Talk:Ginger Rogers/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Filmography
The image credited as 'Ginger Rogers in the Oscar-winning, title role of "Kitty Foyle"' is actually an image from "The Major and the Minor." The original wiki image is mislabeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.73.211 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucille Ball is mistakenly mentioned as starring in Top Hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.13.217 (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency Issue: How Many Astaire-Rogers films?
In different places, the article mentions either ten or nine Astaire-Rogers films. Can we get this settled please? Nandt1 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There were ten Astaire-Rogers films, the first nine of which were made at RKO between 1933 and 1939. The tenth, a nostalgic reunion, The Barkelys of Broadway was made in 1949 at MGM. The introduction correctly refers to ten films, and the filmography enumerates them. D7240 (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One Solo Virtuoso Dance Number
The page currently contains the text: "Astaire always included at least one virtuoso solo routine in each film while Rogers only ever performed one: "Let Yourself Go" from Follow the Fleet (1936)." This bothers me. Rogers performed at least one other solo song and dance number in a musical co-starring with Astair ("The Yama Yama Man" in "The Story of Verne and Irene Castle," RKO 1939). Unfortunately, I am not a Ginger Rogers film student and don't know how many other solo numbers she performed in Astair/Rogers movies. My concern is that she either performed more than one other solo number that wasn't "virtuoso" or all her solo numbers should be listed. Who decided That "Let Yourself Go" is "virtuoso" but "The Yama Yama Man" wasn't? I would list all her solo numbers in Astair/Roger movies and leave judging "virtuoso" to the viewer/reader. Is there a standard for superlatives in Wikipedia?

The new text might read: "She generally avoided solo dance performances: Astaire always included at least one virtuoso solo routine in each film while Rogers performed only a few: "Let Yourself Go" from Follow the Fleet (1936) being the most notable." Or "She generally avoided solo dance performances: Astaire always included at least one virtuoso solo routine in each film while Rogers performed only two: "Let Yourself Go" from Follow the Fleet (1936) and "The Yama Yama Man" from The Story of Verne and Irene Castle (1939).

Thoughts? Additional information? Rhtyler (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way that "The Yama Yama Man" could be considered a virtuoso dance performance, it's really just a skit where she flounces around in a clown's outfit. By contrast "Let Yourself Go" is a virtuoso tap solo and is the only solo dance routine she performed in the Astaire-Rogers films. If you're looking for an independent reference try John Mueller's Astaire Dancing or Arlene Croce's The Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers Book - both are cited - for confirmation.D7240 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Legendary
Am I over-sensitive, or is "legendary" a misleading description (implying fictional) ? mervyn 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this usage is becoming common. Katr67 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophes
There were a lot of random apostrophes strewn about in the last section.. Re Rogers' vs. Rogers's, cf. the article on the possessive apostrophe - except for exceptions, proper nouns ending in s take an s in addition to the possessive apostrophe. ralian 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I must have been smoking crack when I did the last major copy edit, as I seem to have added a couple errant apostrophes where none were needed. Thanks for cleaning it up. (But you should have seen it before I messed with it.) There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the page you linked to regarding the extra "s" after the apostrophe. Personally I don't like it (this is consistent with the field of journalism, per the Chicago Manual (5.26), though it also acknowledges that feelings run high about this point), but as long as its use consistent throughout the article, I don't care. Katr67 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To this end (consistency), I made 5 more apostrophe changes (s' -> s's) even though changing your edits back (s's -> s') would have resulted in only 4 changes. See what a good sport I am? :) I think the apostrophe matter is consistent throughout the article now, but if someone could do a sanity check, that would be swell. Happy editing! Katr67 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way is correct. The apostrophe and "s" can be added after a name ending in "s" or it can be an apostrophe without the "s." It doesn't matter. Written English is very flexible.--SN


 * Either way may indeed be correct but to make the choice I was taught to follow the pronunciation. James's pron "Jamesis", Prince of Wales' pron "Wales".  Personally I would say Rogers rather than Rogersis so would exclude the additional "s".  But perhaps I am saying it wrongly;-)Davidships (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Backwards and in high heels"
According to this page, Rogers awards the claim for this quote to Bob Thaves in her autobiography. Does someone here have easy access to the book to check? /blahedo (t) 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes...It's in the book, on page 163. She says that she never made the statement herself...and credits it to Thaves, noting that many people had stolen it from him. I read somewhere else that she liked it, because she really was quite willing to work very hard to hone those great dances...which in the end, were all great performances..

Rich Bono, 22 September 2009 I think this statement/testament? is preposterous. Watch the films. Rogers and Astaire were almost always side to side and face to face which makes neither of them ever backwards.Dcrasno (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DAR membership
Rogers was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. If someone wants to work that in somewhere, here is a cite for it:  . The category   should also be added, once it is supported in the article. Crockspot 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found an article here that mentions her research into it in 1944. I'm presently going through her autobiography, and she may mention it there too. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Early life -- accurate?
I am no expert on Rogers, so it might be true, but...

Since inappropriate references to anatomy and claims that she (Rogers) was a prostitute have already been removed, I question the remaining claim that both of Ginger Rogers' parents suddenly became homosexual.

Perhaps someone knowledgeable about her history could either support the claim with appropriate sourcing, or delete it.

Ginger Rogers and Lucille Ball are Related!

It's true. Lucille Ball was one of Lela Rogerss' cousins (down the line). / LucilleBall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.228.187 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they're not related. It is true that Ball is a family name but they are not blood related. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

UnAmerican Activities Committee
I think it is very difficult to allege that Rogers gave names to the above committee without any evidence as the names she gave. AIUI there were two groups of people who gave such names, those who honestly believed there was a red menace and those who gave names to destroy competitors (either commercial or sexual), envy or merely as servants of organized crime. Without identifying into which of those groups Rogers fell, you tar her with a brush which may not be appropriate.

Drg40 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sought to balance the truth that Rogers was a "staunch anti-communist" with the equal truth, that many liberal Americans also were in 1948....when Stalin was in power. Lela certainly went "over the top", by naming names of supposed communists in Hollywood....but the truth is that there were some. Ginger only defended her mother's right to speak up....though no one knew a that time knew that it would lead to the blacklist. So here's some additional food for thought, which I think can improve the WIKI biography:

I think in the light of history, Rogers opposition to communist influenced script writers is not that scandalous...though for myself, I detest the whole idea of the blacklist. Yet, how much more radical is Katharine Hepburn's rabid and emotive "I am a communist" speech? From what we know today, the Rosenburgs did give the A-bomb to Stalin's USSR....and the gulag did kill and imprison hundreds of thousands of Stalin's opponents and innocents.

Given that the media today has just sanctified the often propagandist, Dalton Trumbo as a persecuted screen writer...which he certainly was....into a liberal icon of rightousness, it's more than a little timely to clarify the facts concerning this man's behavior, and the historic context, in regard to the lives of Lela and Ginger Rogers. As a Republican, it's not surprising that GR might oppose such an influence in Hollywood. Rogers has been occasionally unfairly mocked over her refusal to recite Trumbo's lines "Share and share alike.", in the 1942 RKO film, "Tender Comrade"...yet none of her mockers to my knowledge, decided to live in a commune sharing their wealth with others; none of them ever tested the free-speech rights of Mr. Satlin's U.S.S.R.; and none ever made a critical film about Stalin's USSR, no less live there. In fact, writers like Trumbo, a member of the Communist Party from 1943 to 1948; and who stated he might as well have been a member ten years earlier; tactically dropped his membership, and then firmly reinstated it in 1954...was an American who had significant affinity for Stalin's USSR. This at a time when Stalin was behaving quite badly, towards the USA, and his own people....not to mention millions throughout the world.

Furthermore, in 1944, this new icon of the left, himself "named names", to the FBI of many Americans of varying political persuasions, because they requested copies of his pacifist novel "Johnny Got His Gun". By then Trumbo, being such an obedient Communist, had rejected his own pacifism, just when the CPUSA did, after the Hitler-Stalin Pact had collapsed...and Stalin decided to fight Hitler, instead of making a mutually beneficial peace with him. Trumbo's politics followed. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that his novel was intended all along, as a propaganda piece supporting the international communist party line. It's no wonder that Arthur Schleshinger Jr., years later, in the "Saturday Review", called Trumbo a hypocrite for painting himself as a defender of free speech, when both the USSR and the CPUSA both, actively did everything in their power to suppress it.

Additionally, in 1949 Trumbo excoriated in writing, the liberal anti-Stalinist, Robert Rossen for his anti-Stalin film, "All the King's Men". In fact, Trumbo was so pro-Stalinist he strongly supported Rossen's ouster from the CPUSA. By accident or omission, he was demonstrably and consistently obedient to whatever "Uncle Joe" decreed. O.K. now. Just who is the extremist here...Trumbo or Ginger Rogers?

Ginger Rogers never testified to HUAC, she only defended her mother's right to speak there. Under the First Amendment, Lela had every right to speak up. According to Richard Jewell, "Tender Comrade"...written by Trumbo, and acted in by Rogers...was a "five hanky weepy", and the quintessential "time capsule" of the WW II era propaganda film...perhaps Hollywood's most popular WW II propaganda film.  Again, Trumbo, for all his purported wisdom and integrity, never had a problem with propaganda.

Yes...It's true, McCarthy was the malevolent force that split Hollywood in two. There was a reaction and counter-reaction in the Hollywood of the 1940s...but it's completely unfair, so many years later, to continually tar GR with sins, which are not really sins. Obviously, artists are primarily artists...and both Rogers and Trumbo were certainly that. If one were to apply litmus tests for artists, as McCarthy did, there would be many fewer in the world. But in the case of GR, the HUAC event with her mother, and a small part of GR's Trumbo script in "Tender Comrade", seems to have become attached to her reputation, as if it were the center pivot of her life. It's about time that those knowledgeable speak up on the issue....for her hypocritical, and often ignorant, critics continue apply their own litmus tests. In the Wiki article, there's even a blatant accusation that GR favored the gangster-laced, fascist Batista regime in Havana, Cuba...because she had a show opening there....as if her presence there was a political act. No. This is blatantly absurd and a distortion of her life.

Rogers doesn't fit so easily into such an extremist wardrobe. First, she married Lew Ayres...a famous pacifist...who made the classic "All Quiet on the Western Front" in 1930, the USA's first anti-war film. She has stated that it was her all-time favorite film, even into her eighties.  Second, Rogers was a strong feminist, who, like Bette Davis and many others, fought hard for equal pay and recognition for actresses in Hollywood....not to mention the many roles she played of independent women.  Third, she supported Ronald Reagan's initiative to negotiate with Gorbachev, helping to end the Cold War...as Reagan fought off his own extremist, future neo-con, right wing to do so.  Fourth, she supported Civil Rights and was an admirer of Elinor Roosevelt. In 1951, she made "Storm Warning", the strongly anti-KKK film.  Fifth, she had excellent relationships with many Democrats all her life...and Harry Truman, just for one, had a "Ginger Rogers Day" for her at his library in Independence, Missouri.  Evidently Harry Truman, the instigator of NATO, unlike Trumbo's sanctifiers, also had no trouble with her "staunch" anti-Communism and anti-Stalinism.

Is she still sounding like an extremist? In truth, Ginger Rogers was, what Ronald Reagan called a "big tent Republican"...and she was proudly so all her life. She, like Nancy Reagan, would never have endorsed today's ideological neo-cons. What's wrong with her behavior? Is Trumbo, now elevated to sainthood, by Paul Giamatti's TV portrayal, to be the litmus test to judge the life of GR? It's absurd. She's a more complex human being than that.

Furthermore, as to the accusation at the time...sometimes repeated today...that Lela and Ginger Rogers were simply "stupid" regarding politics...and therefore innocent...please note, that no apologies are in order. If one wishes to consider stupidity, the same standard could also be applied to those who continue to blindly, and uncritically...and "innocently"...beatify the life Dalton Trumbo...thus elevating his highly dubious politics. A recent demonstration of just how prescient Lela and Ginger Rogers were, is the 2008, "The Soviet Story". This well documented historic documentary, shown on PBS, makes the fuzzy idealistic motivations of many of Hollywood's elite, in their continued delusional love affair with the romance of the left, seem quite absurd.

And finally, I would like to know what her mother's "naming names", had to do with her husband being denied visitation rights after their divorce? I ask this, because these statements are conflated in the same short Wiki paragraph. It's another simplistic backhand smear on Ginger's character, through that of her mother. After all, GR publicly praised and recognized, both her biological father, and her step father...pretty solid statement from the heart, since she was kidnapped twice as a child. She should be praised...as her mother should be also...for her grittiness, strength, and will to make something of her life, after such a rough beginning. 

I have written this even though my own politics are different from GR. I would be more likely to vote Democratic than Republican in most instances. And personally, I have always had significant issues with the economic policies of the Republican Party. This having been said, treating any artist unfairly for their political beliefs is just wrong. Ginger Rogers should not become the lightning rod for reactionary commentary....perhaps especially on Wikipedia.

I think that the only problem with this contribution to discussion is that the bulk of it does not appear in the article. Drg40 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ardvarc (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Rich BonoArdvarc (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC), 22 September 2009,Ardvarc (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to accept (as if it were mine to judge!) that Rogers, or her mother, gave evidence to HUAC on people they honestly believed to acting against the interests of their nation. Whether they were wise, in hindsight, can only be a judgment of history. However some Hollywood workers used the McCarthy/Nixon committee as a means of attempting to destroy competitors. As this knowledge becomes more and more common knowledge it seems to me that Ginger Rogers contact with HUAC needs spelling out with rather more care than is currently the case in the article. The article on HUAC does not cover this issue which seems to me to make it even more important to spell it out in the case of high profile individuals like Ginger. Drg40 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DRG40: You start your response with another completely unsubstantiated charge against GR...A charge I have never heard leveled against her: That Lela and her were employing their HUAC interview to advance Ginger's career. THIS is what you wish to further research? On what basis?

I have noticed that this article has been demoted from a Class 2 (under protest), to a Class 3. It find it interesting that when as a Class 2 (under protest), it contained all kinds of UNSUPPORTED smears on the life on Ginger Rogers (see my comments above), from the perspective of the left....but all of a sudden, when they are corrected, the article becomes a Class 3.

The HUAC incident ended in a lawsuit with two individuals against Lela Rogers (not Ginger), which was settled out of court. When that information is made available there can be a clearer view established. CAREFULLY, it should be documented that Lela and Ginger, while close, were two DIFFERENT people....something the WIKI article originally blurred. It's another documented calumny, perpetrated by the left, that Ginger and Lela were synonymous....when, right from the BEGINNING, it can be well established from friends in Texas, when Ginger was growing up, that Lela was the RESTRAINING force upon her daughter's pursuit of a career in show business. It was Ginger who won that Charleston contest and then could not be stopped....to her own detriment, as it turned out. Academics need to do a better job not only in documenting this, but in understanding it enough, even to know WHAT to document. This simple truth, was reported in the London's Guardian, in their obituary...so for an American WIkipediaist, it should be easier to document this information. Why was even this most basic fact missed?

I would also add, if you wish to document more deeply the influence of the right in Hollywood...which you clearly don't...I would also wish to examine the influence of the delusional left....specifically, Kate "I am a communist" Hepburn, or the card carrying communist, USSR lover, Dalton Trumbo. You mention the judgment of history?...Fully 27 million Russians were killed in WW II and after, only 7 million were killed by Germans. I do wonder how Trumbo and Hepburn would explain themselves to Lech Walesa, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, or Vaclav Havel. Unless your whole life is lived within the fish bowl of Hollywood...where your only concern is Hollywood...it doesn't seem objectively possible such views will be vindicated. Trumbo's WIKI article is in fact not badly done...though Hepburn's is untouched by this controversy. She's a liberal darling.

You also mention Hollywood's competitive nature and how HUAC might have been used to destroy the careers of others. As far as GR is concerned, according to Robert Osborne of TCM, who knew her pretty well, GR was always the LAST of Hollywood stars to "dish the dirt". This makes your observation of WHAT to research, part of my argument of unsupported bias. How can you even begin to research if you don't know anything about your subject? I think your professed modesty in regard to GR is false objectivity...and, in this sense, I think you are quite right to be modest.

Though I don't know much about the technical procedure of editing...hence my edits are essentially unreferenced....I have solid sources for ALL of my edits. They are all quite VERIFIABLE. In my opinion, my edits improve the objectivity WIKI article considerably....and paint a much more balanced and nuanced view of the real, living Ginger Rogers than the original WIKI article. (talk)

In reply I would only make one remark, it was exactly my point that it would seem necessary not to make any unsubstantiated charges, since the Nixon/McCarthy HUAC hearings were a very low point in American history and it is too easy to blacken by association. Drg40 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief! How childish this has become! If you cannot verify it with absolute proof then it is out; plain and simple. Besides, her political beliefs have very little do with anything since she was not a law maker. Who cares?! No one does. What makes her notable is her association with Hollywood. Please refrain from trying to sway an article because you're a fan or you do not like her. Leave it to more professional people to write it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart?
I'm no expert, but on TCM I heard that Ginger and Jimmy had a brief relationship and often double dated with Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball. Any verity in this? --DMP47 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ginger's autobiography
I'm presently going through her book and fixing misinformation throughout the article. I'm adding citations as well. Please be patient as this will be a slow process. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work, but don't forget how much misinformation is commonly found in memoirs. Valetude (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Last Marriage Divorce Date
Did her last marriage end in 1969 (as the article's picture box indicates) or in 1971 (as the article's text indicates)? Tesseract501 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Death - Possible inconsistency
In this section, in the same paragraph, it states both that "she was a practitioner of Christian Science and never saw a doctor or went to a hospital" and "She lapsed into a diabetic coma and she was hospitalized". I can't corroborate either statement but wanted to point out what seems an inconsistency about having been to a hospital. It's possible the text's contributor viewed "was hospitalized", which could imply she went involuntarily or unknowingly, as different from "went to a hospital", which could imply she did so knowingly/voluntarily. Either way, the paragraph reads strangely to me. Racwp (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I found this inconsistent as well so tried source but it was a TV program, not found nor a WP valid one; her obits consistently state natural causes so changed it to that with a past source and 2 new ones. Also had found a conflicting report with Leonard Maltin in 1991 stating an " untreated broken hip (Christian Scientist) was cause for wheelchair, she stood for a picture" when he visited her home in Medford, Oregon. I used this for another entry about her mothers fiction children's book but is no mention of stroke. Furthermore, the entire ordeal of hiding insulin shots, as a doctor is a lawsuit; then as a Christian Scientist how does that work since type 2 diabetes is not insulin dependent, how was she diagnosed, levels checked during marriage for proper dosage ? This info needs a better source and if it gets one should be re-added but as it stood it just wasn't there. Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)