Talk:Judy Garland/Archive 3

Oppose merger (Re: Judy Garland as gay icon)
Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? I obviously oppose the notion of merging the articles. This article is already 44 kB long and will be getting longer as more material is added in an effort to get it to Featured Article status. There are plenty of independent reliable sources that are specifically about or discuss in some detail her status as a gay icon, more than enough to support the article as a standalone per WP:SUMMARY. In response to a suggestion at Peer review I plan on adding a "legacy" section to the main article which will mention her iconic status but the material if merged would give undue weight to the sub-topic. Otto4711 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:UNDUE if nothing else. If all that material was introduced other editors would rightly push for its trimming or removal, a concise summary here is more appropriate. Benjiboi 15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposing editor has switched the mergeto target to Gay icon so I've removed the tag from this article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol. well I removed it from that one for essentially the same reasons. Benjiboi 16:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Opposed as discussed here above and on previous occasions- the subject can be a significant sub-article or stand alone article - however  it appears that historicly the subject has not been well referenced even though there has been much written on the subject.Vono (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness of gay icon section

 * The section about gay icon simply doesn't belong in the article at all. Kidshare (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that articles on wikipedia must contain a gay angle. It is possible this may go out of control. Kidshare (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't censor and if gay content ever gets "out of control" it is dealt with like anything else that doesn't belong in this encyclopdia. Do you have a specific concern about this section or is it a general unease? Banje boi  06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoever said it must contain a gay angle? This one does because it is relevant, well known and documented, any article on Garland that didn't contain some reference to it would not tell the full story of the influence she had as a performer. Ged UK (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relevancy is a big question. Here is a quote from the Stonewall riots article: "Numerous books on this North American gay civil rights flash point have been written. In 2004, St. Martin's Press published David Carter's Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution, based on ten years of research and interviews with participants. In the book Carter examines inconsistencies of historical record, debunking a number of myths that have surrounded the events of June 1969, including the oft-repeated urban legend that it was the death of Judy Garland that sparked the riots."
 * The bothersome part for me are the words "debunking a number of myths" and "oft-repeated urban legend." If that isn't enough evidence for removal, I don't know what is. Or maybe start a trivia section on the article and move the gay icon section to trivia. Kidshare (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider that the article wouldn't have made it to Featured Article status if any of that section wasn't vetted and approved as is. Generally trivia sections are discouraged so I doubt anyone will support that concept anyway. You may also want to take not that the editors have correctly taken a neutral stance and written "Coincidental or not, the proximity of Garland's death to Stonewall has become a part of LGBT history and lore." So it would seem the issue has already been addressed and passed with flying rainbow colors. Banje boi  06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Garland's status as a gay icon and the reported connection between her death and Stonewall are verifiable. The article notes that the timing may or may not be coincidental, as Benjiboi has pointed out. Otto4711 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Usually I am in favour of removing 'gay icon' claims, as it's rarely presented correctly or convincingly.  This, I believe, is that rare exception: relevant,  presented neutrally, not given undue emphasis and properly attributed.   Rightly or wrongly Garland's death is associated with the Stonewall riots, and this article is careful to note that this association is not necessarily founded on historical truth.     If David Carter describes the connection as "oft-repeated", I think it supports  the retention of the information, because it confirms that it has achieved an association, which is all the article is attempting to convey.   Rossrs (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved the Stonewall riot paragraph to the "Judy Garland as a gay icon" article. The connection between Judy's death and the riots, if any, is more appropriately addressed in the gay icon article.Sandcherry (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your move. The paragraph was fine where it was. Your act does not improve the article, in my view. Jus  da  fax   01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although it's true that it wasn't doing any harm in the article, it's also true that it's better to put all eggs in the same basket. In fact, I think the latter is better. My $0.02 -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A case could be made for duplicating all the gay icon article content (Stonewall, rainbow flag, friends of Dorothy, etc) in this article or merging the articles. I think having a separate gay icon article with a link in this article is appropriate as the primary focus of each article is different.  This is consistent with the link to the LGBT Culture in Houston article in the Montrose, Houston article.Sandcherry (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Judy Garland and YANK magazine
Judy Garland is credited with being one of the people photographed as a pinup for the YANK magazine

I can not find any reference to her being in YANK. Can anyone provide issue/date information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.202.183 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Great article
It was a pleasure to copyedit this entry &mdash; just a comma here, a link there. Kudos to everyone who made this such a great article. Only that every Wikipedia entry could be this good and fun to read. Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

exceptional images
I just want to laud the contributors of this article for being it up to featured status, and exceptionally illustrating it w/o any usage of copyrighted imagery. That must have been a bear to find and vet all of them, and I congratulate their application. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MGM feeding amphetamines and barbiturates to child stars
The rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I have never before heard it claimed that "Garland, Rooney, and other young performers were constantly given amphetamines, as well as barbiturates to take before bed". The placement of the sentence suggests that Garland was under sixteen at the time. The reference is "Judy Garland: By Myself". American Masters. 25 February 2004., which means nothing to me. Is it American Masters, a TV programme which I have essentially no chance of seeing? If this claim is "common knowledge" it should be possible to source it properly. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear on what the unlikelihood of your seeing a particular source has to do with the reliability of the source. Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing at all. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Abortion
I saw on a documentary on TV (most likely American Masters) that Judy's abortion was coerced by the studio and her mother in order to keep her image wholesome. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Image; Quality of Photo
The main image that Otto4711 keeps placing up is a cropped, blurry, grainy image of Judy Garland and not at all a good image to start of an encyclopedia biography with. In the interim we have a screen capture from "Till the Clouds Roll By" that is clearer, shows her features better and has more detail. Otto, while your enthusiasm and dedication to this article is appreciated whether or not you find the image of Judy in "Till the Clouds Roll By" attractive - or in your words - "fug-lee" - it is irrelevant when working to make this article as good as it can. If you can find a better example of the photo from a Star Is Born that is clearer, sharper, not pixellated or poorly re-cropped, please put it up - but in the meantime please leave the image from Till the Clouds... up. --Ozgod (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Star is Born image is far more representative of Garland's image as a whole. At least one other editor agrees. The article made it to Featured Article status with the ASIB image so your concerns, while understandable, are not justified. Otto4711 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the other editor mentioned, so I'll recap on my thoughts so that they're all here for anyone to see. I agree with the Star is Born image being used as the main image.   I agree it's not the sharpest image but I think it's better to have a lower quality image that is representative of the subject, than a sharper quality image that is less representative.   There are several images at Commons, but none really encapsulate her in the way that an infobox image should.   The image in the infobox is really just to show what the person looks/looked like and if it can show them in a 'typical' pose, that's ideal.  Along the same lines, I think the image should be somewhat generic.   Personally, I don't think the Till the Clouds Roll By is a flattering image, but I agree that is not relevant, and that aspect is the least of my concerns.   My concerns are that she is not in a "typical" pose for Garland, she is in character with a look that she really only adopted for this one performance. (Likewise, I'd be unhappy with a "Dorothy" picture or even a Meet Me in St. Louis picture because that would limit her depiction to one role and one look, so it's not solely a question of whether or not I find her attractive in this image.)  In addition she is placed within a setting that has no relevance to Garland and distracts from what ideally should be a simple shot to show what she looks like.   The Star is Born image shows her standing in front of some microphones, which obviously say more about her career than a bunch of pots and pans, and shows her in a "showbizzy" type of pose that fits well with both her film career and her live singing career.  It's not specifically unique to the film from which it was taken as this basic look continued for a considerable time.  The only problem I see with it is that it is not as sharp, but I think its strengths and its relevance outweigh this one deficiency.  Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should take a vote to see who feels that another image should be put up, instead of the one that otto keeps bragging about and loves to death. Alright, so 2 people want it to stay up, but lets see how many oppose. Tinton5 (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting is a substitute for discussion. I'll ignore the incivility and sarcasm. Otto4711 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wikipedia is a democracy eh
 * Otto don't be ridiculous, of course were going to vote, didn't you read the page on how to settle a dispute? One of the solutions was to cast a vote and see who agrees and who doesn't...so ignoring this issue completely does not solve it, you are being passive, not hearing out other editors points of view. The least you could do is ask somebody else for a change. You are displaying a selfish, and unwelcoming manner. That photo is hideous. Tinton5 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If at some point in the future you would like to discuss this without resorting to personal attacks I would be happy to do so. Until such time, I'm unwilling to engage. Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ozgod (and, as to certain issues, Tinton), as discussed below, with regard to the photo at the right that is currently being used as the main photo for the article. Unless we are trying to show people how she appeared to herself when she looked in the mirror during the times that she was drunk or strung out, I think that the photo that is up now is so sub-par that we should instead use a better quality photo for this FA article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Zing! Went the History of My Edit
Why was my Johnny Mercer edit reverted? I can understand that it's a bit "disastrous affair" overkill in that section, but it is well sourced and interesting. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have eleven Garland biographies and only one mentions this affair, making it clear that it wasn't very important to Garland. Including it here seems like overemphasis. Mercer was apparently the one who was more deeply affected by the affair so it would probably be best to include it in his article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Who fell off?

 * The crowd of 70,000, angered by her tardiness—and believing her to be drunk—booed and heckled Garland. The performer fled the stage after just 45 minutes.[81]

This is somewhat confusing. Is it referring to Judy Garland herself? If so referring to her as the performer in the context is rather odd and confusing. She or Garland would be better. I can't check the ref easily as it's a book Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is confusing. Iconicism (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Jusda  fax  07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche and Otto4711
You're both long term editors. If you can't work this out, I'll block both of you. See WP:DR if you can't figure it out yourselves.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working it out by following WP:OVERLINK. Otto4711 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Otto has reversed me at for putting in a “clarify me” citation after the phrase “backyard musical.”  I believe that my use of that citation is appropriate.


 * Otto has also reversed me at and at  for, among other things, linking baptized, calling it overlinking per WP:Overlink, and asserting that “baptize" is a "plain English word…" and "whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers".  I've never been baptized, and must admit that most of the information found at that entry is information of which I was unaware.  I imagine that I'm not in so small a minority that the linking of that phrase would be innappropriate.  I do not believe that the phrase baptize rises to that level, and believe that it is incorrect for Otto to revert that edit.


 * I appealed to Rlevse to help here, as I thought this series of reversals of my edits innapropriate and found my discussion with Otto in edit summaries did not advance the issue. Rlevse as you can see above has kindly offered to block both of us if we can't work this out.  While that may or may not trouble Otto, who has gone down that path half a dozen times before (I, for my part, have always preferred reasonable disocourse to blocks), it is because of my desire to have this addressed amicably that I invited Rlevse to assist us.  If he does not wish to, perhaps we should solicit a third opinion from another source as is suggested by WP:DR.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god. if it really is going to cause you this level of anxiety not to have the word "baptized" linked then by all means have at it, despite the fact that the vast majority of the English-speaking world knows exactly what it means and is exactly the sort of link contemplated by OVERLINK. At least link it directly to baptism the way that such links are supposed to be done. I find it odd that you would spend the time searching out "baptize" but not spend the three seconds that a google search of "backyard musical" would take and, instead of adding a maintenance tag to a Featured Article (which means that a number of editors reviewed it and feel that it's clear enough already) actually add the material. Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I will take care of baptize, and let you address "backyard musical". I think that you can't expect the reader to know what backyard musical means.  The fact that it is a featured article means that, as stated above, "if you can update or improve it, please do so."  Adding the citation calling for clarification -- a tag that is meant for just this sort of circumstance -- is precisely in keeping with the quote invitation to make improvements.  As you know, where there were wikifications required (which, frankly, should have been caught before this was made FA), I made those changes in the article rather than tagging it (those are among the changes that I made that you did not revert).  If you are not comfortable clarifying backyard musical, I'll reapply the tag as an invitation for someone else to do so.  Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Years Active
How could she have been a singer at two years old that needs to be changed --GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 21:41, 24 June, 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says she joined her sisters on stage for a chorus of "Jingle Bells", but it doesn't say she was singing.  In any case, I think the point is that from this first appearance, she was consistently performing for an audience, as part of the family act.  Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I clarified that yes, she did indeed sing at the Christmas show. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo; Poor Quality
Is that (see picture to the right, which is currently the photo being used as the main photo) the clearest/best photo that anyone has that can be used here as her main photo? It is very blurry, and inferior quality for an FA article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest reading the previous discussions regarding the use of this photo. While it is not of the highest clarity it is very representative of Garland's image as a performer. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ozgod. For a featured article, this is a very poor image.  As to the fact that, as you point out, this became a featured article even with the photo, I have two points.  First, it made FA even with a great number of non-Wiki elements, many of which I have corrected these past few days, so I don't think that the FA review was quite what I would have expected.  Second, as is stated above on this talk page, while this (or a previous version of this) was rated a featured article, editors are in fact encouraged that: "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."  The photo jumps out as an element of that article that cries out for such improvement.  It is not as you suggest a matter an issue that "it is not of the highest clarity."  It is an issue of it being of terribly poor quality, especially for a featured article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Rossrs, that the clouds roll by image is an extremely poor choice for the lead image and that the existing image is far more representative of Garland and her image as a whole. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but as I point out part of the reason that you give for your view -- the suggestion that because this article was viewed as a FA article, the existing image must be of appropriate quality -- is not a strong one, and therefore your view is undermined by the reason that you give. In any event, it would appear from the above that your view is not a majority view, though I respect that it is your POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately Wikipedia is not governed by majority rule, so a fallacious appeal to the majority is irrelevant. Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche asked me to offer an opinion on this debate due to my image work. I don't claim to be an expert on Garland and you could consider me neutral to the debate in terms of that. However, re the Star is Born image currently heading the article, my apologies to those that like it, but quite frankly it is appalling in terms of image quality. As a casual visitor to the article it looks like a mistake in terms of being the infobox image and I wonder whether it should be used at all - even having cursorily looked at the debate first I thought something must have gone wrong when I went to the article. While I don't feel any of the images in the article, or even at Commons, are ideal, there's better than this. There's an argument raised above that this photo best represents her career as a whole, but I'm not convinced at all; even if it was good quality it's not a particularly appealing image. Besides which, other than fans, few people these days would know her for anything much beyond The Wizard of Oz done as a teenager, so maybe something from that era would be better. It seems to be like arguing that the 1921 Lillian Gish Featured Picture should not be heading the Lillian Gish article as it only reflects the early part of a career that stretched into the 80s. I will leave it there, but do please try to come to an agreement on something better than this. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your comment interesting because it you've taken it beyond the quality of the image.  Agreed, the quality is not great.    I commented above that it represented both her singing career and her acting career in one image, and I believe it would be ideal if a single image could combine the two aspects of her career, but perhaps that isn't possible.     I've suggested another image in the section below, and if you would care to comment, I'd be obliged.   Again, it's not the best conceivable image of her, but the quality is good.  (The Lillian Gish image is superb, by the way.  I'm glad you mentioned it. ) Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of quality it's better and I'd probably have a slight preference towards it - however it's still not great, very 'soft' as well, but nowhere near the extent of the Star is Born one. What puts me off most with that one is the big shadow (?, not quite sure what it is, perhaps a silhouette from someone else?) going right across the bottom right of the image. I'm also not a big fan of that hat (maybe a personal preference) and it seems that her hair has been coloured - I would have thought that her hair was naturally dark, though I don't actually know for sure, but I would tend to say that an image with dark hair would be better if that was the natural colour. --jjron (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The shadow is a fur stole over her shoulder. As I said, I don't think it's the best possible image, but we currently do not have a "great" image, and we can only work with what we have - a very limited list of mostly unsuitable images in Commons.  The best we can hope for is to find something that is satisfactory, and hope that in time something better will become available.  Her hair colour seemed to vary particularly in her earlier black and white films, (for example this image at Judy's grave shows a collection of 1940s era black and white photographs, and in some her hair is quite light),  although in her later films which were mostly in color, her hair seems darker.   I don't know what her natural hair color was.    On the other hand, the studio tinkered with her appearance; it's unlikely the public of the time ever actually saw the "natural" Judy.   The hat, well what can I say, it was once fashionable.  I like it, but my tastes aren't always the best barometer.  Rossrs (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo again
Is the only objection to the Star is Born image, that it is blurry? Are there any other images in Commons that each of us is happy with as an infobox image?

Epeefleche you commented above "Unless we are trying to show people how she appeared to herself when she looked in the mirror during the times that she was drunk or strung out..." - I think you've hit upon part of the reason I don't like the Till the Clouds Roll By image. She doesn't look the way she is best remembered (although "best remembered" means a different thing to different people), and she's got the big dirty splotch of her forehead - it's not a bad image in terms of picture quality, but I don't think it depicts the most appropriate style for the infobox. I think that is somewhat what Otto has also been saying, and Otto please correct me if I'm wrong. When I have time I will go through Till the Clouds Roll By  and try to find a reasonable number of screenshots, and hope that there is something in there we can use. To the best of my knowledge, it's the only Garland film to have passed into the public domain. I'm hoping that there might be at least one good image that shows her face clearly, and that doesn't "type" her to particular role, ie a nice, clear, generic face-shot. Could we leave this for now and continue discussing this when I've been able to find some alternatives? Shouldn't be more than a few days, and then perhaps we can decide on something that everyone can live with. Rossrs (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded an alternate image from the ASIB trailer which I believe answers at least some of the quality issues. While it is still not pristine it is much clearer and not as close up. It also IMHO is a much prettier facial expression, with her eyes more open and her mouth less scrunched around. The previous picture was a crop from a much larger screen cap from the same trailer (original image).
 * While none of her other films may have passed into PD, any trailer that was produced in the US between 1923 and 1977 inclusive is PD because of copyright law during those years. There may be another trailer image out there that's clearer as well as being representative of her image as a whole. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true. Let's see what we can find.  Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked through every trailer I can find, and in every case she's in period costume, the images are not in close-up or they're scratchy and poor quality.  I have also gone through Till the Clouds Roll By.  (I've found some superb images, but not many of Judy, and I will upload them to Commons as soon as I can)    Judy has two dancing numbers and she's not seen in close-up in either of them, and in all her dramatic scenes she is also sharing the screen.   The only close-up I can find is this one, which I've added to the top of this section so that it will look roughly how it would in the infobox.  I think it's a nice image, is generic in so far as it's not readily identifiable to a particular role, and is clear and high quality.    It's the best I can do, so what are the thoughts on this one? Rossrs (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a belated reply to Epeefleche's request on my talk page, I will say I'm glad someone replaced the image from A Star Is Born, which is indeed too blurry to use as the lead image; if possible we should replace it altogether. The one from As the Clouds Roll By is an improvement, albeit still somewhat blurry in full size. However, I could be wrong, but I somehow had the impression that a lead photo of the actress as herself, i.e. not in character, would be preferable to one of her playing a role, to emphasize the topic of the article is Judy Garland, not the characters she played. Of course, we would also have to take into account image quality of the available pictures. I don't have a strong opinion about it, and realize some other articles have lead images of the subject in character, but it's just something that makes sense to me. My $0.02. Fletcher (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"To Date"
With regard to current langague that states: "[In] 1956, Garland performed ... for a salary of $55,000 per week, making her the highest-paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas to date." (emphasis added).

I have a few questions/problems. 1) There is no citation.  There should be one.

2) What does it mean? Is the intent to say that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas at the time that she was paid that amount?  If so, the language has to be fixed.

3) Does it mean instead that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas through the time the publication cited to was written? If so, the language has to be fixed.

4) Or does it mean instead that she was the highest paid entertainer to work in Las Vegas through the date the edit was made to this article? That is what it means. But inasmuch as we never know at the time of the article when it will be read, and if that fact will be true at that future point in time, it is un-encylopedic to make such an assertion, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.  That is why when there are entries of comparable assertions they are made with reference to a date certain, such as "at the time" or "through 2008".

Otto, I know you have been reverting me without addressing the questions/comments I have made in my edits, so I am making them here instead both to avoid an edit war and so that you and others can address this. And if your answer is yet again that it must be fine as-is, because it passed an FA review, my answer is as above. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have better things to do with my life than address every trivial obsessive complaint about nothing that you seek out like a laser beam for...what goal exactly? Because spending time on the difference between "to date" versus "to this date" hardly seems like a productive use of anyone's time. If you have some issues with this article, I suggest that your time would be better spent having it reviewed for its FA status rather than finding random words and phrases that you think really ought to have wikilinks. Otto4711 (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's your only response, I will delete the sentence as unsourced and unclear, but I would prefer if you or someone else knows what it is meant to say, and if there is a citation that supports it, that we have accurate content properly sourced reflected in the article. WP:DATED may be helpful in this regard, once it is determined what the date is that is being referred to.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Garland the Dancer
I've made my first edit on the subject of Garland the Dancer, and hope that it will put an end to the edit warring on the subject. Otto -- dancing was certainly part of what Garland did in her performances. I've given you five citations, and there are more to be had if necessary. The others who were adding the entry to the effect that she danced were accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point still stands that she is not known as a dancer. Yes, she danced in some of her films. So did practically everyone in films in those days, especially at MGM. Bette Davis danced inThank Your Lucky Stars; doesn't make her a dancer. James Cagney danced in Yankee Doodle Dandy; doesn't make him a dancer. Funny if she's so renowned as a dancer that her New York Times obituary and her Guardian obituary don't mention it. Strange how none of the over a dozen biographies of her I've read discuss her dancing in any detail. Weird how none of the half-dozen video biographies I've viewed make any mention of her dancing career. Garland is not known as a dancer no matter how many silly references that include the words "Judy Garland" and "dance" in them. Especially silly is the Oz reference, since she didn't dance in Oz; she skipped. It is inaccurate in the extreme to put "dancer" in the lede because the article (rightly) does not discuss her dancing career, because she had no dancing career. I have no idea why you keep manufacturing drama over this article but I really wish you'd knock it off. Otto4711 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this odd too. The lede is intended to be a summary of the article, and with the exception of a mention of her going to dance school as a child, there is nothing in the article to say she was a "dancer".   It was par for the course that an MGM musical star would be required to dance, but I agree that it doesn't automatically mean that the person is regarded as a dancer as part of the defining sentence that is intended to explain notability.    Five cites is overkill and they don't support the claim that she was a dancer, but rather that she danced, something that is quite different and which nobody would dispute.  It's true that "the young Judy Garland, danced in the fabled ruby slippers down a yellow brick road in The Wizard of Oz",  but if that's an example of the strongest sources available, it seems more to prove how weak the claim is.  Judy told jokes too.  Doesn't make her a comedian.  This kind of discussion has happened elsewhere with contemporary pop singers.  Almost all of them dance in their music videos, but nobody calls them dancers.   It's what they do as part of their overall presentation, but it's not what they are.  I think it's the same with Garland.  Rossrs (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:LEAD : "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" The purpose is fully served by the current opening sentence. Rossrs (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Otto and Rossrs refer above to something called a "lede". What is that?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the opening section/summary of the article. It's also referred to as "lead" and is explained at WP:LEAD  Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Appeared in vaudeville" vs "appeared in a vaudeville act"
That "appeared in vaudeville" is ungrammatical will be quite a shock to the 444,000 people who used it on web pages (including any number of Wikipedia editors) and the hundreds of published authors whose editors seem to have missed it. "Appeared in a vaudeville act" is used far, far less frequently, and it is a clunky construction. So let's refrain from fixing things that are not broken, shall we? Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * People use incorrect grammar and syntax all the time - that doesn't make it okay. There's nothing "clunky" about "appeared in a vaudeville act".  But, this is all just your personal opinion backed up by original research, right? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, people do use incorrect grammar all of the time. This however is not one of those instances. "Appeared in vaudeville" is perfectly correct both idiomatically and grammatically and is understood by those with a basic understanding of syntax and grammar to mean "performed on the theatrical circuit commonly known as vaudeville". Sort of like how no one would foolishly think that saying a performer "appeared on radio" meant anything other than "performed on the broadcast medium of radio" or "appeared on stage and screen" meant that the person appeared on every stage and every screen as opposed to on the specific stages and screens on which they appeared. "Appeared in a vaudeville act" is unnecessarily over-written, pedantically specific and, yes, clunky. And performing a couple of Google searches is hardly original research, as opposed to your personal, unsupported, opinion that "appeared in vaudeville" is ungrammatical. Can you cite some authority for that? None of the four grammar and style books in my possession indicate any problem whatsoever with idiomatic prepositional phrases. One offers as example, "She lives on Magnolia Avenue"; would anyone reading that wonder why she's living on the avenue itself rather than in a house? All stress the importance of being concise. Three words is more concise than five and somehow out of the 140,000 people who've viewed the article so far this month only you seem to have trouble grasping the meaning of the idiom. Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Magnolia Avenue is a destination, a place to go to or be from. Vaudeville is a theatrical genre.  Can you see the difference (and how silly your analogy is)? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see someone who can't support their opinion going on the attack rather than backing up the opinion with references... Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that your "analogy" is the complete opposite of what you thought it was is hardly an "attack". SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"In vaudeville" is by no means incorrect, any more than it is incorrect to say that a performer appears "on television." It is in fact the traditional usage for referring to this particular genre of performance. As Danny Kaye said of his career, "You bet I arrived overnight. Over a few hundred nights in the Catskills, in vaudeville, in clubs and on Broadway." (emphasis added). Robertissimo (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A movie quote doesn't make for a good reference to correct grammar. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At least it's a reference, which is more than you've offered to support your opinion. Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A quote from a movie isn't a reference, it's just a quote from a movie. If I were to contend that in history there really was a group of men called "The Knights Who Say Nii!" who challenged King Arthur and then use the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as evidence, would you consider that to be a valid reference, too? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, because the film is clearly and obviously a work of fiction, whereas Danny Kaye was a real live person using language in the way that real live people do. Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see...Danny Kaye is a real person using real language in the way real people do. And John Cleese and Terry Gilliam aren't real people using real language in the way real people do. Got it. Oh my goodness...why didn't I realize this before...?  Of course you are correct and have just proven it! How do I know that for certain?  You've proven it in an imbecilic fashion with the language of an imbecile. ;-) Yes, please...*do* keep digging the hole deeper through the use of your "superior intellect" (FYI - that was language used by Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan - now...because he wasn't born in the US and was actually bilingual and playing the part of an alien, I suppose he's not a real person using real language as real people do, either...right?) Oy vey (that's Yiddish, not real language used by real people, of course, however, Danny Kaye was Jewish and I assume the phrase was not "foreign" to him... ;-)   SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see any basis cited for saying "appeared in vaudeville" is incorrect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And I have yet to see any relevant and valid reference cited for saying "appeared in vaudeville" is correct. So far, just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and nefarious claims based on "Danny Kaye" said so. Regardless, the statement remains reverted to the original, so who really cares anymore? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All righty, then! Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see millions of words and phrases on Wikipedia, none of which come footnoted with references to prove that their usage is correct. On occasions where people do correct usage or spelling or grammar and someone disputes the change, the person making the correction generally points to a reference supporting it. You are claiming that something that seems perfectly normal to everyone else is incorrect. I suggest that you provide a reason why we should consider it so. Thus far, all the reasons given in support of the usage are convincing&#8212;we have no problem with "in summer stock", "in theater", "on stage", "on film", "in pictures", "in the movies", and all kinds of other set phrases that no one questions, in "in vaudeville" is just another one of those&#8212;and we have yet to see what basis you have for saying this construction is wrong. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents--I agree with those who don't have a problem with "appeared in vaudeville". Just as I would not have a problem with the phrase "starred on Broadway." I think both are commonly accepted and understood phrases.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands?
Why is this article of interest to WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands? I don't see any mention of the area in the article, although maybe I missed such a reference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Cape Cod WikiProject and added WikiProject Minnesota, because Garland was born in Minnesota, but has no clear connection to Cape Cod. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently she lived on the Cape so that's where the link is. I have yet to figure out where this is cited but I'm asssuming that she did since there is much that I don't know about my hometown. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nose discs?
What exactly are nose discs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gay icon section
Per edits by User:Tbhotch who is restoring text that was deleted using erroneous rationales: ''Judy Garland as gay icon is a "non-notable" article? Take this to the talkpage or you will be reported.'' His rationale for his edits, his first on the article, are erroneous. He did not respond to my initial detailed rationale for the original deletion which said nothing about anything being "non-notable:"


 * Removed non-legacy material using an incidental over-emphasis to a select fan base along with non-neutral sourcing.

After he and User:Blake Burba, another editor who's first edits to this article likewise restored the material, I responded to both by suggesting that if they had any issue with the rationales given, they should talk rather than instinctively restore the removed text, with comments like "Seriously?" or meaningless ones like "non-notable article?" However, since they are unable to understand any of the reasons stated clearly, I'll expand on my original rationale:


 * Non-legacy material: The claim that Garland had a large fan base of gays has nothing to do with what a "legacy" is. Whether she was a favorite of any particular group does not add to her legacy. Being popular is not a type of legacy. The fact that she is even quoted as to how she felt about a gay following, "I couldn't care less," is another obvious reason it has nothing to do with what she expected to leave as her legacy;


 * Incidental: Refers to the fact that she had a fan base of multiple groups, including singers, dancers, movie buffs, Hollywood celebrities, seniors, or Wizard of Oz collectors. That's fine. But boosting one of those groups to a Section topic under Legacy, which it's not, is accentuating an erroneous connection with an incidental and irrelevant one.


 * Over-emphasis: The added rationale of over-emphasis was linked to the reasons. The "icon" section nearly doubled her Legacy section. Adding 167 words to the original section of less than 200, overwhelmed it with totally off-topic material, in effect corrupting the section and the concept of what a "Legacy" is.


 * Select fan base: Gays


 * Non-neutral sourcing: The added cites to that section were the following:  Gay Histories and Cultures; An Encyclopedia of Gay and Lesbian Film and Video; Gay Essentials: Facts For Your Queer Brain; Stonewall; and Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement. Those seem to be non-neutral as they did not come from any "general" entertainment-related source.

The added section has corrupted her Legacy section and does not belong. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's good to bring this here instead of just taking the meat-axe to it as the IP's were doing. There's no question that Judy and the Wizard characters are "gay icons", whether they liked it or not. Bert Lahr's lion garnered that label thanks to the line, spoken while gesturing with a limp wrist, "I'm afraid there's no denyin' / I'm just a 'dandy' lion..." Being gay icons is not an issue. Undue weight is the issue. Countless Americans of many generations, straight as arrows (like me) have been enthralled by that movie, for any number of reasons, and have been touched by the triumphs and tragedies of Judy's life story. That, along with the fact it's probably gotten more TV airplay than any movie besides maybe It's a Wonderful Life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikiwatcher, my edit summary restoring the sourced material you deleted was one word, “Seriously?” I thought that was a fairly succint  summary of my feelings when I saw that  you were performing the same edit as a homophobic, abusive IP vandal.  The fact that your edit summaries (and, to a greater degree, your subsequent explanation above) were composed of self-important pedantic gobbledygook did not, in fact, distract me from the nature of your edit, which was evidently intended to keep “gays” from “corrupting” Judy Garland’s “legacy”.  I don’t believe we need to quibble over the exact definition of the word "legacy" as a section heading. I don't, in fact, believe I or anyone else need respond specifically to any of your "reasoned arguments" above, since it all seems to be noise masquerading as Wikipedia editing policy. Your intention was to delete a section that you find personally distasteful without discussion—you’re only here on the talk page because Tbhotch called your bluff—making your case as though you had just stepped out of a time machine from half a century ago, lamenting the fact that the article on Judy Garland (possibly the most recognizable and oft-identified gay icon of the twentieth century) has (gasp!) a section identifying her as such!
 * I don’t buy for a single second your long-winded assertions that this section is somehow inappropriate—it is a tiny fraction of the size of the Judy Garland article, as well as the linked article (Judy Garland as gay icon—ahem!) and is indeed a part of her legacy. I don't believe your intention was to do anything but push your peculiarly outdated agenda, since the article as you left it omitted any mention of her status as a gay icon, and, indeed, removed the link to the Wikipedia article devoted entirely to this topic. This would, of course, make it more difficult for anyone looking for information of this nature. Homophobia disguised as scholarship "corrupts Wikipedia and does not belong." Seriously. -Blake Burba (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's a separate article on the subject, it probably doesn't need a paragraph in this one. A link to the other article, along with a brief comment, would be sufficient to get around the "undue weight" issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A perfectly reasonable suggestion, assuming that "undue weight" is actually an issue; I'm not entirely sure it is, nor am I sure how to quantify that. Certainly preferable to deletion of the entire section. -Blake Burba (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's like half of the Legacy section, and it seems undue weight to imply that half of her legacy was about being a gay icon. The link to the other article obviously needs to stay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps a better balance might be achieved by expansion of the non-gay-icon legacy material to balance things out--it does seem rather small in its totality, compared to the word count of "Legacy" sections in other similar articles...Bette Davis, for example.... -Blake Burba (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * New guy chiming in here. You can always put it outside the legacy section in addition to adding non-gay material to legacy section. However, I vigorously disagree with Ww1 that any gay history per se is non-neutral. We quote The Jewish Advocate as a source on Jewish subjects. Ebony Magazine is quoted as a source on black subjects (see article on Whitney Houston). Gay Histories and Cultures is cited in at least 17 other Wikipedia articles in various obvious places such as the Robert Mapplethorpe article. Wikipedia has never to my knowledge considered a publication advocating for a minority as uncitable due to lack of neutrality. If we did, we'd be hard-pressed to cover a lot of minority issues thoroughly.
 * I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and get occasionally pegged as gay due to being a big Judy Garland fan (most often by recent immigrants from the MidWest or central California). My two running jokes are that I'm "only culturally gay" and I'm "San Francisco's biggest heterosexual Judy Garland fan". Point being is that out here the main association almost anyone has with JG is her popularity among gays. But it's not limited to SF. I understand that in England gay men are often referred to as "friends of Dorothy".--WickerGuy (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum
 * It's probably worth noting in the article that Judy's daughter Lorna Luft is a bit uncomfortable with her mother's status as gay icon although this is certainly not the case with Liza Minelli. Luft produced the biopic about her Mom that starred Judy Davis and was fairly careful to omit all mention of the issue.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual error in the Portrayals in Fiction section
In the Portrayals in fiction section there is a factual error. The current line reads "End of the Rainbow (2005) featured Caroline O'Connor as Garland and Michael Cumpsty as Garland's pianist." Caroline O'Connor played the part in Edinburgh and in an Australian production, neither of which involved Michael Cumpsty. Cumpsty played Anthony Chapman, Judy's fictional pianist, in the 2012 Broadway production with Tracie Bennett as Judy. 174.57.141.216 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Main image?
Is the main image a fitting encapsulation of the woman? I don't think so. Dorothy was a defining role, yes, but also a unique one which doesn't fit with her later image.

http://theredlist.fr/media/database/muses/icon/cinema_women/judy_garland/14-judy-garland-theredlist.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseofAcheron (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As She Told Removed
I removed a clause, and it's source which was simply "as she told an audience...". Since sources used in Wikipedia must be at least potentially able to be validated, and no location of this recording is given, this is not a valid source. No one can validate what you heard sixty years ago. You can refactor this with a source able to be located and validated if you wish.Wjhonson (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

i love you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.72.244 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:American mezzo-sopranos
And once again, CastellanetaFan is creating a revert war instead of a discussion. Alright, I'll open the discussion again. So he believes the category "American mezzo-sopranos" should be there while others don't. CastellanetaFan: Do you have any reference to support this or is this WP:OR? -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Virginia gum
Virginia Gumm was one of the Gumm Sisters, a singing trio of whom another was Judy Garland. I'm not sure she was notable on her own (though I'd have thought there'd be a Gumm Sisters article), and per IMDb she was uncredited in nearly all her films, included the one cited here. I'd just have redirected but because there's the information about her vital statistics, including her husbands (apparently IMDB) I thought maybe someone would have another idea, or at least want to make a logical place in Judy Garland to copy the information to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, someone deleted it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraphs
I can spot a fair few unsourced paragraphs, adult stardom and After MGM are especially poor and the last section is completely unsourced. This passed in 2008 but I believe if this ran for FAC today in its current condition it wouldn't pass. Please make sure it is fully (and properly) sourced and where possible bring the sourcing and content up to 2014 standards. Refs 1-5 are shocking for somebody like Garland. It also has a fair bit of POV and unencyclopedic cruft like "At age 21, she was given the "glamour treatment" in Presenting Lily Mars, in which she was dressed in "grown-up" gowns. Her lightened hair was also pulled up in a stylish fashion." Garland has dozens of books written about her and the sourcing and overall comprehension I don't believe meets 2014 standards. If there is no effort to start to bring this up to today's standards I shall be opening an FAR on this in two weeks..♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of saying how it should be or what it has become since 2008, why don't you make the changes so it is as good as it were back then? I'm not suggesting WP:BURDEN, but Wikipedia is a team effort and I have a hard time cooperating with someone just delivering orders and give warnings (not being comfortable to use the word "threats").  If you have indeed contributed to so many featured articles, you know how it works. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn't my intention, I certainly wouldn't dare try to order a Leo about :-). but I do believe it currently doesn't meet FA requirements, and it is a high profile article with a lot of traffic so really needs to be sound. I was considering helping it out but I suspect if I begin working on it User:Light show will try to impede progress and label efforts to improve it as "bloating" (as he did with Sellers and Kubrick and got topic banned). He's already restored a photograph with dubious licensing which doesn't really reflect Judy's true appearance and reality. I think it needs a fair bit of work to get up to 2014 standards. It would help if somebody has biographies and books to help improve it. A good place to start I think would be ensuring it is fully sourced, no unsourced paragraphs and that the sources are properly formatted. Then the content can be strengthened in places with the wealth of sources now available. I'll try to help out if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is quite large and it wouldn't be easy to remove all the junk that has been added since 2008. Perhaps an easier method is running a diff of what has been changed since and sort it all out but that still requires a lot of work. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of junk has been added, true, but I think even the version that passed would need to be updated to 2014 standards. Admittedly I've got some articles which passed in the 2006-2008 period I badly need to update myself as they'd likely be delisted right now if not worked on. No rush though, hopefully I can work on this during the Christmas period.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, a "Featured article" doesn't mean much to me. It adds a little gold star at the top right of the article so I'll live if it loses its FA status.  Since we're the only 2 editors discussing this issue, it seems to be the other editors' feeling as well. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean, others (like Ghmytyle) feel the same. I have some GAs which I personally think are better than some of our older FAs but generally FAs are of a superior standard to most. The best quality article is what matters above all.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who? What?  Pardon?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Filmography
A "filmography" section in this article would really be nice. Most of the articles in wikipedia on film stars have such a section.


 * Her filmography is at List of Judy Garland performances, which is linked from the "see also" section of this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Help by Bing Crosby
I've reverted an addition by about Bing Crosby inviting Garland onto his radio and stage shows, principally because the sourcing does not appear reliable enough. Imdb is user-generated and definitely not a reliable source. Stevenlewis.info doesn't give any indication of its credentials - who publishes it? This is a featured article and the sourcing should be watertight. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @PaleCloudedWhite Watch. 30:12. Reliable PBS source. (Utzdman55 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC))
 * I am not able to watch that video; it states it is "not available in your region due to right restrictions". Presumably that means no-one in the UK can watch it, so that is another question mark over the suitablity of the sourcing, in addition to the ones previously mentioned. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an American Masters documentary where it talks about how Crosby invited Garland to the show and reinvigorated her career. It has a voice recoding of Hal Kanter who wrote the radio shows (performed in front of an audience). stevenlewis.info is the Bing Crosby Internet Museum. But just to be safe, use the PBS source because it is more reliable and has Jazz biographer Gary Giddins backing it, saying how Crosby put his own career on the line to help Peggy Lee, Connee Boswell and Judy Garland. The documentary has many films and audio recordings in it, so it is probably not viewable outside the United States. (Utzdman55 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure what Wikipedia's position is on sources that cannot be viewed by people in certain regions - I'll have to ask elsewhere. I am not convinced by stevenlewis.info - it appears to be an individual's own website that has subpages on a variety of unrelated topics, so the question of credentials arises. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The section clearly improves the article, and should remain providing appropriate sourcing is available, which I suspect is the case. Jus  da  fax   22:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

FA status
I last questioned this one almost a year back. I still spot a lot of missing sources and I think in parts, given that it's Garland, the article isn't quite as broadly researched it could be. User:SandyGeorgia, User:Jmabel and User:Bede735, thoughts? It would be a shame to have to delist it but it really needs quite a bit of work I think to stay listed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an article I'd be interested in working on at all heavily at this time. My serious research time lately (not a lot of it) has been spent expanding the reach of Russian Symphony Orchestra Society and I imagine that will be true for months. But best of luck to anyone who works on it, and let me know if at some point I can be useful with a quick copy-editing pass or such.
 * I suspect the most useful thing someone could do if they wanted to move this forward would be to make a clear list of where they feel it falls short. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean working on it, I wanted some opinions on whether it can be salvaged and whether or not it still meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I know enough about the state of scholarship about Judy Garland to make any judgement about whether there are material problems, and I haven't recently been involved in enough FA processes to represent the current consensus on how high the FA bar may currently be. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 01:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs work to be up to FA standards. In addition to lots of unsourced bits, the lead doesn't really go into her music career other than "attained international stardom which continued throughout a career that spanned more than 40 years as an actress in musical and dramatic roles, as a recording artist and on concert stages", though I can't really think of a good way to incorporate it at the moment. Probably needs an FAR if the article can't be fixed up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

British coroner
Thursdon or Thurston? 219.77.82.59 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention Mary Jane Gumm suicide in 1964?
Have often wondered why there is no mention of Judy Garlands oldest sister's suicide in 1964. Thought about adding myself but seemed more prudent to mention here on Talk as such a HUGE figure. But am sure that impacted her greatly. Jstevh (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox section
I hope I am not premature about this, but here goes. Is it necessary to mention "widowed" in the marriage template regarding her last husband, since Garland died in 1969? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are timely, not premature.
 * There are two issues here regarding the marriage template of the infobox for a subject (in this case Garland) who dies while married.
 * Should an end date for the marriage (coincident with the subject's date of death) be given, or should the end date be left blank.
 * If an end date is given, what should the reason parameter be?
 * There is an open RFC related to this under Template talk:Marriage The developing consensus there appears to be that "widowed" is confusing and often misunderstood to apply to the subject and not the spouse, and that the "widowed" value for the end/reason parameter be removed in favor of the end date being left blank. -- ToE 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Judy Garland's third child is Joseph Wiley (Joey) Luft b. 1955. (See: Sidney Luft)[]

- BDCoop (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why no mention of Bob Hope?
According to "Don't Shoot, it's only me" by Bob Hope and Melville Shavelson, she was a regular on his Pepsodent-sponsored show in 1939. It's on pages 54-5, though he gives her age as 15 in 1939 when she should have been 17. It's also kind of confusing about the chronology of the "Wizard of Oz" and he handles the drugs with kid gloves. I'm pretty sure the "Mexican cigarettes" are a reference to marijuana. Why no mention in the article? Shanen (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it OK to give information on Judy Garland's illicit teenage affairs in the text of the article?
There is documented information that Judy Garland was sexually active when she was a minor and before the filming of "The Wizard of Oz." Nothing is mentioned about this in her article. I would like to know if it OK for me to add reliably sourced information about Garland's sex life when she was employed by MGM. If this information is true and verifiable, it deserves mention in the article. I decided to make this request before I added the information. Imprimatur!Anthony22 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go ahead. She also did blackface, and I do not see why we'd want to keep future generations ignorant of the full story of their idols. This is a space of free speech, right? This is America.

201.214.241.209 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wizard of Oz Judy Garland 1939.jpg

Deanna Durbin
...is regularly associated with the role in Oz that went to Garland:. It's not just James Juneau who says it. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Bio needs a Personal life section
The bio badly needs a Persona life section. Anyone reading the last paragraph in the lead will understand why, as all of the supporting details are spread out throughout this 7,000-word article. That makes it too difficult for readers to learn more. For example, her tax problems noted in the lead are explained in The Judy Garland Show section, where few would think to look. Is there any reason why a Personal life section was left out? --Light show (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading about Amazon Studios, Culver City, and I am wondering if some of those employed there have a family history that might lead to relatives who knew her as a friend or worked with her. Maybe some of these people can help make the connection. What is the best way to pursue this if it sounds reasonable? JG Research (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd say it needs a personal life section per se, but it certainly needs significant reorganization and restructuring. With subjects like Garland, whose personal lives were so heavily infused with their careers, I find it difficult, confusing, and/or illogical to attempt to sequester certain elements of said subject's life into a "personal life" section. I tend to be of the opinion that deceased subjects should ideally have a biography written as an organized timeline that summarizes their life to the reader in a relatively chronological order. There is certainly strange placements of information here though, such as an entire section devoted to Garland's political views is inexplicably placed at the end of her "later career" section. I don't know enough about Garland to do serious work on the article, and don't have the time to do the amount of research necessary, but there is a lot to be done here. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Adult stardom
The first paragraph is a little confusing. It states her first "adult role". This could be easily confused as meaning "her first role in an adult film", which is of course not the case. There is a similar issue with the title of the section. I'm not sure what would be the best improvement here.  IWI  ( chat ) 03:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A true rarity?
The article currently says, "After her break-up with Mercer, Garland and Rose were wed on July 27, 1941. 'A true rarity' is what media called it." I don't have access to the cited source, but what does the latter sentence mean? What was, supposedly, so rare about Garland and Rose's marriage? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubbles (film)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubbles (film). Platonk (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)