Talk:International Debutante Ball

NPOV dispute
I have tagged this article for NPOV as has repeatedly reverted my efforts to improve the article. I have edited the article to remove puffery (terms like "girls from families of distinction", "ladies of distinction", etc) as well as to address serious formatting issues in the article (using separate level 2 headings where a simple bulleted list would suffice). 1WikiDeb1 has reverted my efforts to leave the article in its prior non-neutral and badly formatted state. 1WikiDeb1's actions indicate an attitude of article ownership. Seeking to avoid running afoul of WP:3RR, I am bringing the dispute here. I invite 1WikiDeb1 and any other editor to weigh in on the matter. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any response, I have restored my cleaned up version. Please discuss here before reverting.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, has reverted my edits with no discussion, other than a request that I discuss the changes before reverting again.  I have attempted to discuss the changes, and have invited 1wikideb1 to enter the discussion on several occasions, to no avail.  I once again invite this user to enter the discussion, and will await a response here. This user's response should address the NPOV issue that I have already raised, and why my edits should have been reverted multiple times in favor of theirs.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * as a european i'm pretty amused by the weight* americans seem to put on this whole debutante-thing. obviously a young women will very rarely be 'distinguised' in her own right: she's either rich or her parents are famous. neither one makes their children special in most people's opinion: suchs kids tend to be respectively 'rich and spoiled' or 'pompous and ridiculous'. (*= as in 'ANY weight at all').
 * since the whole debutante-ball has long lost it's social meaning as a place to meet a potential mate i'm under the strong impression this whole ball is little more than a tourist-trap for rich people. Selena1981 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely - the whole thing stinks of vulgar nouveau riche snobbery. We Brits did away with this nonsense in 1958. I'm not even sure this article satisfies WP:NOTABLE. The event only seems 'international' in the sense that the World Series involves the world, i.e. it's purely American. --Ef80 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If the IDB keeps being reported in the media, then it's notable. This does not prevent IDB from appearing ridiculous, and possibly pernicious (and militaristic) within a nominally egalitarian society. Acwilson9 (talk)

Please do not undo my edits until we have discussed your opinion
Please discuss your opinion about the article first. You have taken out so much information which was irrelevant to do.--1wikideb1 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the most part, my changes were intended to organize the lead sections into a "History" and "Format" section, to reduce the length of the lead, which is too long. For the rest of the article, I have attempted to format the list of past debs as just that -- a list, rather than as a series of headings with no content.  I did not remove any cited facts, but I did remove one paragraph with several uncited quotes and with one cite quote where the citation did not verify the quote.  These changes are all legitimate.
 * Other changes were made by others before I came along, but they are arguably valid changes as they tone down the puffery that was present in the article. For example:
 * The International Debutante Ball, founded in 1954, is considered the most prestigious and the most exclusive debutante ball in the world. Young women of distinction from all over the United States and around the globe are brought together
 * Who considers this the most prestigious debutant ball? Who says these are "women of distinction" (rather than simply "women of money")?  Such statements are puffery and have no place in Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All information in the article originates from reputable media outlets. As a matter of fact, an article was published in the New York Social Diary yesterday with the header 'Women of Distinction' referring to the debutantes of The International Debutante Ball. If you read the other sources, not all girls have to be 'rich' to be a debutante. They have to be accomplished themselves and not necessarily because of their parents. I found your changes containing very subjective claims and opinions and what you added in the article after deleting most of the information was not supported by any legitimate sources. In the current article, every paragraph of information is supported by a legitimate source. None of your information was supported by any sources. I find it very unnecessary to waste time and quarrel about this article as there are so many sources supporting it. There are so many other articles on Wikipedia with hardly any sources supporting them that need to be more thoroughly checked than this one.--1wikideb1 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any information. I removed one paragraph, I toned down the language of some of the rest, and I reformatted the rest of the information to properly meet the manual of style.  I do not see what the problem is.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK -- let me explain here what changes I would make, and perhaps we can agree on them:
 * Format
 * The article formatting is all wrong, according to the manual of style. Past debutantes are listed using heading levels, rather than in a simple list as is more appropriate.  And the lead is too long, and needs to be broken up.  I suggest the following outline:
 * Format -- how the ball works, the associated events, the military and civilian escorts, the flags, the songs, etc.
 * Qualifications -- who may be presented, and how they must apply (including the requirement to pay for one's table)
 * History -- founding, past significant debs (in a simple list), etc.
 * Impact -- the social impact of the event -- descriptions of the "status" of those involved, and the philanthropic aspect (donations to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Foundation, etc).
 * Verifiability:
 * Within this framework, I would retain as much of the information as can be properly verified from the given citations, but will remove quotes that are not verified by their citations, including the following:
 * 'the most elitist ball'. (The cited article does call the IDB elitist, but it does not call it the most elitist, and it uses the term elitist quite pejoratively.)
 * Description of Beatrice Dinsmore Joyce as 'The Grand Dame of Debutante Society'. Neither cited reference uses this phrase, although both sources do confirm her as the founder of the event.
 * The International Debutante Ball gains one of the most media attention in the world from reputable media outlets, ranging from newspapers to society publications and tv stations, such as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. While the IDB does appear to attract a fair amount of media attention, there is no source to indicate that its media attention is any higher than any other debutante event.
 * Debutantes of The International Debutante Ball have been dubbed as 'Blue Blooded Socialites' by the media' -- which media. A quote like this needs a specific source.  Without one, the quote should be removed.  (Keep in mind that most people look upon such a term as a negative description, not praise.)
 * The luckiest girls in the world (attributed to The New York Observer but without a specific citation). Again -- such an uncited quote should not be retained.
 * Puffery
 * Calling the debutantes "girls of distinction" at every possible occasion is just puffery. They are girls: whether they are "of distinction" is a matter of opinion, and is not the proper description to be used in a neutral encyclopedia article.
 * Excessive "See also" section
 * There are entirely too many other links in the "See also" section. All of the useful Wikilinks can be included within the text of the article, and no "See also" is really needed.

None of these changes should be controversial, as they all seek to improve the article to bring it more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If anyone (and yes, 1wikideb1, I'm asking you now!) has any objections to any of these changes, please respond here with specifics about why these changes are wrong or do not improve the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with your suggested format, but what I do not understand is that you have just changed the whole article yet again according to 'your opinion' before we have discussed and agreed to any changes. You are the one who suggested that everything must be agreed before any changes should be made, yet you just changed the whole article drastically before anything has been discussed further on this page. You are acting now like you own this whole article. I therefore will undo all your changes. This article should not be changed until an agreement has been settled.--1wikideb1 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. Let's discuss then.  My changes were not so drastic to the content of the article, only to its organization.  But if you insist, we can discuss.  (Forgive me for moving forward without discussion, but I have had trouble engaging 1wikideb1 in discussions in the past.)
 * So, the changes I made (that 1wikideb1 has just reverted) were all in line with the suggestions I made above, regarding format and organization. I invite Deb to comment on my suggestions, and if any of them are objectionable, tell me why.  If they are not objectionable, let me make them without reverting.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing that 1wikideb1 has chosen not to engage in this discussion (despite a specific request to do so), I'll move forward with my edits. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I still only partially agree with what you have changed. Where do you get your information from because the article contains wrong information, e.g. the ball takes place 'annually'. The ball takes place every 2 years, NOT every year. The format is fine, but it would have been appreciated if you had left the right facts in the article.--1wikideb1 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for getting the frequency of the ball wrong. Perhaps not so great an error as inflating the cost of the event by a factor of ten.  Or of removing a maintenance tag calling for a source for the claim that it is "the most prestigious" deb ball.  Other than the ball's frequency, I won't see any other cited verifiable facts that I have changed.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * , have you checked the Wikipedia page of "le bal des debutantes" About the crillon debutante ball in Paris?--1wikideb1 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had not previously seen that page. Now that I have, I say, What about it?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute November 2012
Hi There,

I just noticed that someone undid information that, due to reliable resources, is true. When further researching the disputable names, they appear to be predominate American families; noble families. I have however noticed that various names on the page were incorrectly linked as there was no page attached. I will fix the issues that were found and look forward to hearing your feedback. Thanks. Roysdeb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Roysdeb23, Please explain who the 'Schott family' are? They do not seem to be notable and how are they in the same league as the Rockefeller family, Nixon family, etc., and the other families mentioned?--1wikideb1 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to the discussion on Mark Arsten's talk page, I have just read on the internet that somebody working for the International Debutante Ball is called 'Schott' and her daughter was a debutante. If this is true, then this is not a very objective name to add to the list as it is not a famous and notable family name and many debutantes from the same year according to what I have read on the internet are actually from famous families and they have not been listed on the list. If you are linked to the Schott family, who work with this debutante ball, then you cannot add this name to the list as Mark Arsten has indicated--1wikideb1 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Frequency
Worth noting that the numbers associated with the ball (i.e. 60th IDB in Dec 2014) do not represent the actual number of balls. It seems that, when the balls switched from annual to biennual, the decision was made to increase the increment by 2, rather than 1. Thus you will find a 60th in 2014 and a 58th in 2012, but no 59th in 2013. Bromley86 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This WSJ article nails it: "Every two years, girls of certain distinction and determination take their bows at the International Debutante Ball at the Waldorf-Astoria. The 56th-anniversary edition of the event." (emphasis added) Bromley86 (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like there's been some kooky counting, along the way. The first was 23 Nov 1954 (1954 season), but the second wasn't until 1 Jan 1957 (1956 season), with the third following on 30 Dec 1957 (1957 season).  I.e, there was no ball in the 1955 season.  Then the ball was annual after that and named sequentially (i.e. 4th, 5th etc.).  Makes sense, but in 1991 someone had a moment: 1990 was the 36th (sequential), but 1991 was billed as the 38th.  That carried on for a decade, until Y2K led to the cancellation of the 1999 season (which would have been 46th on the new counting system).  The 2000 season ball was named 46th, which had the bonus of fixing the numbering problem: although not sequential, as with the first 36, it did at least have the benefit of being the 46th anniversary of the season of the first ball. It was at around this time that the balls switched from annual to biennial on even years, with 2001 probably being the first season skipped.  Bromley86 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Always at the Waldorf???
The article says it's always at The Waldorf-Astoria, but this year it's at The Pierre per NY Post. Unfortunately, I don't know if there was a change made or when. Or if it rotates location. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the change occurred in 2016. I've amended to reflect.  Bromley86 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Attendees
@. As mentioned in the edit summary, we don't usually include people in lists without them being independently notable. I'm sure there's an article in a local paper for each and every attendee over the past X years, but the test is whether or not they have a WP article. Bromley86 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I edited the page as the ball seems to usually be held at the Waldorf, but it is only temporarily held at the Pierre while the Waldorf is being renovated until it reopens again according to online sources. Also, it is noteworthy to mention that many daughters of billionaire businessmen attend the ball since many references mention it and it is highly unusual for a ball to attract so many billionaires. Furthermore, it is relevant to mention daughters of very famous people (all of which have references to support them). It is a ball where daughters of famous people attend, obviously not all daughters have a Wikipedia page, but their parents/relatives do and in the context of this article it is relevant.--Mrbuxton (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @, further to my previous message, I will refrain from adding the debutantes back to the list of "notable debutantes" until you have discussed this with me on this talk page since it is not a good idea for us to continuously revert each other's edits.--Mrbuxton (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers . Have a read of this to see if you agree that independent notability is the accepted practice on WP (I see this as the same as alumni, not the same as headmasters, in the school example given).  We can request comments if you like on the subject of whether or not to include people in the list who are not independently notable.  That's my position, not least because I've seen how lists can spiral out of control if the general assumption that people should be notable is waved, but I can see your position.
 * I'll remove the Daily Mail reference (I don't agree with it, but we can't use the Daily Mail - see WP's policy on the Daily Mail here). I'll try to find a source that confirms the venue move is temporary, otherwise I'll just stick to the supportable facts, and the article can be updated when it moves back to the Waldorf.
 * Regarding "Billionaire". I removed it as there was only one mention of the word "billionaire" in the source, about one person, and it frankly smacks of promotion.  I'm sure many of them are (indeed, the other businessman mentioned in that source is a billionaire).  I'll leave it in there, for the moment, and see if I can find some more support for it.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the section on presidents: we don't really need to know names, and we certainly don't need to know people who have been invited but who have declined to attend.
 * Not sure if you can confirm this, but it seems that the military escort was provided in 2014, but not in 2016. Bromley86 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it might be interesting and useful to read about "people...who have declined to attend" if their reasons were related to disapproval of aspects of the event itself (as opposed to uninteresting scheduling conflicts). Acwilson9 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting the article
I will start rewriting this entire article based on info I have found in many sources online. If anyone would like to add anything, please let me know here. See discussion with Epicgenius here--Imchris00 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to see why the article say it is always hosted at the Waldorf, when this article clearly states was hosted at the Pierre in 2016. I do not believe that it is a permanent fixture of the Waldorf or Pierre. I brought this up earlier in this discussion page (see above) which I hope you were consulting when rewriting the article. Cheers. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment . It is good that you mentioned this, since I am indeed aware of that and have explained this under the subsection "Format". Since, the Waldorf Astoria has been its venue for almost its entire history, and it is known for being hosted at the Waldorf, and it is the only location mentioned in almost all sources before 2016, the Waldorf has been listed as its venue in the article as it has only recently changed to the Pierre since the renovations of the Waldorf have begun based on what I have read. I assume that once the renovations are done, it will return to the Waldorf. That is why I have explained the Pierre as its location in 2016 under "Format" to clarify why its location has changed. If the Pierre will continue to be its location after the renovations of the Waldorf have been completed, then I think it will be appropriate to mention the Pierre as its location in the heading. Cheers!--Imchris00 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am so glad you were able to even determine the reason it was held at The Pierre that one year. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Tag
I have rewritten this article and have only mentioned information that is referenced and mentioned in legitimate sources. If anyone disagrees, please let me know since I have spent a lot of time researching this article to base it on legitimate factual information.--Imchris00 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Most Prestigious
The article claims the ball is "the most prestigious in the world," however I checked the sources and neither appears to say so:

Guestofaguest.com: "...the International Debutante Ball is one of the most exclusive in the country, and the US ball that attracts the most debutantes from abroad."

New York Times: "Steeped in tradition, the ball is one of the most exclusive debutante galas in New York and around the country..."

I'm going to amend it to "one of the most exclusive in the country" to match the sources; if someone can find a reputable source to change this statement please add it and change.

Cheers - Fredlesaltique (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Fredlesaltique, the sentence did not sound right before because you said "one of the most prestigious debutante ball in the world". Then it should have been "one of the most prestigious debutante ballS in the world" since it is plural. It has nothing to do with "finding a reference". And it is not "the most prestigious in the US", but in the World since it has been in many lists of the world's most prestigious and best debutante balls, e.g. this list from Marie Claire in which it is the only American deb ball in the list, so it is the most prestigious American debutante ball in the World since all the others are in other countries. Of course the US sources will say that, but it is also mentioned in foreign sources that it is the most prestigious in the world.--Isaacdully (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lady Henrietta Seymour
How can she be a descendant of Jane Seymour if Jane's only child died without issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilySarah99 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.)&#32;Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.florentinegloves.com/history.html and https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/debutante-don-new-york-playwright-article-1.1786318. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)