Talk:Doris Day/Archive 1

Cite sources
Need a source cite on this statement about finances after Melcher died:


 * She was forced to do a television series to pay off his debts.

The source I have (Leonard Maltin bio) says that her return to financial health was brought about by a favorable settlement from her former attorney as a result of a legal malpractice/breach of fiduciary duty suit.

Two new bio's of Doris Day that may be useful for citations. Below is a link to the radio show where I heard and read online about them: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/07/26/segments/82743

This too, "It still remains unresolved whether Melcher worked in collusion with Rosenthal to pillage her vast earnings, or was himself duped." Who ever said that this was an issue? It's been well recognized that her son was devoted to her. Sounds like weasel words to me. Am I alone? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * no, you're not. I think it should be removed. It sounds like conjecture and the way it's written it's hard to tell if the conjecture is being made in the documentary which is given as the source for the sentence that follows it, or whether it was conjecture on the part of the editor who added this information. In either case, it reads as though Wikipedia is making the conjecture, and this is not acceptable. Wikipedia does not conjecture or offer opinions, so if the opinion is not attributed to someone and a reliable source given to support that particular comment,  it should not be used.   WP:BLP is also an important consideration. We seem to be creating innuendo and suspicion without providing sufficient justification for our stance. Rossrs (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

German-American
While she does have german ancestory, it does not seem approriate to call her German-American. As mentioned later, it was her grandparents who immigrated, at some point its time to stop prefixing the German. If the article played up the importance of the distinction I would agree with including it there, but other than the information about her grandparents there is nothing to indicate her ancestory played a paticularly important role in her life. And her ancestory is sufficiantly detailed with the grandparents info Monty845 12:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

re Marriages
Doris Day is listed as having been married five times, the final time to a man listed as a busboy named Otis Washington who later changed his name to Otis Day and began a recording career. According to the posting the marriage ended due to his touring schedule and his inability to see to Doris's "needs". Otis Day is an actor named DeWayne Jessie who now tours under the name Otis Day due to the popularity of the character he portrayed in the film "Animal House".

This item needs a legitimate source citation. The footnote for this item (#3) - an interview with Day in a January 1996 interview in "OK! Magazine" - only mentions a fourth marriage to restaurant owner Barry Comden. And it specifically states that "there has been no sign of another husband" since that fourth marriage. A Google search only brings up the same Wikipedia source. So this item should be considered unsubstantiated until properly sourced. Titan69 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Titan69

It's bogus. There's nothing that I've found on the web that backs it up. I suspect that the same person has been entering it, but has been entering it from various ip addresses. They have been very persistent; I've counted at least 14 reverts of the Otis Washington busboy paragraph in the last 5 weeks. A cite has been requested several times, which has been ignored. I consider it vandalism. It's not amusing any more. Is there anything more we can do about it? Leon7 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Athletic
Hi, I'm working on the Athlete disambiguation page, and I noticed that there's a link in this page, when you'r talking about Doris' third husband, and you say he was "athletic". I think you're using that word as "healthy", not necessarily a sportsperson, so I think you should remove the link. --PeterCantropus 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection is no longer active; feel free to edit the article. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations & references
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs photo
There is another photo of Doris Day at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Doris_Day.jpg DaveMenninger (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary Ann(e)
IMDb (check http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000013/ ) spells her second name Ann, without the 'e', which according to the "umpteen-times-reverification" policy of the site should be the correct spelling. (BTW IMDb also states 1922 as her birth year, so you guys appear to be correct!) -andy 92.229.182.163 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry
At footnote 6 reference, I do not see any Dutch ancestry or reference to the Netherlands. However, St. Gallen, birthplace of her ancestor Johannes Georg Zimmerman, is located in the northeastern part of Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael ohearn (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of lawsuit
I was aware of the travesty of the handling of Doris Day's finances and her coercion, for lack of a better word, into television. I also knew she had won a major settlement but had no idea how long the issue dragged out into the courts. I had thought the issue was resolved in the mid-'70s and that that had been long enough. So my question: was it the late '80s before she ever started to receive any of that settlement? Were the terms of the settlement the same as the terms of the initial decision, 24 annual payments? After all those costs he incurred in fighting it for two decades, did he have anything left to pay her with? I don't want to pry into the woman's personal business, but as it's given such wonderful (and appropriate) coverage here, it seems like there should be some denouement, if that information is available. Abrazame (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag spam
I found that there were too many tags on top of the article and so I removed them. Right afterwards someone put those unnecessary tags back in and claimed on my discussion page that they weren't tag spam which, in fact, they were. There were about five tags at the top of the article which is, most definitely, way too much. Some of them were quite old too, and so I think they were mostly obsolete. It often happens that someone passes by the article and adds a tag without explaining why he or she thinks the tag is necessary. And since no one else thinks the tag is necessary and no explanation is given, the tags just remain and nothing happens. Until someone removes them. And then someone who thinks he's very clever puts them back in, claiming that they are indeed necessary but without further expanations WHY they are necessary - likely because the person who puts them back in doesn't really know him- or herself. So what's the point of those annoying tags? None! And that's why I removed them again. Too many tags ARE spam and that's that! --Krawunsel (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing improper or invalid about any of those tags, and I see that you once again removed them without making any substantial improvements to the article. There are four tags:
 * It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since April 2009.
 * This article has a great deal of puffery and WP:PEACOCK words that need to be copy edited.
 * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since April 2009.
 * There are sections that contained lists mixed in with prose.
 * Its lead section requires expansion. Tagged since April 2009.
 * The lead comes nowhere near summarizing the article.
 * This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (April 2009)
 * Some of the fanboy tone has been trimmed, but not enough.
 * Just because the article has been tagged since April does not mean the issues have been resolved and it is inappropriate to remove the tags because you don't like them. If you don't like them, fix the problems. In the course of tags on articles on Wikipedia, 5 months isn't all that long. And for the record, posting here that someone probably doesn't even know why the tags are there is also inappropriate. You don't know why they're there is not the basis for simply returning the tags when someone states clearly that you didn't make improvements that were needed, it means some people do think they are needed. What are you here for if not to edit articles?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wholesome American Project
I propose this biography to initiate a project entitled "Average American Icon Project",

Doris Kappelhoff is an average every-day American who struck out on a singing career when radio was new, bandstands were old and film was new.

Earlier, Doris had an average wholesome life even as she became famous and signed on to films and records.

She never demanded the spotlight or expected special treatment. Of course in her life, as in everyone's life, things happen. But in her life, they become fodder for tabloids.

She is just an average Wholesome American who resents being called an "Icon".

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see that happening. There is so much POV in an entire project titled that. What is an average American? How can someone who had quite a successful acting and music career be considered average? What defines an icon? All of that just butts heads with the core policy of WP:NPOV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead
I was shocked and stunned to find my work on the lead expunged. May I ask why? I noted a banner at the head of the article asking that the lead be developed and I did so based solely on the contents of the article. May I ask what I've done wrong? It took me some time to construct the lead and to find it expunged is disheartening to say the least. Please communicate with me. SoniaSyle (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please respnd to my post. I do not understand why you are reverting my work. A banner is posted on this article requesting the lead be expanded. I did so based solely on the article's content. Why did you revert my work? I'm mystified. Please respond to this post. I need to know what I am doing wrong so I can correct my approach. If it is something as simple as a typo or two,  please tell me so I can correct the matter. Please communicate with me. Why are you reverting my work? SoniaSyle (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue with the additions have to do with what article content is included. Please take a look at any featured article to get an idea of what content should be in the lead. A featured article that comes to mind is Angelina Jolie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I think I can accomodate this and will use FA articles as models. Please, if there's a problem with my lead, let's discuss the concerns before abrupt and wholesale reverts. SoniaSyle (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture, cont'd
That's brevity? I skimmed it. Please read Ownership of articles and reconsider your remarks about my not knowing anything about the subject, or being new to the article, and about your having too many other responsibilities etc. Then re-read my post -- it's about wikipedia standards more than this article. There is nothing in the pop culture section that is cited by third party WP:RS as of cultural significance. That's a standard. You can find plenty about Judy Garland as a gay icon, about Charlie Chaplin as Everyman. And that is what is needed at this article and every article of similar scope for a pop culture section if it's to be a pop culture section and not a bulletin board for fancruft. DavidOaks (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to reference an essay on "Down WIth Love" as extensively concerned with DD, do so, and put it in the body of the article. Meanswhile, the cruft which is justified only by WP:OR here on the discussion page has to go, as it should in all similar articles. Not tapping my foot, either -- get refs before you put it back, per wikipolicy. DavidOaks (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Von" Kappelhoff?
Why give her name as "von" Kappelhoff? There is no indication anywhere that it is other than merely Kappelhoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.252.144 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's indeed the case - giving her birth surname as "von Kappelhoff" is a wide-spread error on the Internet, but not supported by any of the official documents/certificates/sources, same goes to her father and paternal grandfather. (Sources are already correctly linked to in the article, see especially the ancestry documented from original sources as linked in Note #3). Adding to that, the correct name is also supported through the memorial sign that township authorities placed, in January 2008, at the birthplace of Doris' grandfather Franz Joseph Wilhelm Kappelhoff (1843-1907) in Warendorf, Germany; see an article on that (in German language) here: Doris Day hat eine neue Heimat (Doris Day has a new home), Article from the "Dülmener Zeitung", January 15, 2008 (site checked June 7, 2010). Greetings from Germany, --Bvo66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

Que Sera Sera
The song Que Sera Sera is Spanish for What will be will be, and not French as reported in the article.
 * The article on the song now has a full account, with no reference to French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.5.195 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some one on the Talk page of the article on the song points out that the language
 * is a composite Hollywood one, not agreeing with any of the four that might be involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.5.195 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Top-ranking female box office star of all time
In looking at the website of thecitation, it seems to me that it says she lead the box office for 4 individual years, which is the most for a woman, not that she is the highest grossing actress. I would suspect julia roberts may beat her? What do you guys think?--Tacit tatum (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That "top ranking female star" assertion is hyperbolic at best, (flat-out deceptive at worst) and needs to be rephrased. Pumpkingrrl (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dancing Day
I'd like to know a little more about her dancing career--I seem to recall both her legs were broken in a car accident so she became a singer and more particulars about the accident would be helpful. Was it a car full of youngsters partying? How did the accident hamper her dancing? She has a marvelous singing voice, obviously, so why wasn't she a singer to begin with? There's a similarity here to Alizee, the famous French singer, who started out as a dancer but became a singer by accident. One of the first movies I ever saw was Hitch's "The Man Who Knew Too Much", when I was about seven years old and I can still remember the film because of Doris Day's radiance. She had terrific screen presence. And what about her freckles?--Did she really have to wear make-up to hide them? Thanks.64.169.155.194 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Day at a Time in Further Reading
That there is a dispute over the inclusion of the book Day at a Time: An Indiana Girl's Sentimental Journey to Doris Day's Hollywood and Beyond has been brought to my attention. At first glance the book looks like it is relevant to the article. However, since this has been edit warred over somewhat, I think it best we have a discussion over whether to include it or not here. The relevant guideline on Wikipedia to be aware of is WP:FURTHER. I look forward to discussing this with you both here. Thanks, Prodego  talk  00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) INCLUDING THIS BOOK AT THE TOP OF THE EXTERNAL LINKS, BEFORE DORIS DAY'S OWN BIOGRAPHY, IS ABSURD. THE AUTHOR, MARY ANNE BAROTHY, WAS FIRED BY DORIS DAY. SHE THEN WROTE THIS BOOK WHICH WAS NOT APPROVED BY MISS DAY (INCLUDING MANY THINGS IN MISS DAY'S LIFE) WHICH WERE NO ONE'S BUSINESS. IF YOU MUST LIST IT, LIST IT LAST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtace Goodwin (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

{Gtace Goodwin} As a user of Wiki, anyone is free to edit a post with credence, however, it is subject to other user's contributions and interpretations. Prior to your recent edits in the "Further Reading" section of this article, this book has been listed for over two years with no objections. Any published work, be it flattering or objectionable, is still a historical contribution and should be included in Wikipedia. As far as the above subjective remarks made towards the author, they are based on personal opinion and inappropriate. They are hearsay and reflective of your sentiments. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia.VoiceofanAngel (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

{Gtace Goodwin} I have undone your last edit as it was again, an opinion; personal sentiment; and an editorial comment which is not an accepted practice on Wikipedia.VoiceofanAngel (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring on this topic of whether to include the book Day at a Time: An Indiana Girl's Sentimental Journey to Doris Day's Hollywood and Beyond in Wikipedia. It has been listed now for over two years and I believe that it continues to belong in this section. As I mentioned in my above prior post, any published work, be it flattering or objectionable, is still a historical contribution and should be included in Wikipedia. I might even suggest that the ISBN number be added to the book posting as I note that there is another book listed in this category with its ISBN. I agree with Prodego's comment in his reversion remarks that the books should be in alphabetical order, which they were in, prior to this edit war. However, I will leave that to other editors. To comment on Gtace Goodwin's remarks above, I find them offensive to anyone who might read them -- I see them a personal attack on the author and do not believe they belong in Wikipedia. I would like to see them struck from the "view history" as well. I might mention "would any one of us" want our personal names out there for others to perhaps pass judgment on? Further, I believe that neutrality is what makes Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Specifically, I would also like to reiterate my above comment: editorial comments are not an accepted practice on Wikipedia. Thank you. VoiceofanAngel (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture
This section needs trimming badly. Can't we just say Doris is mentioned in "this song", "that song" and "this other song". Infringing copyright by reproducing lyrics unnecessarily aside, I don't see any value in this. It does not increase understanding of the subject. I'll leave this for now and see if anyone comments. Rossrs (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to that section being trimmed badly! Seriously though, I was under the impression that it's acceptable within both Wiki guidelines and copyright law to quote a couplet.  The understanding of the subject by the respective authors is, I think, the point of any popular culture section.  It's significant not only that so many musicians were taken with her as a reference but in how many contexts (not to mention how popular some of them were and how many people heard those songs at the time or since), yet without the line to show those varied contexts, there is nothing—or, worse, the implication of like context—connoted by simply mentioning she was name-checked in "this song, that song and this other song".


 * The Grease lines were not a part of the section when I edited it many months ago (or so it seems), and purely from a style standpoint of course there's a problem with the way they're presented differently from the other lyrics. One could argue that the first section is about Sandra Dee and not Day, yet it does set the tone for what might otherwise be vague ("come across" isn't a phrase I'm familiar with, but it's obvious in context of the previous "virginity/legally wed" line).  If this instance does cross over the line into an excessive quotation from a percentage standpoint, perhaps we could supplant the first verse there with an introductory contextual statement about chastity before marriage?  If we could succinctly set the stage there in a way that's not going to hook some tag-happy editor wanting a ref, I'd support that.


 * Finally, I fail to see what the Canadian election stunt has to do with her; clearly it was the gentleman's name that precipitated the association, and not anything unique to Ms. Day. I'd support removing that "News" section entirely.


 * As to the rest, there's always a way looking at a few sentences with a fresh set of eyes you can shave a word or two off by rephrasing something; if you or another editor can improve the flow without removing the context and substance, that's great. Abrazame (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, I have removed the insertion of lyrics from Grease three times in as many days. Every time I have removed the content added by one editor, I have noted it is a violation of copyright law, but that is being ignored. The editor has been warned. Even so, I'm not crazy about much of the content in this section and would greatly like to see it trimmed to relevant mentions, if not removed altogether. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's kind of trivial. "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go" is not about Doris Day. Her name is mentioned once, it vaguely conveys brightness/happiness etc and it rhymes with "ay". "The sun" is also mentioned with equal weight, and I hope the article sun doesn't have an "In popular culture" section saying it's mentioned in a Wham! song. "We Didn't Start the Fire" lists a whole lot of notable people. All are essentially name checked and that's about it. The song is not about any of them, and it doesn't pay tribute to any one them. Compare "Candle in the Wind" which is all about Marilyn Monroe and her name checking in "We Didn't Start the Fire". There's a gulf of difference in relevance. I believe this type of section is created with the best of intentions, but it encourages a range of references without distinguishing between the significant and the insignificant. If someone wrote a song about Doris Day and it had some kind of cultural impact - even minimal - I wouldn't object to its discussion, in fact, I would most likely encourage it. Copyright is a major concern, and for someone to be adding the lyrics to the Grease song three times is unacceptable. It is OK under our interpretation of fair use laws to quote sparingly from copyrighted works. That includes song lyrics, and should be limited to the most relevant, and then using only as much of the quotation as is needed to convey the message.  That's the only song where something substantial is said about Day, and even it's fairly weak. One of the musicians who referenced her didn't even bother checking to see if she was still alive before he welcomed her to heaven, so that's a wonderfully sincere tribute. It's not exactly "American Pie". I just don't see any value in the level of depth that is accorded to this type of reference, any more than listing each time a celebrity is mentioned in Family Guy or The Simpsons. It's just a mention for minor effect but it's not the point of the project.  Rossrs (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for brightening my Sunday evening with a good laugh about the sun. An actress acts.  A singer sings.  But that alone doesn't get you in an encyclopedia.  I think the point of celebrity is in large part (if not entirely) about the impact one has on popular culture.  Arguably there is no correlative point to the sun, "merely" a cause and an effect. (Spiritually, religiously I might not agree with that assessment, but I think most people would say it's scientifically sound.) Tongue in cheek, I'd point out that in the Wham! song, the sun is a given, the thing that has an effect is the subject of the song, who is being compared in that effect to...Doris Day.  I mean, the sun "comes up" every morning, but most people who go around singing and dancing about it are doing so because they've got a special someone. So, no, I don't think the sun is as important as Day to the song.  I think when we start suggesting that a word was used only because it rhymes with another word, we're kind of reaching beyond our jobs as editors and into the realm of literary critic.  Think of all the songs that use words rhyming with "ay" that are not the name of the actress in question.  I needn't tell you it is a popular vowel sound.  By your logic there should be tens of thousands, yet we're only here addressing half a dozen.  Even if George Michael were to admit he cavalierly threw "Doris Day" in there simply because the syllables fit and he wasn't ready to admit to preferring the likes of "Johnny Ray", the name was what it was and who can say the song wasn't more charming or popular itself because of it.


 * From your point about Monroe, I'm wondering if perhaps the problem drawing your tag-team here is more one with popular culture sections in general. Indeed a tribute entirely about Marilyn Monroe (at least until Elton John decided he'd declare the whole thing was instead about Princess Diana, which is when the song really made its multi-million selling cultural impact) is more notable than a song that "simply" mentions Monroe, not unlike a one-woman show featuring Monroe could be said to be more notable to her bio than a show in which Monroe was part of an ensemble cast or even a bit player.  Similarly, a major blockbuster that becomes a classic over the decades is different than a small independent film that barely made it to DVD.  Nevertheless, all those roles might well be noted with equal weight in a filmography table, mightn't they?  Sure, we might well note those differences in degree in a "notes" section, but they wouldn't be indicated by size or boldness of text, and if there wasn't a huge resume, they wouldn't be omitted entirely.  As to a direct comparison between Monroe and Day, that does seem to be the point of Joel's song: that in his estimation, they were equals.  I mean, think about that for a moment before writing it off.  That's clearly part of his point.  To suggest it's mere name-checking, as if yet one more rapper said "Courvoisier" or "Cristal" or "Bentley", seems to entirely miss the impact Joel intended.


 * If every celebrity had half a dozen songs that named them, perhaps that would make such a thing less notable for everyone. And if a single celebrity has a hundred songs named after them, indeed we would need to cull the most notable several to make the point.  (Similarly, if a show like Family Guy name-checks celebrities in every episode, it would seem to nullify the notability of any single mention.)  But I don't see what the problem is with showing that Day's lingering recollection in popular culture has been such as it is, two number-one songs and a number-one album all by major artists, as well as one of the most successful musicals of all time.  You're the one putting forth the concept of tribute; this section is about popular culture impact, which is a different thing entirely.  So why exactly are you trying to diminish that Day had this impact?  Abrazame (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not. I accept that Day had an impact on popular culture. What I am trying to say is that in each example given, Day is a side-reference and the weight given to each side-reference seems to place more relevance to Day, than I believe exists. I was joking about the sun, and I'm glad you took it that way, and I didn't think about Johnny Ray (or Fay Wray, Danny Kaye or Marvin Gaye until now). "We Didn't Start the Fire" places Doris Day into an historical context along with a number of other people, but if it's right to add it to Doris Day's article, it should follow that it's right to add it to the articles of the other actors/actresses/singers that are mentioned. I get your point about Joel naming specific people for their individual impact, but even so, he offers nothing more than a name. Except - and you're quite correct - placing her name next to the others does give it context. I think the tendency to reference celebrities in music, is growing. You mention rap and it's a major culprit. I guess the other side of the coin, for me at least, is that given Doris Day's long career and high degree of notability, why are the references to her of a passing nature? You're right to say I was wrong about using the word "tribute". "Tribute" isn't even the right word to fit what I was trying to say. I was thinking of relevance or significance. Take "Bette Davis Eyes" for example. Number one in the US for 10 weeks, Grammy winning, etc etc. No doubt it is of cultural signicance, and obviously it's relevant to Bette Davis, especially so because she was around to comment on it, and she featured prominently in its lyrics. How about Jean Harlow and Greta Garbo, who are also mentioned in the lyrics? It could be mentioned in their articles, but I don't see that it's especially relevant to them. I think the Day references are roughly equal to the Harlow and Garbo references, and not seeing the necessity in discussing it in their articles, is not intended to diminish any of them. I suppose I do have an issue with "In popular culture" sections. Some articles use a "legacy" section, and the notable cultural references can fit into that as part of an overall discussion of the individual's impact. When I see it presented as a list of song titles, or similar, it seems to be shining a spotlight on one aspect of their overall impact, and often failing to address the broader topic. I've only mentioned the music aspect of it, but the group of subsections are of a similar nature. I would probably find it less glaring if there was some summary of her overall contribution/legacy/impact... whatever, and supported by examples.

I also think you make a good point about filmographies, but I don't know that extending that rationale to other areas, would not present a new set of problems. Filmographies are usually presented as complete lists simply to avoid the POV of presenting a "selected" list. (The negative aspect is that unless you are already familiar with the performer and the films, each title is given equal weight.)  That same degree of impartiality would be more difficult in listing cultural references. A degree of POV is needed to choose what stays and what goes, but then that is true of most of the article content, given that articles are not intended to be exhaustive. Marilyn Monroe - she's a very specific case, in my opinion, because she is referenced in so many types of media and the references range from a minor mention to using her as the subject of the work. What I find interesting (and which her article does not go into) is why her, and when did it begin? Before or after she died? Of all the celebrities past and present, living and dead, why is there such a flood of material that references her? I find those questions more interesting than any of the individual points of reference, and I hope one day to discover an answer, or at least a theory I can believe. Anyway, I have no intention of touching the points made in this article. My attention was only drawn to it because of the copyright issue with the Grease song, and I see it's been modified to avoid reproducing the lyrics. You've given me some things to think about, and I always welcome that. Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "From your point about Monroe, I'm wondering if perhaps the problem drawing your tag-team here is more one with popular culture sections in general."??? Rossrs has thicker skin that I do. Our "tag-team" attention has been here for some time for a myriad of issues that have come up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that I have thicker skin. I wanted to discuss the article content, and I wasn't sure what to make of that comment. Rossrs (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a recent issue with an editor here with regard to an addition I have tried to post over the past 2 or 3 days. Initially, as a first time poster, I had mistakenly included several lines (8) from a song, from the Broadway musical Grease, that referenced Doris Day, and was informed that the inclusion of the lyrics was in violation of Wikipedia's copyright restrictions. I was told that other additions/posts in the same section, which also included copyrighted lyrics, were allowed because they were limited to an acceptable length. After editing my post to four lines: ''Watch it! Hey, I'm Doris Day/I was not brought up that way/Won't come across; even Rock Hudson lost/His heart to Doris Day'', it, as well as an external link verifying relevant Tony award information, has been deleted yet again.

Grease was at one time the longest running show in Broadway history, and now stands at 12th. The 1978 film adaptation is #20 in AFI's (American Film Institute) Top 100 Greatest American Musicals. As I am attempting to include my post in the section focusing on Doris Day's impact on popular culture, I feel it is a legitimate entry.

Despite my efforts to revise my post so that its format and length match the others, I feel the editor has lost objectivity in this case and has allowed it to become a personal issue. My last communication, explaining that I was not ignoring protocol but was simply unfamiliar, received no response and has been deleted along with my post's most recent revision. I'd like to open up the discussion to the other editors here and would appreciate any objective input. Boicevox (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, first, new posts go at the bottom, and never change someone else's post, including the use of bolding or italics. Never. Secondly, the Tony award has nothing to do with Doris Day, if people want to read about the musical, they can click on the link in the article. What you keep adding in the way of "reference" is a copy and paste from the Grease page, which is not a reference and again, isn't about Doris Day. There is no need to quote lyrics.


 * As for it becoming personal, as I noted on your talk page, copyright issues are serious, and you had already seen the edit summaries that clearly stated it was a copyright issue, yet you still returned it. When I left a copyright violation notice on your talk page, you certainly didn't simply inquire, you also made effort to make belittling comments to me about a late night typographical error I made when I posted to your page. I referred you to the essay on Don't be a dick and noted that making fun of typos qualifies. The personal was on your part. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I had moved on from the copyright point, Wildhartlivie, because your explanation that the issue was about the length of the lyrics in the section – mine and others' – was both clear and satisfactory. My final edit, again deleted, only included the four lines I noted in my previous post; equal to or less in content than others allowed.

Also, at your suggestion, I removed the reference copied from the Grease page two attempts ago. The Tony reference in my most recent deleted post, inserted as an external link (not as a footnoted reference), verifies the encyclopedic content of my statement that Grease is a multiple Tony award winning show. As the song Look At Me, I'm Sandra Dee, is from the Broadway show, Grease, and includes the cited set of lyrics that mention Doris Day specifically, it's relevance is obvious – at least to me. As I said, I think, perhaps, you have lost your objectivity in this particular instance, hence my opening up the discussion to other editors here that aren't so personally invested.

I repeat, the correction of your typos in my initial message to you was just that, a correction: and I quote: "Btw, 'placing Wikipedia is the same predictament?' That would be, 'in the same predicament.'" I was irritated, yes, but there were no "belittling comments" and no "making fun." Interpretation is subjective, yes, but let's stick to the literal. You were – and clearly still seem to be – on the defensive because I hurt your feelings by pointing out your errors. I apologize for that. Basically, though, proofing and corrections are an integral part of the publishing world, digital or otherwise. Writers, editors and others in the business deal with it every day.

Lastly, your second referral to the article, "Don't be a dick" indicates you're suggesting, again, that I am one. I am not. I simply tried to insert a post I felt would be of interest to those reading about Doris Day references in popular culture. I wrote in my last response to you that I had "no interest in engaging in a pissing contest with you." I still hold that position. Name calling reads as juvenile and unnecessary, and I will hardly go to that level here. Again, I suggest that you and I defer to other available editors and place this matter in the hands of those with clearer perspective. Good idea, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boicevox (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * re the reversion of deleted pop culture section -- Abrazame makes reference to some compromise about retaining it in limited form -- I see discussion here, but nothing like consensus. There is nothing in this section that illuminates the subject, or gives a sense of her as a popular culture icon (as might be the case, say, for Groucho Marx or Judy Garland) -- it is simply a list of mentions, WP:trivia under another name, and should go. DavidOaks (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More -- this is a list of mere mentions; there are two items where she is actually the subject of a production (one song, one album of covers) and neither of these is high prominence. But they could be worked into a note, if people insist "Netherlands|Dutch]] band Doe Maar released their song "Doris Day" in 1982, and American singer-songwriter Nellie McKay, recorded an album of covers of Day's songs Normal as Blueberry Pie - A Tribute to Doris Day." But the rest of it really drags down an article that's already very long. DavidOaks (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. There was no consensus determined, just discussion that just stopped after Rossrs and I were referred to as a tag-team that showed up here. Trivia is trivia and such relevant content should either be incorporated in a meaningful way into the article or removed. Trivia/pop culture sections are clearly discouraged and the preponderance of editing I have to do here is removing additions that say "Doris Day was mentioned in THIS song or THAT television program." Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello David, and thank you for joining the discussion. Firstly, it seems that my use of the word "compromise" has been conflated with "consensus" and I am being made to look as though I am misrepresenting the issue. Several months back there had been much editing of the section and I came in and did some copyediting.  We had the discussion above where Wildhartlivie was clearly — curtly — on one side, I expressed an alternating view, and Rossrs, in my estimation, was open to an interesting collegial conversation exploring the issue.  Though Wildhartlivie seems to view it differently, Rossrs' last editorial comment was to state that he had no intention of changing the way I had edited the section. As I explained on Rossrs' talk last night, I was unaware that "tag-teaming" was not only an official Wiki offense, but that to suggest someone is engaging in it is also apparently the severest cultural insult.  Though I noticed their comments about it here, I also noticed that Wildhardlivie had not responded to any of my several points, and thought that waiting a few days might allow her some time to consider them.  At that point, there were three stated opinions: For, against, and neutral/abstain. Then Boicevox arrived endeavoring to add a mention of the Grease reference, albeit with a degree of tangential detail that was probably overkill. Implicitly this was a "vote" (yes, I know) for my position, and with the only other person who had really presented any discussion, Rossrs, having bowed out, I decided not to belabor my position or pick up on his enjoyably intriguing but editorially digressive thoughts, and allow Wildhartlivie and Boicevox to hammer out an appropriate mention of Grease that fit alongside the way the section was styled.  Since then I have only checked in once in a blue moon, and when I noticed not only that you removed the entire section but, upon reviewing the bare bones version it was at that, I saw that as the more severely edited version Wildhartlivie had pushed for.  Believe it or not, I thought I was defending not even the earlier, fuller compromise, but a version whittled down so far as to essentially be her initial position, and not mine, that calling that version a compromise between our two positions was an incredibly gracious concession to her despite it not being a compromise after all.  I have never said it was consensus, but the earlier, fuller version was a de facto compromise, between the excessiveness and triviality on the one hand and a minimalist mention of one or two things on the other.


 * So with the backstory hopefully more clearly and accurately represented than Wildhartlivie seems to have interpreted/represented, on to the actual editorial issues?


 * Suggesting that the section should do a better job of conveying the pop culture impact of Day is one thing, and not a bad point. Suggesting that someone isn't but has to be an icon of the magnitude of Groucho Marx or Judy Garland (two people I'm not sure I'd place at the apex, but then that's the problem with subjective thresholds) to deserve a section acknowledging their place in pop culture such as it may be is another thing, and which I'd hope you could reconsider, as I do find that a bad point.


 * Let's not conflate Trivia with Pop culture references/impact. Trivia is a lazy series of factoids that may or may not have any bearing on crafting a representation of a celebrity and their notability in or impact on pop culture, like "Once lived in a house formerly owned by..." and then "Measurements: 36-24-35" and then: "Held the record for..." and then: "Briefly dated..." and which, if worth being mentioned in so brief a bio (and some would not be), are best incorporated into the article.  I'm clear that there is a guideline against trivia sections and I fully support that.  Trivia is not what we are discussing here. A section that (as it currently stands) enumerates instances where other (generally hugely successful) artists have incorporated the subject into their own (again generally quite successful) work — and in most instances in a way which does connote some context, some epitomization for lack of a better word at the moment — is another thing entirely, and is infinitely more relevant.  To the comment that "such relevant content should...be incorporated in a meaningful way into the article", again, that is about trivia, as in rather than in a Trivia section, one might mention Jayne Mansfield's measurements in a section detailing her appeal or the way she was marketed or covered in the press, while one might mention that she purchased Marilyn Monroe's old home in a section about her patterning her career after Monroe, and one might mention that she briefly dated Ronald Reagan chronologically in her bio. (Those details are fabricated.) But obviously the point of an examination on someone's impact in popular culture would best be done cohesively. There is no inherent benefit in placing whose house my fabricated Mansfield lived in and what her measurements were in the same section, while taking in the various representations of Doris Day in popular culture at once is both appropriate from a coherency and cohesiveness standpoint and it is appropriate in the interest of developing a broadly faceted view and one where the impact could be given the appropriate balance and/or reinforcement.


 * Add any aspect or nuance I'm missing, but it seems that what we're discussing here this round seems to be A.) Can an article's subject be too trivial to warrant noting incidences of its popular culture impact (the "Doris Day is no Groucho" argument above), and B.) What constitutes a prominent reference. To A, I don't see how you can suggest that we either literally delineate different echelons of superstars (for lack of a better phrase) or that we accept an editor's subjective opinion on that.  If somebody writes a hugely popular song, and it is later used in several films, we mention that usage.  If somebody writes a song that is completely overlooked, and it is later used in several films, we shouldn't mention that usage, too?


 * To the actual suggestion by DavidOaks, I don't see why what for most of the world is an esoteric band (Doe Maar) should be the only depiction noted here, while we would remove the mentions of a song like the Billy Joel song that references Day as being one of the seven most notable events of 195-whatever-it-was, or the Wham! song that epitomizes Day as sunshiny femininity. Or, for that matter, the reference in Grease that indicates the more sexually liberated of the hormonal '50s teenagers were frustrated by what they perceived as a stereotypically virginal role model (regardless of the fact that at an earlier point in her singing career she was perceived as quite sexy).  Those three things seem to be dismissed by you in favor of a song the mention of which here states the extent of its reference is that the protagonist singles out a Doris Day film as being the only thing on TV (I presume he means the only thing worth noting, though perhaps he literally means all the other channels were off-air?).  I'm guessing your rationale is because despite only one passing reference devoid of context to her, he picked that element as his title and so, being singled out from the other words in only that way, you see it as a more notable aspect of the usage, rather than what the usage illuminates about the subject's popular culture image or impact?


 * To the point B, as I've already noted in the earlier part of this thread, I don't see how anybody can say that #1 singles and albums and TV series and plays/films are not notable enough vehicles for the conveyance of the impact. As if it weren't enough that they were #1s, they were not exactly written and performed by flashes in the pan.  Though I should think the seriousness of the art should count for as much in the consideration of notability.  (In other words, if Pete Townsend wrote a song imagining Doris Day as one of the people who greets you in heaven, that wouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because it wasn't a pop hit.)


 * To the suggestion that the article, at 35 kilobytes, is too long, I just don't see how you could say that. Again, if the argument is that it could be presented in a more appealing or contextual way, that's certainly a fair statement.  Frankly, I thought it was a better anchor when there was more detail, and find it a little flimsy.  When I referred to a compromise being struck, I meant that the upshot of the discussion here was that the section was whittled down instead of removed, and I presumed this was not to make it less interesting but to strike a balance between the two viewpoints.


 * To Rossrs' comment of some time ago, the point isn't to say that the usage had impact on the subject, but the other way around. Although, to that point, while Day represented a sanitized '50s/'60s romantic comedy archetype, perhaps it wasn't until the Grease song in the sexual revolution of the early '70s that people began to coalesce around that interpretation of her?  I think of '80s artists who were however cool or cutting edge they were in the '80s (or to whatever degree campy or ironic or fun or whatever), yet it was in the following decade that the frivolity of some was extrapolated to damn them all, and sociopolitical shifts and economic self-interest felt it had to destroy and mock what came before in order to establish itself.  Surely we've all read about this sort of cultural paradigm shift and I should think editors at Doris Day are at least peripherally aware that such examinations exist.  I thought that by presenting the smattering of representations as we have, we were choosing to avoid giving undue weight to any specific sociological textual examination in favor of the examples.  Or perhaps that we were loathe to put too fine a point on sociologists' takes and just let popular culture imitate popular culture.


 * To the lyrics issue, I'm under the impression that while wholesale lyric reprinting is unacceptable, a mere couplet or two specific to establishing a contextual point or clarifying what song you're talking about are perfectly reasonable to excerpt without constituting copyright infringement. Is there some Wikipedia policy about which I'm unaware that contradicts that impression?


 * This section |was at one point a fuller and more contextual and satisfying snapshot. Wildhartlivie complains that she spends much time removing additions to this section (it's largely one song you have a problem with, it seems), but somehow much of it as it stood then has been chipped away as well.  As I wrote above, the Canadian election bit deserved to go. Frankly, I think the aircraft thing was interesting.  Can you imagine the first craft to land on Titan being named after a Madonna song?  It's the kind of detail that on its own is trivia, but taken as a whole makes you think. I think it was appropriate to pare down the Doe Maar and The Who mentions, although the Doe Maar is awkwardly worded. But the reduction in the Joel and film sections diminishes the point. The Joel lyric illustrates her significance with the company he saw her in, arguably not just that year but the next year's Marilyn Monroe; and the Down With Love mention shows in how many more ways than we currently note that film was an homage, referencing Day and her films.  It reads poorly now because it's devoid of the detail and roundness that made it valid; it should be slightly more fleshed out, not removed.


 * But then, DavidOaks, as I discover only now as I'm about to post this, there is backstory you know and I did not. You would know that, because it was you who |diminished that section in the first place, two months ago.  Need I point out how disingenuous it comes off to pluck off the blossoms and then two months later disparage it for being nothing but stems?  I've gotta say, for all the assertions that I'm some kind of deceitful bad person, I just discovered Wildhartlivie's post on your talk page, too, stating that she's "quite sure" Rossrs will support complete removal of the section.  For all I know, you may be right, and Rossrs has shifted and hardened his position on this issue over time.  Although if he has, my relatively few but friendly exchanges with him suggest that he would read and contemplate my response first, and feel compelled to actually articulate why my most cogent points fail to sway him, and he'll then consider my response to whatever that is.  Yes, Wildhartlivie, it's called discussion because there's always the possibility that there aren't simply two intractable positions fighting to the death, but that perhaps, just perhaps, the person who disagrees with you makes a better point and you (gasp) change your mind.  Or even comment on a single point.  And yet again, her take is that I am the one who stopped discussing this.  Because of that and her campaigning — and yes, this time I use the word knowing that this is an example of inappropriate canvassing, she has lost my assumption of good faith on this issue.  Abrazame (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * There was no consensus to remove the section. The discussion seemed to have died but it was not actually completed or resolved, so I support the retention of the section. It's been somewhat trimmed since this discussion started but the issue remains. I've commented above, so I will try not to repeat myself, although I'm happy to discuss any of those points further if anyone wishes to. I think they are still valid.


 * I can see the various sides, and I think Abrazame, Wildhartlivie and DavidOaks have each addressed the question of context, but from different angles. Abrazame makes a good point early in this discussion, that Doris's impact as a figure in popular culture is borne out by the fact that she is referenced in these various works. I agree with that.  Whatever the intention of the creators of those works, it has to be said that Doris Day's name was used for a specific impact or point of reference, and was completely dependent on her being recognised in a particular way.  I also agree with DavidOaks' comment "There is nothing in this section that illuminates the subject, or gives a sense of her as a popular culture icon..." and Wildhartlivie's "...relevant content should either be incorporated in a meaningful way...". I think the problem is not that there is a popular culture section, but the manner in which the material is presented. It could be "meaningful" and it could "illuminate the subject". Currently, I think it falls short of achieving this. Each point is given as one point in a list with each given approximately equal weight, but none of the points are presented in a wider context. I think there are many celebrities who have pervaded popular culture to such a degree that they still have relevance even though they may no longer be contributing to popular culture. In other words, Doris' work lies in the past, but her impact exists in the present, and will presumably exist for some time into the future, and she is occasionally "revisited". For example, there was renewed interest in her in Australia, after one of her songs appeared on the soundtrack of the film Strictly Ballroom. Doris had nothing at all to do with that, and was retired, but suddenly and unexpectedly she's introduced to a new audience. In this article, and in many others, we provide a list of cultural references, but do not explain them. There must be a reason why Day is remembered more vividly and with more affection than many of her contemporaries. There are plenty of major stars from the 1930s and later, who are all but forgotten, and a large number, including Doris Day, who are strongly remembered. If there was a section that discussed in prose form, how she has impacted on popular culture, these points would be very good examples to provide as support.  There must be reliable sourcing to discuss her impact in a broad sense, to allow the particular examples to sit within that framework. As stand-alone points, I don't think they offer as much. They can be interpreted as "trivia" simply because they exist without context, and without anything to link them together.


 * I don't know how we should deal with this. For example, take the MASH episode where a Doris Day recording evokes strong emotions and memories in Sherman Potter. The recording is focal to the plot of this episode and is much more than a side-mention. It's interesting to mention the existence of this episode, but I wonder how useful this piece of information is to someone who has not seen this 30+ year old episode or who does not understand Doris's impact. I grew up in a house where her records were played and so she is a part of my history, but how do we make these points relevant to someone who does not have a "history" or knowledge of her? How do we make it more than a list of cultural references? With the MASH example, I  think it would be much more useful (and interesting) to place it within something broader that explains why Doris's recording was used. It could just as easily have been the Andrews Sisters or Dinah Shore or someone else from the era. Why Doris?  Was it because the producers believed that millions of viewers in the late 1970s would feel a similar nostalgia and understand the theme being conveyed because Doris evoked such a strong and specific reaction?  I don't know.  I'm pondering.  Maybe there is nothing available to give this the context I believe is lacking. I'm beginning to think that the list of points is not wrong in itself, and that the information contained in the list may be useful, but because it does not present them within any kind of context or framework, it reads as trivia with the relevance being assumed rather than demonstrated.  I'd love to find an article with a strongly written section of this type, to use an example.  If anyone knows of one, it could be helpful. Rossrs (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * More:
 * "Suggesting that the section should do a better job of conveying the pop culture impact of Day is one thing, and not a bad point. " and "Again, if the argument is that it could be presented in a more appealing or contextual way, that's certainly a fair statement." - perhaps this is where we should shift our focus to.
 * "I don't see how you can suggest that we either literally delineate different echelons of superstars...." - neither do I.
 * "that is about trivia, as in rather than in a Trivia section - I mentioned this above, but "trivia" is often a matter of perception.  A list of facts will be interpreted by some as "factoids" and the list format will often be perceived as trivia, regardless of whether the perception is accurate.  The same information in prose form is often more "accepted" (for want of a better word) or perhaps "overlooked".
 * "To Rossrs' comment of some time ago, the point isn't to say that the usage had impact on the subject, but the other way around." - yes, I see that more clearly now than I did then.
 * "For all I know, you may be right, and Rossrs has shifted and hardened his position on this issue over time." - No I haven't. My first comment was "This section needs trimming badly" although I take that back, as I would never support editing something badly.
 * "Rossrs, having bowed out, I decided not to belabor my position or pick up on his enjoyably intriguing but editorially digressive thoughts" - it's not often my thoughts are described as "enjoyably intriguing", in fact it may be a first, but I will say that every time I digress, it's only because I think I'm going somewhere. Rossrs (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) From WP:Popular culture:

"[edit] Content "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject. For example, a city's article may mention films, books or television series in which the city is itself a prominent setting, and a musician's article may name television series or films in which the performer has made several guest appearances. {...] However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference.

Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous.[1] '''If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. '''Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.

In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. For example, if a movie or a television series has been filmed in a town, the viewer is seeing a concrete representation of what the town actually looks like at street level — but if the town is merely mentioned in a single line of dialogue, the viewer hasn't learned anything except that the place exists." I don't think a single one of these mentions meet these reasonable benchmarks of significance. DavidOaks (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame, if you have even the slightest expectation of people reading your comments, cultivate brevity. No one is under any obligation to take your remarks into consideration when you do not do likewise with respect to their time. It has taken me way too long to identify things you're saying that it's actually possible to respond to, rather than decorative rhetoric. I find two: 1) yes, I did indeed trim the article. It was bloated, full of unref'd & unencyclopedic stuff -- your point? That it has already endured enough cutting? 2) I left the two pop culture items I left because they were the only two where DD is actually the subject, rather than a mention. But you're right, these are obscure, and without a WP:RS vouching for the signficance of the mention, they should go as well. DavidOaks (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Observing 1) lack of response to the principles for inclusion offered above, & 2) the further accumulation of uncited trifling mentions & 3) the wikipolicy that the burden of proof for worthiness is on those including or restoring, I think the whole section has to go. Wikipedia has been improving dramatically over the years, mostly by participants' insistence on including WP:RS, excluding WP:OR and distinguishing between trivia and popular culture.It's simple -- one can get a reputable doctorate in the latter; it has professional journals and a methodology -- nothing should be here which cannot in some way be connected with one of those journals or the methods. Otherwise, it's just fancruft, like cluttering the Beowulf article with videogame silliness. If the mention hasn't already been treated by good critical sources, it probably doesn't belong here. I know this means a lot of articles need a lot of cleaning up, but it's the standard.DavidOaks (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I acknowledge that that was a lot to read, and is easily the longest single post I've ever made or ever hope to make at Wikipedia. On the other hand, talk pages are riddled with discussions that go back and forth several times in a day and stretch on for days or even weeks, with the same total mass or greater, so while I grant that point, I'd have to say that my huge post wherein I really try to get down to examining the issues is a heck of a lot more valuable from a discussion standpoint than your starting off simply by citing a relatively dismissive opinion of the article subject and a single guideline — particularly when your later comments draw primarily on different guidelines and criteria.  If it's your interest not to spend a lot of time on this, you're welcome to go and leave it to the rest of us.  If it's your interest to save time in the future, spending a little more of your own up front to read and understand and then articulate better is likely to save everybody at the article a lot of time down through the discussion, if it even gets to that point.


 * Secondly, for someone who two months ago thought the answer was to take the meat off the bones, to suddenly develop a sense of urgency on the question of wholesale removal that 36 hours without a full response is untenable for you is both self-contradictory and not how things work here. This is not a highly trafficked article or talk page and the issue is not one of removing something damaging or adding something of vital importance.  The flip side of taking the time out of one's life to write something as extensive as my post above is not being able to adequately and comprehensively respond to a discussion that requires several things be explained for a couple of days or even longer.


 * While the RS and OR policies are essential to proving that we are presenting accurate information in the encyclopedia, and the enforcement of those policies has, as you say, improved the accuracy of the project, the "In popular culture" material you quote is merely an essay. Not unlike a bill that hasn't made it out of committee, it is a suggested guideline to be applied at the discretion of editors involved at those articles.  It arose out of a problem that needed solving and/or to preempt obvious potential problems, yet it is not a hard-line rule, and it begins with a disclaimer along those lines.  The very reason that we are engaging in such a lengthy and in-depth discussion here is that while we are not dismissing the idea that common sense has to be applied to this section, we are trying to determine what that common sense would be in this particular application.  The "In popular culture" essay doesn't damn editors to a Sisyphusian totalitarianism limited to policing articles to enforce the same law over and over again indiscriminately; we can apply guidelines differently to different articles when we understand how and why the guidelines were created and how and why certain articles are different from others.


 * I would not argue that Beowulf should be hijacked by gamers, or graphic novelists, or film adaptations, and such co-option of a public domain classic should not be dignified by anything more than a link at the bottom of the page to a satellite article (because there is certainly reason to enumerate such derivative works as are appropriately notable, just not as though they are really part of the examination of the original). On the other hand, if there's a videogame based on the board game "Clue", that's not the sort of thing that is unreasonable or unwelcome to have its own paragraph or even headed section at the article for the board game.  I picked that out of thin air but upon visiting its article I find that, indeed, the Cluedo article is only about two-fifths board game and three-fifths derivative works.  I haven't read it and so don't argue that's quite the ratio that article should have, or would have if it were brought up to A level, featured article status, what-have-you (and anything approaching such a ratio is unthinkable for a biography), but I daresay such a featured article would be remiss if it didn't still include a good few paragraphs, given that "Clue" is not Beowulf.  Doris Day is not Beowulf either, nor even "Clue". From what are clearly dozens of references, we should arrive at a representative handful that do conform to policies and that are informed but not starved to death by guidelines.


 * Down With Love was virtually a derivative work of a Doris Day movie. That's not my OR, it was in part the filmmakers' intent and anyone peripherally aware about it not only gets that but knows it was commented on as such in the reviews at the time. If it's your argument that the mention should be cited to one of those reviews to satisfy RS, I do not argue against that. What I do argue against is that, if that is your argument, you don't just spend your time doing that, to improve the article, rather than wasting everybody's reading and writing time at this page. What I do argue against is that you respond to that section by first reducing, and then months later removing it, rather than ever adding a cite ref tag, yet you boldface two sections essentially calling for refs when you quote the essay, even as you are still apparently arguing for total removal. What I do argue against is the fact that you are conflating essays — again, not policies, those medical textbooks explaining major surgeries necessary to ensure we are presenting accurate and non-libelous information, but suggestions, fashion magazines showing examples of sartorial and grooming style in the hopes of influencing how we give hair cuts and hem lines and tie widths.


 * I'm not sure what to do with the impression that either you're pushing for edits on something you know nothing about or you already know there are reliable secondary sources discussing the Doris Day connection in the Down With Love film and examining the image asserted in the Grease song. (To broad interest, Wildhartlivie's posts above acknowledge that the bulk of her work here, inexplicably, is editing out mentions of the Grease reference.)  If in-depth commentary on those two, for example, was the sort of thing you want, then either get it yourself or ask for it, and if its consensus that we move the section in that direction, in some reasonable period that'll get done.  It just seems like that can't be what you really want, because your suggested course of action was to remove everything save for the album of covers and the esoteric Dutch song, and you made no effort to source those.


 * And, again, it's hard to imagine you've ever heard the Doe Maar song, or even read the section we had about it, because it is not, as you erroneously claim immediately above, about Doris Day. I suppose you simply presumed that from the title, despite your repeated references to RS and OR?  To the other, I'm not arguing that a whole tribute album of Day covers isn't worth mentioning, that's simply more of a tribute than an example of her effect on popular culture.


 * Now please don't stand here tapping your feet in the next 36 hours, or even 36 after that, as I have a responsibility to other ongoing discussions at Wikipedia, not to mention my actual life. I could get a reputable doctorate in the time it's taking me to address this issue.  Abrazame (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mention : there is a song named doris day (don't go) by jack mannequin. It could be mentioned in the article. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.249.151 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Best-loved
That Doris Day is one of America's best-loved entertainers is something I wrote some time ago, and it was removed. I put it back, and I would wager it will be removed again. But I'll say this: There is a reason that I never write or edit anything, say, on the topic of archaeology. Or the Portugese language. Or podiatry. I know nothing about them. And anyone who isn't aware of the love Doris Day is on the receiving end from her many admirers on many continents over several decades does not know the essence of Doris Day and what she means to the public.

There have been performers who were not especially good-looking (Jimmy Durante), svelte (Kate Smith), glib (Joe Louis), suave (Danny Kaye), demure (Martha Raye) nice in real life (Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, Sinatra), or great talents (Dinah Shore). But the pubic loved them. To deny it, justifying, "There is no resource book or official list of who is loved and who isn't," doesn't cut it. For whatever reason(s), there are certain performers the vast public takes to its heart. Doris Day is one of them. Professor Von Pie 15:41, 01 December 08 (UTC)

Was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.223.118 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again more precisely. Whoever removed that Doris Day is one of American's best-loved entertainers knows zilch, nada, zero, bupkiss, nothing on the topic of Doris Day, and therefore should not loiter/tamper here. I wouldn't even put it back because I know that further vandalism will occur, certainly not for the sake of accuracy or truth. Professor Von Pie 17:08, 07 March 09 (UTC)


 * I'll say it more clearly. What does or does not belong in an encyclopedia article has nothing to do with your viewpoint of the subject. It also is not about truth, but verifiability. Truth, which is quite often a factor of perspective, is not always fact. I'm glad you think Doris Day is one of the most beloved entertainers of all time. She might even be, but this is not a fanpage. It is an encyclopedia article. Here, you must provide verified, third-party sources which would support your contention. Removing it from the article is not vandalism in any way. It is the removal of opinion, which may be valid to you, but your personal opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

''Note: The previous two posts have been removed from the talk page because they contained personal attacks and contentious statements in violation of Wikipedia policy. It is not censorship to remove personal attacks. The posts were in response to the removal of a POV statement that Day is one of America's best-loved entertainers. Perhaps she is, perhaps she is not, however the only circumstance under which such a statement can be included in the article is if it a quote or paraphrased from a reliable third party source. The statement did not have that. The last post that has been removed was a response to my having removed a comment containing personal attacks by the above the poster who opened this section. The poster does not seem to be able to distinguish between a point of view statement and a verified and cited fact. The rightful removal of such a statement - by an editor other than myself - has prompted a series of rants with inappropriate attacks. To remove POV statements in an article does not constitute meddling, it is supported by Wikipedia policy.'' Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth has been successfully redacted and kept out of the article. Anything more

that you censor- this sentence for example- is pointless overkill. Professor Von Pie 12:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To say that Doris is one of America's best-loved entertainers requires a whole host of qualifiers. This article could be around for 100 years, 200 years, 1000 years. Will Doris still be one of America's best-loved entertainers then? Will anyone in the 22nd, 23rd, or 31st century who is not a historian even know who she is? You could say that Doris Day is one of America's best-loved entertainers for a certain percentage of Americans of from the time period of World War II through the mid-1960s, most of whom are of a proscribed ethnic background and economic status. That might be true, and more accurate, but still has little place in an encyclopedia article. Again, the object is verfiability, and not expressions of personal interest in the subject. A better way to demonstrate Ms. Day's popularity for a given time period would be to link with proof, such as figures on box-office receipts for movies starring Day, record sales, television ratings, and other verifiable statistics, for instance. Best-loved? Sorry, such statements will be deleted every time, and rightly so.PJtP (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Word to the mf nation, yo. Sugarbat (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

About the DD RH films.
This wiki article states:

In 1959, Day entered her most successful phase as a film actress with a series of romantic comedies. This success began with Pillow Talk (1959), co-starring Rock Hudson, who became a lifelong friend, and Tony Randall. Day received a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actress. Day, Hudson, and Randall made two more films together, Lover Come Back (1961) and Send Me No Flowers (1964). These two films are lesser known of their film pairings and weren't as successful critically or commercially. In 1962, Day appeared with Cary Grant in That Touch of Mink. During 1960 and the 1962 to 1964 period, Day ranked #1 at the box office.

However, the separate wiki articles on the films show that the box office of the latter two DD-RH films actually exceeded Pillow Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.155.8 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This box office nonsense makes me sick. The only significant relation is that of movies released in the same year compared by admissions. That's the only fair and balanced ranking possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.71.154 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Doris Day died in 1958
Please look at the pictures of Doris Day (1955 and 1960) in the article. They are not the same person! Böri (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "conspiracy theory cum vandalism stricken" ??? / NOT a conspiracy theory! Look at the pictures! Böri (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever dude, knock yourself out. Ever heard of plastic surgery? Quis separabit?  16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth, "Happy 90th Birthday" edition
A wide range of reliable sources are reporting Day's 90th birthday today, e.g. and a continuing flow of editors (well-meaning and otherwise) keep changing her birthyear accordingly.

Assuming that, based on the above discussions, we are still persuaded that 1922 is the correct year, the article should explain itself, and acknowledge the sources that report otherwise: possibly a mention in the lede, more definitely some text in the "Early life" section. An imperfect starter suggestion (appropriate footnotes to be added):

"The weight of reliable sources, including census reports, indicate that Day was born in 1922, but many sources (including Day's website) use 1924, and Day was widely reported as celebrating her 90th birthday in 1924 2014 : Day has stated that in her youth, her mother when she was 16, a bandleader added two years to her age to expand her range of job opportunities so she could sing in a nightclub, but this explanation has been questioned in other sources."

Someone can probably come up with something better, but I don't think we should continue to ignore the issue given what's now in the media. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC) suggested edit revised Arxiloxos (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014
Softtophardtop (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Dear Sir/Madam, Could someone change Doris Days birthday to 1924. She was 90 this month not 92. Thanks, Steve R.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014
Doris Day was born in 1924 NOT 1922 she has just had her 90th birthday,I've tried editing it 3 times but its still the same

81.105.95.164 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

❌ This is a well known and contentious dispute - Please see the numerous discussions above and Note 1 under References on the article page. - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth
Does anybody know her DOB? Because it's the 03.04.1922 English version, but 03.04.1924 on Russian version. 86.16.247.130 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Her own website lists her year of birth as 1924 Thismightbezach (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, her website and biographies list it as 1924. See the above very lengthy debate over her true date of birth. Her 87th birthday party was held by friends and fans on April 3, 2011 at her hotel, the Cypress Inn, in Carmel-by-the-Sea according to an article in the Carmel paper, The Pine Cone, which says that according to Doris Day's assistant, when Day was a teenager, she added two years to her age so she would be old enough to sing with big bands. http://www.pineconearchive.com/110401PCA.pdf Carmel Pine Cone, Vol 97 No. 13, April 1-7, 2011, Page 1 WikiBob47 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy that story. Virtually every source listed her birth year for decades as 1924, not 1922. Thus there was subtraction, not addition. Wikipedia also listed the year as 1924. Only when I, in particular, tried to argue that the correct year is 1922 was a footnote added to her entry, and then finally the year was changed to 1922 about the time that Kaufman's biography of her was published. He stated that she was born in 1922 whereas the publisher stated that she was born in 1924. My understanding is that Time magazine wanted to do a feature article on her in 1961 but they stated that they would have to publish her correct age. She and Melcher were not willing to agree to that, so there was no article. I have not seen reference to anything even remotely resembling an official document that supports 1924 as her birth year. Indeed, the 1930 U.S. Census rules out that possibility. Why there is such resistance to listing her correct birth year is beyond me. We are talking about just 2 years, not 5 or 10!

TPR 6/27/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.232.70 (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me with this line? "Although the 1930 census lists her at age 6, she has stated to her biographer in Doris Day: Her Own Story and on her official website that she was born in 1924." It would seem that both clauses of the sentence are saying the same thing. What am I missing? Aaron S. Kurland (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaron, The 1930 census lists her as being 7 years old, not 6. See http://www.famousroots.com/2007/03/doris-day-in-1930-census.html. Although the date of the census is listed as being shortly after her birthday, my guess is that the information that included her birthday was provided to a census-taker before her birthday. TPR

And the 1940 census gives her age on April 10, 1940 as 18. Quis separabit? 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change Day's birthday back to 1924 (which would have made her 16 at the time of her first marriage), unless somebody has a copy of her birth certificate, which her biographers do not have. Hollywood publicity and biographers' claims are not as reliable as census data. Thanks. Quis separabit? 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Today (4/3/12) the Atlanta paper listed her age as 89, citing the Associated Press as the source. I see that many, if not most, Internet sources now list her birth year as 1923. Is that correct? I doubt it but it is closer to the correct year (which I think is 1922) than the year 1924, which she claims and which her entry here has used for years, until the person whose comment is directly above mine just changed it. We can only guess what happened with the census taker but I believe the correct year is 1922, which would make Doris 90 today. Regardless of which year is correct, she has certainly had a long and very accomplished life. TPR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpryan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this argument about the year in which Doris Day was born has been going on for a very long time and I have indeed been quite involved in it. I am NOT the person who changed her birth year from 1924 to 1923 the other day and asked that it not be changed back (which someone did a few hours later). However, there is no doubt that she was NOT born in 1924. Consider the ACTUAL 1930 census form that contains the info for her and her family, which is available on the Internet. In particular, consider the words "Include every person living on April 1, 1930". In other words, the information that was provided was supposed to be as of that date. Doris was 7 years old then, as the form indicates, since her birthday was two days later. Clearly there had to be a cutoff date for census info, which obviously should have been independent of the date that census takers visited each house. Forget Doris's recent radio interview (on April Fools!) in which she claimed that she and her mother added two years to her age so she could start performing. Almost certainly that didn't happen when she was 5 years old (!) or earlier, and even if that had happened, sources decades ago would have then listed her birth year as 1922 instead of 1924. That didn't happen, however, as her birth year was listed as 1924 for decades. Only during the past several years has there been this brouhaha about when she was born. It is very clear that she was born in 1922, as I have stated here for years. If that isn't clear to some of you, then I don't know what else I can say. TPR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpryan (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Quis separabit? 18:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is Doris Day, not a publicist or biographer speaking, in a reliable source, http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149392321/doris-day-a-hollywood-legend-reflects-on-life :

"........I started to sing — by myself — in a beautiful club in Cincinnati at the age of 16".... The club was 18-and-up, so Day's bandleader lied to the club owners and told them that his young singer was, in fact, a legal adult."....I kept forgetting that I wasn't two years older for years. As the years go on, and my mother said to me, 'You know what, it just occurred to me. You're not really 30. You're 28.' And I looked at her and said, 'Oh my gosh, I forgot all about that.'"

In lieu of no birth certificate (hello Obama BC quackfest), I'd go with the actual BLP subject's claims vs a census, which is not a reliable source for age. Census takers are about as unreliable as it gets. My ancestors's ages are all over the place, plus or minus 5 years for children, on the 1880-1940 censuses, fwiw. Tseliotwave (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but her explanation is not believable. First, young people don't forget how old they are and have this go on for over 10 years. Second, sources in the distant past listed her birth year as 1924, not 1922. Until this dispute started several years ago, I can't recall her birth year being questioned and every source I saw listed the year as 1924. If her story were valid, sources up until 1952 would have listed her birth year as 1922 and then some time later there would have been a change to 1924. If that had happened, presumably this would have been explained in print somewhere. Census-takers don't just make up numbers but undoubtedly they do have different levels of reliability. What is her listed age in the recently released 1940 census? I would look it up if I knew her street address then. TPR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpryan (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the odd thing about that story. If she was born in 1922 and had claimed to be 2 years older, then she'd have been saying her birthday was 1920. The only way that story could work with the dates we have, is if she was born in 1924 and then claimed to be born in 1922 (two years older), but then she'd have been accidentally stating her official birthdate was 1922, not 1924. It sounds like a story she concocted later on to shave a couple of years off her age when she was getting older (interesting that the NPR source quotes her as saying this came up when she was 30 and her mother reminded her she was actually 28 - a significant difference for an actress). I'm unsure that she can really be considered a reliable source for her own age, as she herself doesn't seem sure about it. The 1930 and 1940 censuses seem consistent, especially as they were taken before she had any need to erect a smokescreen over her age. Is there no BMD index in the US as there is in the UK? Such a thing would list her, you could even order her birth certificate. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC))

1922 established as year of birth per 1940 census data at Ancestry.com
Day was 18 years old on April 10, 1940 according to the census records at Ancestry.com, which has digitized the actual records in the actual pages in the handwriting of the census takers. Day's name is misspelled as "Daris Kappelhoff", and her mother and brother, Alma and Paul, are included but not her father, who by that time I guess had separated from her mother. 91-346 (enumeration district), 2552 Warsaw Avenue, Hamilton County, Ohio. Quis separabit? 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As the Ancestry.com site needs you to be registered here are the records at FamilySearch (which links through to the Ancestry.com pages, so you can check the transcription errors, the 1930 one gives them as Koppelhoff): 1930 and 1940 - birth year estimates are 1922/1923 and 1921/1922, respectively (expained as the first was done before her birthday and the second after). (Emperor (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Ancestry.com is not a reliable source as it's user-generated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Ancestry.com and even if we should consider it as a reliable source California Marriage Records 1949-1959 lists her age as 27 when she married Marty Melcher on her birthday 1951. If no one replies on this in a few days I'm going to change her birth year back to 1924. DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You can do what you like but I or another editor will restore 1922. 1930/1940 census records are far more reliable than a self-designated year of birth which is what is the age Day gave in 1959, which would not be a reliable source. You can add a footnote if you want if it contains some new info or link. This issue is far too advanced and contentious, and too many have contributed to the extensive (an understatement) debate, for any one editor to threaten to change what has been accepted by the majority. Quis separabit?  01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The majority? I can't see that any consensus has been reached. From the editing history I can see though that you're the only one that keeps changing it back to 1922 while many other editors change it to 1924. What has been reached as a consensus though is that information from Ancestry.com shall not be considered as a reliable source. You can check for yourself in the link above. And as I said. The marriage records from 1949-1959 also says 1924, 8 years before 1959. You do know that to be married you need some kind of identification, don't you? DrKilleMoff (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right that there is not a consensus; hence bold moves are inappropriate re the year of birth conundrum; see Arjayay (talk) comments below. Quis separabit?  18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Might be true now; I wouldn't assume that was true universally in the Old Days. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What? DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SEE FURTHER CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION BELOW

 * What you did was a bold move. It was 1924 for a long time before you changed it based on what you can call original research and since there is no consensus you cannot say that it has been accepted by the majority. DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth (continued)
At the beginning of the article it says she was born in 1924 and under the photo it says 1922 (age 91). Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.221.114 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 1924 according to Day. The 1940 census said she was born in 1922, but Day said she added 2 years to her age in order to get singing jobs. Recent article "Today, Doris Day turns 91 or 89, depending on who you ask. Let's celebrate her birthday by looking through her loveliest looks, on- and off-screen. Which movie of hers is your favorite? Clarification: An earlier version of this tribute might have inelegantly added years to Doris Day's life. Day has said that she had added a few years to her age as a teenager in order to get singing jobs."


 * I've changed her DOB back to 1924 Melonkelon (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to 1922 and will continue to do so. Quis separabit?  18:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A subject should NEVER be considered a reliable source for their own birthdate or current age. For all evidentiary purposes, they may as well not have been present at their birth.
 * Given the enormous amount of disputation about Doris Day's true birthdate, here and elsewhere, it is wrong to assert in our article that it is 1922, 1923, 1924 or any other year. Not even with a footnote justifying any particular year. The adherents of any one camp will never agree that the adherents of the other camps are right. Not until and unless some incontrovertible evidence is forthcoming. What we should be doing is being upfront about the dispute and say there is an ongoing disagreement, but she was most likely born in either 1922 or 1924, with 1923 as a lower possibility. That's what a responsible reference work would do. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that having the US census on April 10, 1940 give her age as 18 is pretty "incontrovertible". Quis separabit?  18:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's wiki at its best! Even a statement from the subject itself doesn't count. Various performers have added years to their age in order to secure more jobs(e.g. Sandra Dee). But even if they admit it, they're not credible in wiki world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.71.154 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To assume that Doris Day, "in order to secure singing jobs", already "added a few years" to her real age at the time of the April 1, 1930(!!) census (which gives her age as "7", i.e. born 1922), is of course nothing but utterly nonsense. A girl of 7 (or even 5(!) if the 1924-theory was true) would certainly not at that early age "add a few years" for supposed career oppurtunities. The latter would have made sense in 1940, but certainly not in 1930. --84.147.150.240 (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * She was born in 1922 per the US census and her own biographer. 1923 is not really in play. I am going to automatically undo any reverts back to 1924. Tired of this nonsense and having to keep the article on my watchlist. This is identical to the Ruby Dee article, which was vandalized in the same way. Dee was long thought to have been born in 1924, but in late 2012, the New York Times, with Dee's evident consent, acknowledged she was celebrating her 90tb birthday. Lo and behold someone changed some of the 1922s back to 1924s, including the reflink, i.e. from "celebrating her 90th birthday" (title of article straight from the New York Times) to "celebrating her 88th birthday". Quis separabit?  18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been involved in this birth year dispute going back several years and it is annoying to me that some of her fans still insist that she was born in 1924. She was born in 1922, NOT 1924. I've heard her explanation but it doesn't make any sense as nobody is going to forget how old they are and not remember it for several years.  TPR  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpryan (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Birth date dispute
Considering there continues to be a lot of edit warring over her birth year, either 1922 or 1924, I think the article should state both, like in the case of Mariah Carey. Melonkelon (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is reasonable, per the concerns I expressed in the section above entitled 'Date of birth, "Happy 90th Birthday edition'. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Ohio state birth records from the Ohio Vital Records Office in Columbus, OH she was born on April 3, 1922. Nobody with her name or any name similar is recorded being born on April 3, 1924. Both of her brothers birth records are also listed accurately as July 31, 1917 for Richard and May 30, 1919 for Paul. Seems to me the 1924 date was contrived at a later date to make her "official" age younger, which was a very common occurrence for female movie stars at the time of her ascension. Kmanblue (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

1922 is the correct year. Doris Day was three-and-a-half years older than Rock Hudson. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC))


 * Please stop making assertions like that, which come accompanied with no supporting evidence. The way to resolve a long-standing issue is not to say "I'm right, everyone else is wrong".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is there any doubt?
The records show Day was born in 1922. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Because, as discussed at considerable length above, Doris herself and many, many reliable sources have used 1924. That's not necessarily dispositive, but the subject's own statement, and that of reliable sources,  has to be given respect. Best to give both dates, note the conflict, and identify the reliable sources for each. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The official census records show she was born in 1922. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Those are not the only reliable sources we have for Doris Day. We can't just assume the official government record automatically trumps all other sources.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Photographs of Doris Day as a child indicate the 1922 date is indeed correct. (JakeCyrus (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
 * According to whom? --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To those who seem fixated on the truth of the matter, or what they have determined the truth to be:
 * Please re-read (or, if you've never yet read it, read for the first time) WP: Verifiability, one of the core principles under which Wikipedia operates. Also read the essay Verifiability, not truth.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

She was clearly 37 in "Pillow Talk". (AlexisVlad (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
 * What is the value of that "contribution"? Are you suggesting we should amend the article to read "Doris Day was 37 years old when she made the film Pillow Talk, because a Wikipedia editor named AlexisVlad said so"?  No?  Well, why did you waste your time and ours coming here to make such an ... utterance?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * She was clearly older than 35, even with the wig and make up. I always thought she and Rock Hudson were mismatched since he seemed so much younger than her. (AlexisVlad (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
 * One more time: The opinions of individuals are IRRELEVANT. We need PUBLISHED REFERENCES from RELIABLE SOURCES.  Get it?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The 1930 census says she was seven at the beginning of that year. (AlexisVlad (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Not verification in any way; the census puts down what somebody told them, often not even the head of household. "How old's the kid?" "7, I think?" None of your "clearly older" etc etc has any weight whatsoever on Wikipedia. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Records are more accurate than that. That was how they proved the real ages of other stars like Bing Crosby and Ward Bond. (AlexisVlad (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
 * If a reliable source verifiably asserts that the 1930 census record is accurate, we can quote it. But look, I do genealogy as a hobby. I've looked at a lot of census records from 1890 on. Ages are a particularly iffy column in the census; I've never understood why they didn't just ask for the birthdays of the people being tallied. This is why primary sources are discouraged in favor of secondary sources; raw data is subject to interpretation. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Doris Day's birthdate
Ms. Day is known to have been born on 4/3/22. My source is a close friend of one of her former personal secretaries. Many sources list her correct birthdate, one of which is http://www.topsynergy.com/famous/Doris_Day.asp.
 * Celebrities going by a different birth year doesn't seem so unusual to me. In this case, Ms. Day using a more recent birth year may have very well taken place. Since we have a dispute, I would suggest that you come up with a more authoritative and verifiable source. Although well intentioned, citing a source such as your close friend is not up to WP standards.  The web seems to be quite evenly divided between the 2 dates, with a slight bias toward 1924.  I would suggest finding and citing a book or magazine article that has researched 1922 vs. 1924 to back you up.  In the mean time, let's keep it the way it has traditionally been for years at WP and elsewhere. Leon7 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Leon,

The Internet source that I cited gave the minute and hour of her birth, which suggests that they researched it. I have not seen any article on "1922 vs. 1924" but it is known that she was born in 1922. The sources that list 1924 are just perpetuating the error. You stated that the Internet sources are evenly divided between 1922 and 1924. I believe this has occurred in recent years. Why do you think some sources would start listing 1922? They had to have a reason for doing so. She was born in 1922; insiders know that and now others are starting to accept it. Sorry for the "dispute" but she was born in 1922.

TPR


 * Given that the purpose of that website is an astrological chart, it does not necessarily mean that they researched her date of birth using traditionally accepted methods. They provide no source for their information. It may be that they used the technique of Rectification, using the known facts of her life to deduce her date and time of birth, and concluded that 1922 was a much more likely candidate than 1924.  That may be fine for astrologers, but it doesn't hold water for mainline historical researchers. -- JackofOz 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was informed a few minutes ago (by a Doris Day insider to whom I sent an e-mail) that the book about her coming out next June will give 1922 as her birth year. (Another book about her will be out in October.) She was born in 1922; there is no doubt about it.
 * In your mind, maybe. Let's wait for the books and see what they say. -- JackofOz 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the book that is coming out in October will say regarding her birth year. That book is written by one of Doris's former personal secretaries and if I were her I would probably not mention her birth year at all out of respect for her former employer. I was told that the book that is coming out next year will give 1922 as her birth year.

I am not merely expressing an opinion when I state that her birth year is 1922. The following quote is taken from the e-mail I received last night from a woman who wrote the Foreword for the book that is coming out in October: "I am happy to tell you that it is 1922!! That is just one of the shocks that fans will find out when they read David's book due out next June. I've known this since the 1970s!!"

As for my credibility, I am the author of four books and my books are highly regarded. I don't make things up.

Songwriters Hall of Fame http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/artist_bio.asp?artistId=72 and the following source: http://www.hastingsentertainment.com/catalog/artist/artist.asp?Ctrb_Id=33344925. IMDB is not a reliable source of information as I have corrected a few errors for them over the years. For example, they had Vera-Ellen listed at 5-0. Anyone who knows anything at all about her knows that was an obvious error. So I informed them that she was 5-4 and they made the correction.
 * Other sources that list her birth year correctly as 1922 include the


 * Nobody is arguing against your personal credibility, and nobody has suggested you're making anything up. That is not the issue. Wikipedia works by citing published reputable sources of information, not by accepting the claims of anonymous persons who assert that they have greater knowledge than we already have.  If the book that's coming out in October addresses the issue of her birthdate, it will need to say something rather more substantial than, say, "Doris once told me she was born in 1922".  As for the sources that already say she was born in 1922, I have added a note in the article acknowledging that sources differ on the matter.  Please do not revert this until it can be incontrovertibly established that 1922 is the correct year.  On a side issue, can anyone tell me why we have 2 infoboxes, containing overlapping details?  --  JackofOz 05:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This question will not be settled by citing web sites, since they're so divided. You're going to have to cite a book or an article that shows research on 1922 vs. 1924.  In the mean time, I quote to you from Biographies of living persons: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page", and from Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". You may have to wait for the book. Leon7 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. A birth certificate would settle the issue once and for all, regardless of what any secondary source may say. --  JackofOz 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, no one (I hope)will ever make a big issue of "1922 vs. 1924" in a book or article. To do so would be to insult Ms. Day. The correction should be made quietly and with little fanfare. We don't know how the error started. One conjecture is that Warner Brothers confused her birthday with that of Marlon Brando, who was born on 4/3/24. Perhaps she tried to correct the error when she first saw it. We don't know. Obviously if the error wasn't corrected quickly, then it would be difficult to correct it years later without the people involved losing face.

It shouldn't be necessary to produce a birth certificate to convince the two of you that she was born in 1922. I have cited sources that I assume are reputable, which give 1922 as her birth year. They didn't pick 1922 out of the thin air; they must have had a reason for stating that year. There is a well-known magazine that would have a lot to say about this if they dug into their files of many years ago but I am not going to go into that. As I said, the change should be made with little fanfare.

I don't think the two of you would accept 1922 if you saw it in a book and/or were told 1922 is the correct year by people who knew her well at one time. I don't have time for this foolishness. Do you want me to recruit a team of people who know the correct year to "stand guard" here and change the year back to the correct year every time one of you changes it to the wrong year? Don't tempt me.


 * Look, I think you're entirely missing the point here. It's not about whether I or any other Wikipedia editor personally believes it's one date or the other, or whether we personally believe your claims or not. I am perfectly willing to believe that Doris Day was born in 1922 - but my personal beliefs or anyone else's don't count around here. Whether 1924 or 1922 is the true year is not the fundamental question - it's whether either date is verifiable. Please read Verifiability for a more detailed discussion of this principle.


 * If there weren't rules about these matters, a person could add all manner of information (whether true or not) to the article and it would not be questioned. That is, until someone else came along and made equally credible-sounding claims that she was born in 1923, 1925, 1921 or whenever, or that she was descended from Henry VIII and Rasputin. Then there'd be an edit war, and the whole process would very quickly disintegrate. Wikipedia relies for its credibility - hence its very survival - on only using reputable published sources. Where reputable sources disagree on important details, we should note that fact. I've already acknowledged, in the note I added to the article earlier today, that certain sources do indeed say 1922.  But the great majority of sources still say 1924, and only a small minority say 1922. This minority includes the ones you refer to above.  You "assume they're reputable" - does that mean you assume the vast majority of other sources, that say 1924, are not reputable?  Why choose the tiny minority over the great majority?  The latter also "didn't pick 1924 out of thin air; they must have had a reason for stating that year".  And do the ones who prefer 1922 say why they do so?   What is the source of their information?  You say you have inside knowledge, from personal emails, friendships with certain people who know Doris Day, etc.  Surely you must understand that, with the best will in the world, we can give no status to such claims - I'm not for a moment saying you're lying, but after all you're just an anonymous voice who, for all we know, could be making this up.  Do you think that any reputable encyclopedia would accept contributions from an anonymous person whose credentials were whatever he/she said they were? Hardly. Using Wikipedia's principles, which govern everything that goes on here, there is not yet a case to change the date to 1922. Maybe the balance will change down the track when - and if - major sources start to change their dates from 1924 to 1922 (after which a whole swag of minor sources would follow suit). Then, 1922 would get a look in. But not till then. -- JackofOz 10:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think JackofOz is quite right here in saying that the key is verifiability. It's one of the cornerstones on which Wikipedia is built, and without it anyone could add anything to any article and nobody could challenge it.  As part of this community's standard procedure, we place great importance on verification in the knowledge that we will therefore get it right most of the time, but obviously not every time.  We also acknowledge that if two or more sources contradict each other, we can not simply pick the one we like best or the one that is most persuasive, and run with it.   This situation has been dealt with, in some other articles, in the same manner that JackofOz has suggested.  Refer to Norma Shearer for a very basic example, and Joan Crawford and Paulette Goddard for examples where census records have been used to reason which of several contradictory sources is likely to be most accurate.  (And even with the census records, the other sources have not been rejected out of hand.)  The bottom line is that there are reliable sources for both 1922 and 1924 - but at least one of these dates must be wrong.  And wouldn't it be funny if it was actually 1923?  Rossrs 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "verifiability, not truth" idea is practically a contradiction in terms because reliable sources (that are to contribute the "verifiability") should contain truth. The sources that erroneously list 1924 are not all independent sources of information, as sources of course copy dates and other information from other sources. Certainly the same will likely happen as more sources begin listing 1922 but the first one or two sources to do so obviously must have had a reason for listing 1922. If a source is going to break from tradition and list conflicting information, then it stands to reason that they would check their info carefully as they should expect people to ask them why they are listing 1922 instead of 1924.

If Wikipedia is to attain the stature of any prominent encyclopedia, then truth must be published, not errors that are perpetuated. The words of anyone who knows/knew Doris Day obviously should receive greater weight than sources like IMDB that are known to contain errors, one of which I mentioned previously.

There are various fans who refuse to believe that Doris Day was born in 1922 instead of 1924 and will turn a deaf ear to any substantive arguments that favor 1922. She was born in 1922, not 1924 (or 1923, Rossrs).

The footnote indicated at the beginning of the article alerts readers, without even reading the footnote, that 1924 is not well-accepted. So I suppose that is a suitable compromise, but the number of sources that list 1924 versus the number of sources that list 1922 is not an indicator of which year is correct. (And it appears as though more sources are beginning to list 1922.)

I am certainly not trying to denigrate her in any way. I corresponded with her in 1995 (when I was residing in Australia, Oz and Rossrs) and I have sent her a birthday card and/or Christmas card almost every year since then. Discovering that she was born in 1922 in no way detracts from her extremely impressive body of work, both on and off the stage. However, information about her or any other very public figure in any media form should be based on truth.***


 * If the sites that changed from 1924 to 1922 "checked their information carefully" - and I'm not saying they didn't - can you tell us where they did their checking? What documents or other sources did they use to become persuaded that 1922 was the true year? None of the ones I've seen reveal their sources. True, none of the ones that say 1924 reveal their sources either. But we're talking about changing something that most people believe to something that relatively few people believe, so the burden of proof is on the ones advocating the change. Everything you've said so far is, with respect, an assertion based on your claimed association with Doris Day, and an assumption that some unspecified checking must have been done. Is that good enough for proof? I think not. We need to see proof. Think of it like this - it is generally believed that John F Kennedy was born on 29 May 1917; if I asserted that I had some sort of association with him and he told me that he was really born on 29 April 1917, would that qualify me to go around changing the records of his birth in biographies, encyclopedias, etc?  Of course not.  If I wrote a book about JFK saying he was born in April, would any publisher take me seriously?  Of course not.  Now, say some record was unearthed that demonstrated he really was born in April, and the long-believed May birth date could be explained, then biographers and publishers might sit up and take note. Until then, they'd laugh at me. I'm not laughing at you, but you must understand how these things work. -- JackofOz 06:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - which is the opening sentence on Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V). It's worth reading, and as I mentioned before, it's not designed to be 100% above reproach, but it does allow Wikipedia to function with integrity, in most circumstances. I think we could quite easily talk around in circles here, but as you indicated in your previous message, a compromise is suitable, and sometimes that's the best that can be achieved. I have no reason to doubt that you have been in contact with Doris Day - likewise I have no reason to accept this on your word alone. I mean you no disrespect, but I don't know you any more than you know me, so your assertions shouldn't have any more weight than mine, or anyone else's. There must be a reason - and an original source - for both the 1922 birthdate and the 1924 birthdate. The problem is that we don't know what it is, so we can not examine it. Until we can find something that substantially "proves" (as close as possible anyhow) one year or the other, we should just accept that a compromise is the most appropriate action. I was only half joking about the 1923 year, by the way. A search of 1930 census records shows that that there was no "Doris M. Kappelhoff" but there was a "Doris M. Koppelhoff" living in Ohio at the time and she was born in "abt 1923".   Whether this is our "Doris" or an entirely different "Doris", I do not know,  but it's not exactly a common name even allowing that the spelling is off.  My point is that even the most supposedly reliable of sources can be somewhat muddy.  All we can do is our best.  Rossrs 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.famousroots.com/2007/03/doris-day-in-1930-census.html That is obviously "our Doris" as it even says so at the top!! The names are simply messed up by some sloppy person as notice that her father's name is even spelled differently from her mother's name. It is well known that Doris's mother was named Alma and that she had a brother, so this is obviously Doris Day. Notice that she was 7 years old in 1930. She could not have been that age in 1930 if she were born in 1924! Unfortunately, if you click on the link, you see a different set of information, which shows that the person who contributed this couldn't get anything right!!!
 * Rossrs: Okay, since you brought up the 1930 census, look at

The points that all of you are making are well-taken, but even with the errors, this does "suggest" that she was born in 1922. Or perhaps she was really born in 1928 as this source http://www.plexoft.com/cgi-bin/D.cgi states. Of course I say that with tongue in cheek. There are more than a few sources that cite 1922; I saw 6 or 7 without even trying to do an exhaustive search.

If someone who worked for Doris came here with the intention of trying to settle this, I suspect that all of you would not believe her unless she could post a copy of Doris's birth certificate. Fortunately Doris doesn't use a computer so she won't see all of this unless somebody unwisely mails her a copy. I know how she feels about the age issue from speaking to someone in California about it.***


 * You're still trying to convince us, as if we somehow held the only set of keys to the article. This is a waste of your time.  What we believe is entirely irrelevant to this whole discussion. --  JackofOz 10:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is one of you who kept changing the year back to the incorrect 1924 every time that I changed it to the correct 1922.


 * One more time - did you actually read what we said above? Continuing to merely assert that she was born in 1922 - without any proof - is a dead end. What you, I, or anyone happens to privately believe - and what Wikipedia will accept - are two different things.  1922 may ultimately be shown to be correct, but as of now it's not verifiable.  If you want to change that situation, then the burden is on you to come up with some verifiable evidence. And that means something of a documentary nature that any of the million-odd Wikipedia editors can examine, not just your claim that someone closely connected to her once told you this is so.  Anyone can make such claims - but can they substantiate them?  How many more ways do you need me to explain this?  (Sorry if I seem a little frustrated; that's because I'm, well, a little frustrated.)  --  JackofOz 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JackofOz: I have not altered the article after the footnote was added. Let me ask you a few questions. Was 1924 listed as her birth year here after someone produced a copy of her birth certificate? Or was it listed simply because various sources have used that as her birth year? I think we know the answers to those questions. My knowledge of the controversy surrounding her age extends well beyond "what somebody told me". Within the next year or two there will probably be general acceptance, more or less, of 1922 as her birth year as books are published that list that birth year. I will let those authors convince you and the Wikipedia editors of the date.***


 * I am absolutely willing to be convinced - "que sera sera". So, let's wait for the evidence. No point discussing this any further until then. It's going nowhere. Bye. -- JackofOz 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being proved that the birthdate was wrong all these years, but I find it difficult to believe that an 18 year old woman about to go out on the road with a band (and get married soon thereafter) would lie about her age and claim to be 16, since such a claim would only make life more difficult for her. Ann Miller was 13 when she made her film debut and lied about her age to appear older. It boggles the mind to think that Doris Day wanted people to think she was still underage. Just my two cents.Rarmin (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum to my comments above, I just found a newspaper article in the Long Beach Press-Telegram of April 1, 1951 written by columnist Gene Handsaker (it appeared in other papers as well) in which he interviews Doris Day and states: "The singing actress, born Doris Kappelhoff in Cincinnati, will be 29 this April 3," which make her birthyear 1922. All of the other newspaper articles around that date list her birthyear as 1924 as per her press release. Maybe Handsaker got it from Doris herself? Or it's a typo. Of course, one article can't be taken as gospel but it is interesting... I also found out that the accident that broke her leg was on October 13, 1937 in Hamilton, Ohio, which would have made her 13 or 15. Considering that she was planning to move to Hollywood two weeks later with professional prospects, the latter age does seem more likely. Oh, well. Rarmin (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

More contradictions -- the entry says she started singing professionally at 17. Since she first sang under the name Doris Day in 1939, that means she was born in 1922. If she was born in 1924, it should say 15. I'm sure all of this will be resolved within the next month or so.Rarmin (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1922 is the correct year. (92.12.76.4 (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm glad that some of you have picked up the ball regarding the 1922 vs. 1924 debate and provided evidence that the correct year is 1922, which I tried to point out is the correct year. TPRyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.37.170 (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

From Ancestry.com, 1930 U.S. Federal Census taken April 10, 1930:

You have saved this record to My Ancestry (Shoebox). You have saved this record to My Ancestry (People I'm Looking For). This record has been added to your shoebox. 1930 United States Federal Census about Doris M Koppalhoff Name: 	Doris M Koppalhoff [Doris Kappelhoff] Home in 1930: 	Cincinnati, Hamilton, Ohio Age: 	7 Estimated Birth Year: 	abt 1923 Relation to Head of House: 	Daughter Father's Name: 	William J Mother's Name: 	Alma Race: 	White Occupation:

Education:

Military service:

Rent/home value:

Age at first marriage:

Parents' birthplace: View Image Neighbors: 	View others on page Household Members: Name 	Age William J Roppalhoff 	37 Alma Koppalhoff 	34 Paul A Koppalhoff 	10 Doris M Koppalhoff 	7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stutzey (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

````Stutzey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stutzey (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In an interview with Terry Gross on Fresh air today (April 2nd, 2012) Dorris Day said the 3rd would be her 88th birthday, which puts her birth year as 1924. She said that for many years, until she was about 30, she and her mother claimed she was two years older than she really was so she could perform, to the extent she basically forgot her own age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Artist (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So the mother also lied to the 1930 census taker for professional reasons, saying that her daughter Doris was 7 not 5?! Sah10406 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

She was born in 1924. There's a season of programmes on her 90th birthday on the BBC and this is confirmed by her own official website http://www.dorisday.com/news/april-6-is-doris-day-day-on-metv - catlexcat
 * No, catlexcat, she was born in 1922 per her own biographer (Shearer) and the 1930 and 1940 censuses. The fact that the wrong year predominated for so long is the reason for the "season of programmes on her 90th birthday on the BBC", and I advise against believing everything (or in some cases, anything) a person has on their webpage or website. Quis separabit?  15:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, she wasn't born in 1924. The 1930 and 1940 Censuses confirm it:

1940 United States Federal Census about Daris Kappelhoff Name: 	Daris Kappelhoff [Doris Kappelhoff] [Doris Kappelhoff] [Doris Day] [Doris Kappelhoff] [Doris Kappelhoff] Age: 	18 Estimated Birth Year: 	abt 1922 Gender: 	Female Race: 	White Birthplace: 	Ohio Marital Status: 	Single Relation to Head of House: 	Daughter Home in 1940: 	Cincinnati, Hamilton, Ohio Map of Home in 1940: 	View Map Street: 	Warsaw Avenue Inferred Residence in 1935: 	Cincinnati, Hamilton, Ohio Residence in 1935: 	Same Place Sheet Number: 	9B Occupation: 	New Worker Attended School or College: 	No Highest Grade Completed: 	Elementary school, 8th grade Income Other Sources: 	No Neighbors: 	View others on page Household Members: Name 	Age Alma Kappelhoff 	44 Paul Kappelhoff 	20 Daris Kappelhoff 	18 View original image up arrow ``

She has said herself she was born in 1924. I've heard of countless incorrect censuses. You need to put 1924 and stop trying to change this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussobrennon (talk • contribs) 07:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted the 1930 and 1940 Censuses, and you are totally wrong that she was born in 1924. Those are valid sources.Stutzey (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox photo
The infobox photo has recently been changed from an iconic 1957 publicity photo to a 1946 shot of her at the Aquarium Jazz Club in a slinky black outfit. There's nothing wrong with the 1946 image--she looks terrific, and I would be happy to see the 1946 photo added somewhere else in the article--but I think the prior 1957 photo is better for the infobox, because it's more representative of the commonly held public image that people think about when they hear the name "Doris Day", what she looked like during the commercial peak years of her career. Do other editors have an opinion on this?--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the former image. The 1946 image is a great photo, but I hardly recognise her in it, probably because of the hairstyle. I agree with your comments about how she looked during her commercial peak. I think the new one might be better suited for the early life section. Melonkelon (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the previous picture is quite of poor quality, so I tried to replace it. What do think about this one? Yann (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on your concerns about the photo quality? It looks fine to me (and it's an iconic image) but there may be technical considerations I'm not thinking about. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is much smaller, and was overexposed. I uploaded a new version of better quality, and I put it back. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the improvement. Per the discussion here, I added the Gottlieb photo to the early career section. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Father's name
A recent edit changed her father's name to "William Joseph Kappelhoff" from "Frederick Wilhelm von Kappelhoff". The edit summary cites IMDb (which is not a reliable source) and Mooseroots.com (whose reliability is questionable). Sources differ on this. As noted above on this talk page, "von", although widely repeated on the internet, may have been an error -- but "Frederick Wilhelm" appears in multiple sources, including some older ones: see and  for example. "William" is widely used in books and news reports, see for example reports about his third marriage using "William" or "William J." (see ) but I can't find reliable sources for the middle name "Joseph". --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mooseroots (link to her page) apparently uses birth records, so the name seems to have been sourced from her birth certificate. It seems no one has ever obtained a copy of her birth certificate that I could find online, even though Ohio is an "open record" state, where "anyone who can submit the basic facts of a certificate may request a copy of it." I'd say the Mooseroots link is accurate, but not verifiable without her birth certificate or other confirmation. Melonkelon (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Doris Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930203626/http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/history/hsus_and_doris_day_animal_league.html to http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/history/hsus_and_doris_day_animal_league.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NYT source for ULC ordination
" According to its Web site, the church has 20 million ordained ministers, a long list of well-known ones including Glenn Beck and Doris Day. " is what the NYT says  in a Fashion section article. This is not a claim that Day was a member of the ULC - only that her name is on its website. Nor is it a news article at all. Thus - it does not support any claim that Day was an ordained minister of any sort at all. Collect (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Quis separabit?  16:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

‘Last’ marriage
Must disagree with reverting by Rms125a@hotmail.com of my deleting ‘Day married one last time’. It is simply not an encyclopaedic statement about a living individual. We know it is unlikely for a woman to marry in her 90's, but we still do not know that it was the last time. It is a statement that would belong in an obituary.

The following line states correctly ‘Her fourth and latest marriage was to Barry Comden...’ Valetude (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It should be removed, unless she's made a statement about not remarrying, which I don't think she has. It shouldn't be assumed that she won't marry again just because she's in her 90s. Melonkelon (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply
@Melonkelon & @Valetude: Not that I really care anymore, but this is from Wiktionary regarding "last" as an adjective: Adjective: # "Final, ultimate, coming after all others of its kind."‎ # "Most recent, latest, last so far." # "Farthest of all from a given quality, character, or condition; most unlikely, or least preferable." Quis separabit? 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you said "one last time". If you said her last marriage, that would be ok, but "one last time" is implying she will never marry again, which is not certain. Melonkelon (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)