. And for that you need to start with the boys in WWII. I used the term "younger gays" to simply illustrate why most people don't know the actual history of this term. (In this case it refers pretty much to anyone born after WWII.) To state that the the "Oz" version is "no less valid" than the "WWII" version is really not true at all. It may be more popular, but it simply isn't where the term came from. As I referenced in the article, there was an entire vernacular that emerged during this period, derived by these men from the writings of Dorothy Parker. "Friend Of Dorothy" was just part of "the code". Some of the remnants of that vernacular still exist today, and that context is critical to this article. ShirleyPartridge 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Have to chime in here, although I'm a little scared to do so...It is I (30'sish lesbo) who checked the reference you provided, ShirleyPartridge. I couldn't find any reference to "Friend of Dorothy" in the Berube book's index, referring to either Judy Garland or Dorothy Parker. So instead of reading the book last night (due to my slackerism), I did a search on the term through an academic search engine and came up with claims that support both derivations: that the term is associated with Judy Garland and with Dorothy Parker. So at the moment, until either one of us can provide the exact phrasing from a source that says this is the first instance the phrase was ever used, it should be written something like, "Sources support the association of the term mostly with Judy Garland,(provide references) although the phrase has also been traced to Dorothy Parker."(provide reference)
If you've read the Berube book, ShirleyPartridge, can you help out with where the information is in the book? Indeed, I am lazy, but I am working on The Ladder, Daughters of Bilitis, Birmingham campaign, The Yearling, and Everglades National Park at once. I have a lot of books to read right now. --Moni3 13:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh! And the Berube reference, if applicable, should be in the article as <ref>Berube, Allan. ''Coming Out Under Fire: the History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two''; Free Press, 1990.</ref>, and shouldn't be visible in the article until the references/notes section.--Moni3 13:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh my Goodness, telling this story should not be so exasperating. If I understand you correctly, you did not read the book, yet somehow still conclude that Judy Garland is the original source of "Friends Of Dorothy". Further, that the article should reflect Dorothy Parker and WWII as some kind of secondary reference? I do not have a copy of the book handy to give you the page numbers. It is not necessary for you or any other Wikipedian to take on the task of reading entire sources, but since you're taking this almost as seriously as I am, I suggest you give it up to the people who were THERE. So much of this has been lost to history, but fortunately SOMEONE took the initiative to document some of this before they've all passed away. If it is such a problem to read the book, then just watch the documentary, and see these men speak about it. I'm becoming exhausted with this process, it seems no one is really interested in what really happened. Of COURSE there are numerous articles online that will support the "Judy Garland" idea, thats the story that developed in the ABSENCE of this one. That DOESN'T mean its the truth. If you are Gay and Lesbian people then you already KNOW the vacuum of information available to Us about Us in the largely heterosexual culture. It is not hard to see how the wrong story got attached to this phrase over the past 50 years. I simply tried to share something important to Our history in this forum before it is lost forever. I mean even without the book or the documentary, it shouldn't take much to figure out that I'm telling you the truth. Which makes more sense? There is a rich and intriguing history attached to the term, including an entire way of speaking. The critical points I've made here have been glossed right over. I am truly wondering why I bothered to try and share this here. This just feels like a complete lack of respect for those who came before. ShirleyPartridge 13:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Let me point out that I entered this discussion only because I have access to the book, which as I pointed out, I haven't read. Yet. Sometimes the Wikipedia process is indeed exasperating, I will give you that. I also wonder why I bother sometimes. However, I have no opinion on where the phrase came from, only what I found in the search I did last night. Two sources printed in the New York Times support the Judy Garland association. I didn't write either of them. One source from the Los Angeles Times supports the Dorothy Parker association. I have to disagree with your claim that no one is interested in what really happened. Actually, this is quite a spat to be having over a phrase, instead of an article of much higher importance say, the quality of the article on the Stonewall Riots, or the facts of the article on Eleanor Roosevelt. After reading the history of lame edit wars, it puts into perspective what's really worth all the time and effort all of us put into the combined knowledge of Wikipedia.
Reminding myself that it's a phrase...I'm reading your reference you mentioned. No other editor has ever done such a thing for any article I've worked on. I could claim space aliens started the Daughters of Bilitis for the purpose of impregnating lesbians to start a super race of lesbian feminists, and unless someone asks me to prove it and they check my sources, it can be in the article. Someone cares enough about this phrase - that's a phrase, mind you - to check sources. If you give me the name of the documentary you mention and I have access to it, I will watch it and reference it in the article. And I point to myself as evidence to negate your claim that no one cares about those who came before them; the majority of my (kickass) contributions are to pre-Stonewall lesbian life in the US. We're actually a pretty good crew of editors here at WP:LGBT studies. --Moni3 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(Reset indent) I have revised the first two paragraphs to make it clear that history shows two different origins for the term, both with sources and supporters. Quite frankly, as with many such terms, it is probably lost in the mist of time who actually was responsible for the origin.
Two points: First, I do not agree that this is a lame internet debate. While in the great scheme of things there are probably weightier subjects to consider, such terms give life to our history, and Mrs. partridge is quite right to be concerned that Wikipedia gets it right. We have been marginalized enough by the larger society, and have a right to have a factual representation of who we are and where we (and our language) came from. Secondly, directly to Mrs. Partridge: I apologize if I offended you. That was truly not my intention, and I probably shouldn't edit before I have my coffee. As somebody who is also no longer young, I have enormous respect for those older than myself who helped to give me the rights I currently enjoy. I hope we can collegially edit in the future, and that you both register here and join the LGBT studies project. We could certainly use your experience to improve this encyclopedia. Jeffpw 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In that oral histories get lost over time and this is an attempt to recapture one of them, that is not lame. I wouldn't be participating if I thought the topic was stupid. In that so much discussion, effort, and frustration is expressed over a phrase when articles of much higher importance and impact have no discussion or little effort involved in them is kinda lame. But then, I get to contribute to those articles all by myself - clearly I'm involved in a free pseudo-anonymous online encyclopedia for the glory. Jeffpw, you're probably right that the actual derivation of the phrase is either lost or so vague that it's not possible anymore to discern where and why it started. That doesn't mean we have to abandon the search, though. The Berube book is actually pretty interesting. I may end up using it for other articles, even if I don't find information on this subject. I'm the first person to check the book out of the library, too, btw. Seventeen years after it was published... --Moni3 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, which tells you a little something about the why you find so many "articles" telling the Judy Garland version and so few telling how it actually came to be. But the true source for "Friends Of Dorothy" is known, and Mrs. Partridge gave you not one but two comprehensive references. Much stronger than any of the articles that had been used to support this one. A published book and documentary film including interviews with men who were actually there make much more sense to me also. I happen to know she is right, and personally if I were an editor for Wikipedia I would be a little more eager to tell that story, especially as a gay or lesbian contributor. In fact I would delete the entire Dorothy Gale/Judy Garland reference since we do know that is not where the expression came from. Some of you have skipped right past most of the insights she gave you, responding with sheer arrogance. I dont believe she will return here. No one even read the book or watched the film, yet just look at this exchange and the history tab shows quite a battle also. This does little for the credibility of any Wikipedia article as far as I'm concerned, why bother if any old schmuck of an editor can come along and screw it up? She provided the sources as required. I really don't know how one gets to become a wikepedia editor, but if you guys aren't interested in telling the real story then that is a shame. Many of us still do know where "Friends Of Dorothy" and that whole language came from, wether you wish to access it or not.
Because you posted this, this makes you a Wikipedia editor. One's qualifications include access to the internet. That's all. It's pretty mind-boggling, isn't it? So...I'm reading the book, because I had always thought the same - it referred to Judy Garland. Did I miss the name of the documentary? I'm sorry we can't take your word for it. --Moni3 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I think the documentary or possibly other oral histories will be key here and we simply need some good documenting (actual quotes in context, properly cited sources) so we can definitively state something like "first-hand accounts report.." etc. We'll get there and no one seems to want anything but accuracy. Benjiboi 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ms. Dorothy

Sheesh. Ms. Dorothy ran a boardinghouse in Kansas that was friendly to our sort. I couldn't remember the details, thought I would find them here. Update to follow? Sorry this is my first attempt to edit a wiki and i may not have the process down. It has nothing to do with our patron saint Judy Garland - it's a much older term. posted by user:65.29.85.230 (moved here from article by Exploding Boy July 4, 2005 00:04 (UTC)).

[edit] Did it?

I read on snopes.com a while back the claim that the term originated during wwii and was used in Europe to identify friend in hostile areas.

[edit] ...or consider this:

(from me, a newish Wikipedian:) I don't know who wrote the above but of late I've been thinking it probably started with Dorothy Parker who was said to welcome gay men to her legendary parties in her Harlem apartment(?), but that the slang term made more sense to gays nationally to have something to do with "Dorothy" from Oz. I'm hoping the contributor mentioning a boarding house in Kansas could elaborate. (The coincidence with Kansas of The Wizard of Oz, [just for starters], makes me question that.) I haven't been able to find the reference mentioned above on Snopes.com. There is another possibility methinks: could it have had to do with Billy Tipton?, (born Dorothy), since it has been written that his/her fellow jazz performers knew she was a female as far back as 1935. Can we get this sorted out? It could be of national importance. ;-) dowser 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard this origin before... Kyaa the Catlord 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

I haven't seen anything either on the article page or discussion page that looks like a contradiction to me. I'm changing the tag from a contradiction claim to an accuracy dispute. Gbm85 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tag removed

I removed the dispute tag after rephrasing the paragraph containing various claims to the term's origin. The term's origins are unknown. Various theories abound. No one knows for sure. If a citation can be given for an origin then we have a different situation. --SFDan 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dorothy Parker and The Wizard of Oz

It seems quite plausible that in New York society of the 1930s, "friend of Dorothy" might come to be a shorthand phrase for pegging a man as gay, given Dorothy Parker's reputation for having many gay friends (and a gay husband or two). If the phrase already carried this meaning when the The Wizard of Oz, came out in 1939, the effect of its use in the movie would be electrifying for those already "in the know." And yet, the association of the term with the movie could easily come to swamp prior associations. For virtually everyone has seen The Wizard of Oz. Sadly, far fewer of us remember Dorothy Parker.

It may be noted that Yip Harburg, who wrote the lyrics and apparently much of the screenplay for the movie, knew Dorothy Parker and was a member of the very social circles in which the phrase "friend of Dorothy" may already have had currency. See Yip Harburg, Rhymes for the Irreverent p. 226 (Freedom From Religion Foundation, 2006) ("I was very intimate with Ira [Gershwin] . . . . We both knew Dorothy Parker."); ISBN-10: 1877733156; ISBN-13: 978-1877733154.

This, of course, raises the delicious possibility that Harburg deliberately planted a double entendre in the movie's screenplay -- one that was instantly recognizable to erudite homosexuals of the day, and that therefore immediately cemented the association of the phrase with the character played in the movie by Judy Garland, for them and for generations to come. Eric Alan Isaacson 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth remembering that Dorothy Gale existed before Judy Garland. The book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published in 1900, and followed up by a 1902 stage play which was a huge theatrical success and toured for years. I don't know whether "Oz" had any particular cachet with gay men before the '39 film, but it's possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You are more than correct, the term "Friend Of Dorothy" actually does NOT stem from "The Wizard Of Oz". That is a common misconception, created largely by young gays who did not have access to it's actual history. "Friend Of Dorothy", among a number of other terms, became code for gay men serving in the U.S. and British military during World War II. Much of her venacular was used by gay men who began social networking during this period. Some expressions, like "Friend Of Dorothy" have survived even to this day. However entrenched in a youth-oriented culture and surrounded by a larger homophobic culture, it is entirely likely that without access to these now elderly men, few understand it's origin. Hence the fictional association with Judy Garland, another gay icon. There is a book called "Coming Out Under Fire" which is taken from interviews of many of the men who served. There is also a documentary by the same name, which explains Dorothy's role in the language that many gay men in WWII brought back home with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.141.106.255 (talk • contribs), 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that is a fascinating premise, but even harder to cite specific references than Dorothy Parker/WWII Gay networking story.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:75.7.31.204 (talk • contribs), 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That "Friend of Dorothy" would be used among servicemen during the Second World War seems to me entirely consistent with the notion that the term gained widespread currency on account of the reference to "Friends of Dorothy" the Wizard of Oz, a blockbuster movie that was released in 1939 -- a couple of years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But I also believe that the term likely had meaning before that in a smaller circle, quite likely as a reference to Dorothy Parker's many gay friends. Eric Alan Isaacson (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
One more time: The term itself "Friends Of Dorothy", and associated vernacular, derived from the writings of Dorothy Parker, and was used by servicemen during the war. The sources listed by Shirley Partridge should have cleared this up by now. The Wizard Of Oz really had nothing to do with the term , it is simply a popular misconception, something that evolved later by people who heard it being used, but did not know its actual origin. This has been explained several times on this and the other talk page by different people, dating back at least as far as 2005. There is no good reason to repress this information any longer. The term was simply one of many taken from Dorothy Parker's writings and used by gay men during the War. If Dorothy from Kansas is going to be included in this article at all, it certainly should not be listed first, and it should be explained that the "Dorothy from Kansas" theory is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.106.255 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Shirley's friend: Moni3 is reading the book used as a reference, and has not as yet come to the passage you cite. We have many refs saying Oz is the source, as well as sources saying Parker was the source. So both are cited. The article makes this abundantly clear. I'm sorry if the article offends you. Jeffpw (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yah, I'm about 75% through the book and haven't yet found any use of the term at all. Although one very interesting chapter on drag queens in the military...fascinating. --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, between Moni, Benji and Jeff and none of yall have read the book yet, after all that. Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.106.255 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That was a noncommittal way to say...something, although I'm not sure what it is. Have you actually read the book? Are you able to point to the chapter or page this information is in? That would be most helpful. Otherwise, I'm going to suggest we stick with the sources we have, that unfortunately point towards Judy again. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Out of courtesy and respect we have excercised patience with this process. Since you have no more "authority" over this article than us, we see no reason to continue to wait for you investigate sources. This is no more your job than ours, and since you have done nothing in our absence to address this disgraceful error, we will have to correct it ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.63.250 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:3RR before you start to declare war here. Jeffpw (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources/references

Hey all, i bet we can find the nuances or even the true etymolgy but that yellow brick road will be paved with good references. If anyone has solid books, articles or ? to help prove any aspects it would be good to add them to the mix. Benjiboi 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading something about it in Out of the Past: Gay And Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present (ISBN 1555838707, according to Amazon), but it's been a while and I don't have it on hand. Might be a source for anyone who has it handy (or I could get it out of the library). Kolindigo 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Another source saying it was in reference to gay men who worked with Judy Garland on the set of Oz and as actors. Benjiboi 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have source listing them side-by-side. Gay-2-Zee: A Dictionary of Sex, Subtext, and the Sublime, By Donald F. Reuter Benjiboi 04:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also: Friend of Oscar

Apparently Oscar Wilde had a similar set of friends. Benjiboi 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No Benjiboi--that would be Oscar Madison, not Oscar Wilde. Young Queens these days....:-D Jeffpw (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It could also be Oscar the Grouch loosely based on Oscar Madison but I think the references will have to speak truth to reality there as well. Benjiboi 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berube book reference

I removed the reference to Alan Berube's book after reading it and finding no reference to a Friend of Dorothy in it. Benjiboi reverted my edit and replaced it, but it remains - the book does not address the topic. So I don't know why it is still part of the article. Any input? --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons. It's to support the sentence "With World War II gay men and lesbian women served throughout the services and traveled worldwide, potentially spreading the phrase through oral history." And it's a good text for someone looking for further information on the subject of how LGBT culture operated (use of coded language, etc.) Benjiboi 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But the book does not mention the phrase. By keeping the book as a citation, we're alluding to the fact that it does. You can use the book to confirm that gay men and lesbians served in WWII, but not that they used or spread the term "Friend of Dorothy". As it stands now, the citation is misleading. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the sentence be reworked then as teh book covers the subject of the article (coded language of LGBT people) in the time frame of concern to the etymology and development. If the sentence was reworked or split then? Benjiboi 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
oK this has gone on long enough, I could simply spit. Since reading the book has been such an uphill climb, let me provide you with this little video clip. Given all I've said, it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are more "sources" citing Judy Garland, so I dont know how that supports that misconception. In my opinion, a film of someone who was actually there in WW II usurps any number of those "sources". Of course thats just my opinion darling. Here is your link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84VxhLlEXlcMuch love...ShirleyPartridge (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well hello Miss Partridge and thank you for sharing that, however it too doesn't mention the phrase "Friend of Dorothy" but simply supports that it certainly could be a source for it. Benjiboi 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What a team! Your quest to tell Our history is phenomenal. Your research skills are unsurpassed, and your passion to tell the truth unrivaled! You Go Gurl!ShirleyPartridge (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm one person although when the voices in my head tell me to redecorate it can seem like a team! In any case My statement was sincere and still acuurate, the video clip did not state "Friend of Dorothy" at all although it did reference how at least one WWII vet and his friends emulated her by peppering their letters with terms such as "darling" and "spit". It's a great source but we can only use it to back up what it states, otherwise we cross into original research. If we were writing a magazine article fine, but we're not. Benjiboi 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Shirley covered all that several times over, you are not getting it. That clip alone is far more evidence of the origin of "Friends of Dorothy" than any of the articles citing Judy Garland/Dorothy Gale. Ask yourself, do ANY of articles claiming that this comes from Dorothy from Kansas explain in any credible way how this vernacular came to be? It really doesn't matter if he actually says "Friends of Dorothy" in this clip, it is obvious. This isn't rocket science. Moreover, NONE of those "Judy Garland" sources provide any credible "proof" of its origin, in fact none even attempt to explain it. They simply claim that it "is". That clip is the only evidence I've seen that actually explains it's development. And calling it a "coded language" is incorrect. It was a vernacular used among friends, a way of speaking with each other derived from one of their favorite writers, Dorothy Parker. All in good fun, though no doubt it was used in secret as well. Those who used it were the original "Friends of Dorothy". Thank you Shirley for posting that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.116.185 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Look Mr. Anonymous IP, you're just not getting it. In the first place, some anecdote by a former military person is not a reliable source. Further, to use that would be original research. We need reliable secondary sources, such as articles in newspapers or magazines, or books which say this clearly. And it does matter if the term Friend of Dorothy is used or not. This article is, obviously about Friend of Dorothy. Your friend Shirley was badgering us to use "Coming out under fire" as a source for this term. Assuming you were editing in good faith, one of use read the book cover to cover, only to find the term isn't even mentioned. Unless you have hard evidenmce which states this, we won't be changing the article any further. And if you make changes yourself, prepare to have your sources double checked. Jeffpw (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, who in the hell do you think you are? First of all, you dont speak for me, so leave the "We" out of it! I agree with Shirley, Coming Out Under Fire is far more of a credible source than any of your so-called Judy Garland "articles" because of it's very nature: It is the only source presented that speaks to the origin of the term. Looks to me like Shirley and her friends? have excercised patience by not changing the article and instead using this discussion forum to argue her position. Meanwhile your "team" appears to have an agenda which doesnt really have anything to do with finding legitimate "sources", since none of the articles listed as "sources" speak to the origin of this term. So apparently, there are others who don't agree with you, and who believe that this source is the only source presented so far that actually speaks to the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.180.169 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Really good point. It isn't about quantity it is about quality. The source Shirley presented has integrity because it actually talks from first person perspective about how the Friends Of Dorothy came to be. None of the "Garland" sources do that, nor could they, really, at least not in any believable way.Beatmakerz (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Indent reset:You might want to read WP:3RR before you start to declare war here. You're claim that "we won't be changing the article any further" suggests you think you are the only one(s)?? entitled to do so. This would be mistake dear, and I suggest you check your arrogance. You do not have a right to “control” a Wikipedia article, especially if the consensus is that it be changed. I suggest you do as I have done here, and try to use this forum to come to a consensus. You could start, Miss Jeff, by speaking to the issue presented: There are absolutely no sources listed that explain how Dorothy Gale/Judy Garland became the “Friend of Dorothy”. The way I see it, this clip from the documentary “Coming Out Under Fire” is the only credible source presented here so far.
Sources listed that claim “Dorothy from Kansas” is the origin, and a few speculative articles imagining how that “might have” come about, but none of them explain its origin. This interview is taken from a documentary film interviewing Gay veterans of WWII. The man explains how he and his other gay friends began using Dorothy Parker’s vernacular in their communication with each other, and how that spread as they traveled.
Having more numbers of articles that claim “Dorothy is Judy Garland” doesn’t prove anything. The sources in question simply don’t look very deeply into the subject, very few were written by anyone with any real insight, or historical knowledge. The internet has only been a popular source for information for just over 10 years. You can’t give that much credibility to articles like “Cruise Director” as a source for historical knowledge. We are talking about a small group of homosexual men, during a war that took place 60 years ago, long before the internet existed, amidst a heterosexist, homophobic culture with virtually no commitment to honoring or preserving Our history.
In addition I believe that the reasons, however speculative, that Dorothy from Kansas came to be associated with this term have already been discussed at length on this page. But a popular misconception should not be allowed to erase the actual story. These “multiple sources” do not speak to the origin of the vernacular or how the “Friends of Dorothy” came to be. However “Coming Out Under Fire” shows us an interview with a man who was there, and speaks directly to the formation of this social network. It is unfortunate that he doesn’t come out and say “Friends of Dorothy”, but assuming one can add and subtract, it isn’t a stretch to see what happened here. It isn’t about numbers of “articles”, it is about the integrity and quality of the source, and whether or not the source speaks to the heart of the article.
Assuming your so-called efforts aren’t all just lip service, and that you sincerely care about finding sources I hope you can improve this article. Given the lag on reading that book, and the ultimate conclusion that it did not address this issue, I must say I remain very skeptical. What's worse is the demonstrated arrogance of assuming that any one needs to wait for your approval to improve or edit an article. I chose to discuss it here. Clearly, consensus is not what's been happening on this page for a while. For those of you claiming to be committed to preserving Our history, I hope that, at the very least, this points you in a particular direction. I am relatively sure that there other reliable sources still in existence that can explain the Dorothy Parker theory of origin further. Doubtful you will find them through Googling.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. How enlightening to have such fervor. Again the book which you insisted would confirm what you have repeatedly stated apparently didn't and the video that you did kindly post to YouTube was also lovely but also didn't confirm yet both spoke to the issue but neither said this term originated from here. In fact, neither mentioned the term at all which seems kind of strange if one is to prove what you're asserting. All the skillful mounting of forces don't change the rules of wikipedia which rest on verifiability not truth. What you know deep in your heart is lovely but unless other editors can verify it in reliable sources it will have to remain there. If we find a good reliable source that definitively can position Parker as the one and only source then great, we'll all look at it and figure out the best way to update the article. Meanwhile we keep finding other reliable sources tha cite both Parker and that one from Kansas and her little dog too. Benjiboi 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Which was precisely the point that Shirley Partridge made; None of the "Dorothy from Kansas" references are reliable sources. No editors are able to verify the reliabity of any of them. Not one has a verifiable explanation for how Dorothy from Kansas became 'friend' to the homosexuals. The only reliable source thats been presented here has been this "Coming Out Under Fire" book and documentary. As it stands, there are no reliable articles that explain the origin of "Friends of Dorothy" as being from the "Wizard of Oz". Only assumptions. The documentary clip however, most definitely spoke to its origins. So far none of the opposing voices have spoken directly to that issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.180.248 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm in for this for now. I'm addressing this issue about Coming Out Under Fire. Here it is in black and white. The term "Friend of Dorothy" was never mentioned in the book. I read it. All of it. How are we supposed to use this as a reference for this issue? What page should we cite for that information? This is ridiculous, and I don't understand why this is still being discussed.
And I'm quite frankly baffled why this obscure facet of gay history? Why, if you (both, all) care so much about maintaining an accurate account of gay history that you don't participate in editing a much more important article, like the Stonewall Riots, Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, or Frank Kameny - all articles that need help. For even more inspiration, you have us, WP:LGBT studies whose members are clearly too lazy and incompetent to write a decent article - please help us if it's so clear to you that we suck this badly.
I suspect that you're trolling as a form of entertainment. Your insistence that something exists when clearly it does not, and the energy you're putting into this - I do not understand. --Moni3 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think Shirley makes a very good point. Its true, none of the 3 naysayers have addressed her question, and now they are resorting to name calling and questioning her motivation? Who care what motivates someone to contribute to one article over another, that is their business. Lets TRY and stick to the point here. Which, if I read her correctly is: If none of the listed sources speak to the development of this gay vernacular, how do you justify them being used as sources for this article?Beatmakerz (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the questioning of the motive is more recent as the sources Shirley insists prove Parker's role actually don't prove that the phrase originated to her. I won't speak for Moni3 but I know Moni3 agreed to get a copy of the book just to confirm the etymology so this dust-up could be answered definitively. Yet no mention of the phrase, again, the subject of the article, was even in the book. Shirley sighed at how it took so many of us to read that book and to make it easier on us posted a clip of a documentary as proof to youtube which would prove Parker's role. I watched the whole clip and not a single mention of the phrase. Again we go with the best references we have not the ones we wished existed. If you have better sources that say something else please post them here for all to benefit. In my initial online searching every reference I found either stated "Friend of Dorothy" in relation only to the Wizard of Oz Dorothy or to both Dorothy's. Benjiboi 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In investigating the sources currently listed in this article, it is true that none of them describe the origins of this term. While this video from Coming Out Under Fire doesnt actually say "Dorothy Parker is the original friend of Dorothy", it does speak to the origins of this vernacular, which appears to be how the term came to exist in the first place. This is not proof, but it is much closer to proof than anything currently listed in the article, most of which promote the Judy Garland theory. I'm wondering how it is that some editors speaking out on this page are so insistent on investigating and verifying other people's sources, while very little scrutiny has been applied to the sources that are currently listed. This video clip provides a barebones, but very credible description of how this expression evolved. I could find nothing else listed here, or in my own searches that spoke to how it actually developed. I'm wondering why those sources are still listed here? Shouldn't the sources speak to the development of this term in order to be credible? Is posting links to internet articles that say "Judy Garland is the original Friend Of Dorothy" enough to prove that it is so? Because it is a popular belief does not necessarily make it true and it certainly doesn't make it verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.121.51 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] google books?

On another note did anyone dig through google books and google scholar already? Benjiboi 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I checked Jstor for any academic articles, and LexisNexis for newspaper articles. I don't like Google books because it blanks out the very pages I want to see. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I won't speculate what you're using it for but it does seem to have some proprietary issues with giving away the cow with the milk. I've found that if I have to see an additional page(s) to the one(s) already seen that I empty my web browser cache and search on an exact phrase from the page right before the one I want. It doesn't always work but often it does. Benjiboi 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but it really challenges Wikipedia's definition of "verifiablity". If most of the sources claim that Judy Garland is the "Friend Of Dorothy", then it is a more popular belief with more "verifiable" sources. But if the interview with the Gay soldier shows how this "gay slang" came about through quoting Dorothy Parker during WWII, then it describes how the term came about, as the "Friends of Dorothy" appear to be the people who spoke this slang among themselves. So this one source is not proof, but it appears to have more weight than the many "Judy Garland" sources, which are actually less proof since they don't really say how the slang or term (FOD) actually developed. Even though they may meet Wikipedia's definition of verifiable. I tend to believe that the term came from these men, it just makes more sense. It is a shame if more sources for this info are hard to come by, it does appear to be an unwritten part of history. Thanks for this clip, it was really interesting. EyePhoenix (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)