Talk:Judy Garland as gay icon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A fact from Judy Garland as gay icon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 January 2008.
Wikipedia

Contents


[edit] Merge

Resolved.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Possible material

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

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

More:

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

[edit] Possible sources

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

[edit] Possible move?

Resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Weasel in lead

Resolved.

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

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