Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Johnnie Ray

Who are the involved parties?
User:Dooyar, User:Pinkadelica, User:Wildhartlivie

What's going on?
Pinkadelica and myself have edited this article, trying to bring it better into compliance with WP guidelines. The other editor has apparently taken umbrage at changes and has twice reverted edits back over several intermediate edits, to restore his/her version of the article. I outlined several problems that Pinkadelica and I discussed about the article, mostly in email, and agree on. The results of our work, were in fact dismissed, mine as outright vandalism.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like for the article to move into a more objective, well referenced one, without speculation and conjecture or bringing in extraneous material. Also, without it being a contentious process. Both Pinkadelica and I have dealt with the other editor in question before and know from experience this is the only way to come to agreement on it.

Mediator notes
If you are interested in taking part in this process, please leave a brief description of what you think the issues with the article are and what you would like to see happen here.

Please note that I will not ask participants to agree to be "bound" by what comes out of this process, but I do expect all participants to approach the process with an open mind and in good faith.

Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear  00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi and thanks for taking this on. As it is at this precise moment, the article is looking good. However that's after the removal of several very problematic points. The issues I'm discussing here are based the differences in the article here, which is the version Dooyar wanted to retain and the article as of now.

One of those points is the vacillating stance taken by Dooyar regarding the sexuality of Ray and whether it had an effect on his career. At various points, the article stated that it was a factor in the decline of his career although there was only conjecture regarding it. The LGBT folks have included Ray in their project, and while that isn't conclusive in and of itself, the issue would be whether that destroyed Ray's American career. On a personal note, the change in American musical taste was likely more the issue for Ray than anything else, but that requires documentation of outside sources, not opinion and original research. Connecting Ray's hearing problems with songwriting and communication is just - out there, as was the statement added that the public made decisions about Ray's music based on whether he wrote his own music. No foundation and conjecture. I note that Dooyar did admit some of this was conjecture, but I'm not confident that would be the final word on it.

That issue is tied in with the addition of material regarding a tabloid magazine trial of Confidential magazine and Howard Rushmore. The chapter I read about this didn't go into any detail regarding Johnnie Ray and the effect the trial had on his career. The material Dooyar added said specifically that both "conspired to destroy his phenomenal popularity." From that, all the addition of material regarding Rushmore was superfluous and irrelevant (including the later murder-suicide of Rushmore and wife).

Other problems I had with it was what amounted to a POV essay (section titled "Reputation in the United States") on Ray's music, the dancability of it, etc. Next in the section was regarding whether his marriage was a shill marriage, his sexuality, and back again to the Rushmore trial.

One of my major issues with what was happening with the article had to do with the individual points that Pinkadelica and myself made regarding problems along these lines and those points being completely disregarded when the article was rolled back to Dooyar's earlier version.

I apologize if this is rambling on and thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue I have with the article are basically the same issues Wildhartlivie has raised. There is far too much speculation and vagueness. For instance:


 * "Morrison, the daughter of a Los Angeles nightclub owner,[3] was supposedly aware of the singer's alleged bisexuality from the start, but the couple separated within a year, anyway. Their separation and divorce were major news items in 1953 and 1954."


 * "Ray's emotional delivery struck a chord with teenagers, and he quickly became the biggest teen idol since Frank Sinatra almost ten years earlier. Ray has been cited as the historical link between Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley in the development of popular music."


 * Words like "some writers" and "supposedly" just don't sit well with me. I could deal with "reportedly" instead of "supposedly", but considering that the statement isn't sourced at all, I think that's another example of conjecture. The last sentence really isn't needed because "major news" relative. The fact that it was reported or made news really isn't relevant. Also, the historical link statement doesn't seem like a neutral statement. I also have an issue with citation placement. In previous versions of the article, statements were placed behind citations in an attempt to pass them off as sourced. Wild did an excellent job of removing a lot of that, but that problem will probably start up again unless the issue is addressed. Basically, the article has some info that isn't all that relevant and some of that needs to be removed. Aside from a few tweaks here and there and some reliable references, I don't think the article is in that bad of shape. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will mull this over while awaiting Dooyar's response. - Revolving Bugbear  14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the Discussion page, I am satisfied now that the "Personal life" section remains "Personal life" and nobody has reverted it to "Personal life and scandals." If you want to entertain the possibility that scandals ever hurt Ray's career, you can't ignore the fact that the "scandals" depended on some tabloid magazines whose credibility was ruined as early as 1957. There are two hardcover sources and many, many newspaper / magazine sources on that 1957 trial that ruined those tabloids. They only mention Johnnie Ray in passing (with a claim that the dirt on him originated from Howard Rushmore), but they indicate that the trial was very disturbing for its time. Dorothy Dandridge took the witness stand to explain that she could have been arrested for walking near a Lake Tahoe hotel (where she stayed in 1950 in order to sing in the hotel lounge) for any reason. It was in a whites - only neighborhood. Therefore she could not have fornicated with a white man in the woods near the hotel. Confidential said the pair had done just that, and a tabloid employee followed her on the stand insisting all the dirt was true. The truth about Johnnie Ray's sex life was never discussed during the trial, but we know the trial ended with the judge ordering the tabloid officials to stop invading people's privacy. That is also sourced between hard covers. The 1996 Theo Wilson book should remain as a source.

"Wildhartlivie" said recently on the Discussion page that you can make a valid comparison between Johnnie Ray's 1952 - 1954 marriage to a woman and the questionable marriages of Rock Hudson and Elton John. Because some may disagree with that, I insist that Ray's marriage to Marilyn Morrison should constitute 90 percent of the "Personal life" chapter. (That she was the daughter of a Los Angeles nightclub owner should remain because she is the only significant other Johnnie Ray is known to have had according to sources.) Here's why some may disagree with the comparison of Ray's public facade to Hudson's and John's.  John, alive today and just as popular as he was when he married a woman, inspires hundreds of people who have known him only slightly to talk about him for publication. He has said for publication why he wed heterosexually, and his ex - wife will have to deal with a certain degree of privacy loss for the rest of her life. Many people will keep asking her about it because Elton John's place in pop culture history is etched in concrete.

Rock Hudson may be dead, but his level of fame never dipped during the 27 years that he lived after his divorce from Phyllis Gates. During the 27 years journalists consistently refused to print what they knew about him. Hudson kept his career on the A list by filming some episodes of Dynasty (TV series) in 1985, then he died a short time later. The state of his health on the set of Dynasty doesn't change the fact that he was very, very famous at the time, and many millions of people tuned in to see him. That he died a short time later made his death such a big news story that the phoniness of his long - ago marriage became Topic A. Phyllis Gates was besieged by reporters even though few people had paid attention to her during those 27 years. She eventually told her entire story, which was strong enough to counteract Hudson's silence. Whoever could confirm or dispute her honesty also spoke out.

Johnnie Ray, as any reader of his Wikipedia article should know, did not remain famous in his native United States. The news of his death paled in comparison to the news about Hudson from four years and some months earlier. There were prominent obituaries on Ray, then that was it. A San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked the late Johnnie Ray's ex - wife Marilyn Morrison to reminisce, but she declined to do it for publication. Then she died. If Ray had a significant other besides her, we can't source that. Several newspaper articles from the 1970s identify Bill Franklin as the manager that Ray always traveled with, but determining what they did in private would be original research. It is known that Franklin disappeared from Ray's career and life completely by 1977 for whatever reason, and Franklin switched careers to real estate.

Yes, there is a 2006 Ray biography by Tad Mann that I added as a source for the fact that Australian, English and Scottish promoters booked Ray in their major venues as late as 1989. The author is hazy about Franklin's relationship with Ray. Tad Mann says Bill Franklin predeceased Johnnie Ray, which is false. The Caravan Express trade paper for Los Angeles real estate ran a memorial page for him in 1994, four years after Ray died. Because Franklin is dead beyond any doubt, he will not be discussing Johnnie Ray for publication. Newspapers in Oregon (Johnnie Ray's home state where his heart remained for life) occasionally report on local nostalgia festivals in his memory, but they never discuss his private life. Ray's only immediate survivor was a sister in Oregon, also now dead. A niece and nephew aren't talking for publication, not that anyone would care about that.

In closing, let's leave at least the "Personal life" the way it is. What does anyone want to change about other sections ? If those references to North Hollywood and Torrance in the first section seem superfluous, can anyone think of a better way to tell the reader upfront that Ray continued to live in the Hollywood Hills, never in poverty, even though the big money came exclusively from his overseas concerts ? I can't. How can you say his American career was minor between 1961 (end of record deal) and 1990 without identifying where he sang ? Sticking close to his Hollywood Hills home does the job. Dooyar (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some of my issues. Dooyar has a habit, when someone edits an article which he/she worked on, of rolling back the entire article over multiple intermediate edits to restore a version which he/she wrote. This has happened more than once on this article. On one of these, he called my work on the article vandalism, both on the talk page and in the edit summary. When he/she did this, it was counter-consensus. Now, when we’ve asked for dispute resolution, he/she is quickly changing stance on issues with this article.


 * I don’t care about the loss of the words “and scandals.” I changed the title of that section from “Reputation in the United States” because that didn’t seem to fit the section very well. What I have a huge problem with is the addition of all the Confidential magazine material. If Johnnie Ray was barely an issue in that trial, then it isn’t relevant to the article and the Theo Wilson book is not a source for anything verifiable on Johnnie Ray. Dooyar added the following material, originally on August 4 & 5: #1, which was directed at discussing the question of sexuality. Later, during the first week of September, regarding Ray’s marriage and allegations of homosexuality, which were added by someone else, Dooyar added this material. diff #2


 * In fact, I mentioned Rock Hudson and Elton John in response to Dooyar’s statement on the talk page that “Then Johnnie Ray's alleged sexual preference doesn't belong in it, either. He was married once to a woman. That's a fact. We have a source that the mayor of New York City attended the wedding.” I simply said “He was once married to a woman? Um, so were Rock Hudson and Elton John. Then Elton married a man. It means nothing.” And that’s all I meant. As I said before, there is some reason that the article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies. It’s not because of the marriage to Marilyn Morrison. I’m not interested in debating whether Johnnie Ray liked boys or girls better. I’m am only interested in removing speculation and connections of unrelated material made to reflect what isn’t explicitly written elsewhere.


 * The simple fact of the matter is that the disputes surrounding this article are pervasive and diffuse, so it’s difficult to ferret out specifics at times. I suppose the issue of his personal life and what does or doesn’t belong is a good place to target. Some of the sexuality material was already in the article. Dooyar expanded on the material there with all the material added, which I removed, while still trying to preserve parts of what others had written. However, I am not interested in trying to whitewash Ray’s life, or build a case that it was all gossip when the only material I’ve seen is piecemeal bits and pieces. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wildhartlivie in that issues and problems with certain sections or wordings seem to change on a daily basis. I'm not interested in whitewashing anyone's life either, but the inclusion of unneeded information that strays from the subject and the overall tone is the real problem. Compromise and civility seem to be a difficulty as well. We have yet to begin to address the issues and we're already being told to move on because Dooyar is satisfied after making an assessment of their own material. Compromising means addressing the issues raised and agreeing to move on after those issues are addressed and we are all satisfied with the wording and inclusion of content. The reason the page hasn't been edited by anyone else is not because we agree with the content, it's simply because there's a dispute open.


 * I see no reason to include conjecture about Ray's sexuality impacting his career. So far, I've seen no concrete evidence or sources to support this claim. If statements can't be completely backed up by the provided source, it's conjecture. Bringing up a trial against Confidential magazine that Dooyar admits had nothing to do with Ray or even mentioned him proves nothing. It only proves that Confidential and other tabloids were told to stop invading people's privacy and printing blatant lies. If Dooyar could provide a link between a specific article from a tabloid that "bashed" Ray and a specific source that stated the particular article or articles damaged his career, including it might be worthy. Without those sources, saying his career was negatively affected by the allegations is simply a guess. It's impossible to pinpoint why Ray's career faltered without these specific links. His decline can be reasoned away by several different factors, so if one is stated, it needs to be completely backed up. The fact that Ray's wife was the daughter of a nightclub owner isn't all that relevant, but I have no huge issue with it being included. However, one sentence that states Morrison "supposedly" knew about Ray's alleged bisexuality appears to be straight up guessing because there is no source. The word "supposedly" could be changed to something less ambiguous if a source is found for that statement and no one has a problem with its inclusion. Simply put, if something can't be sourced, it needs to go. If indeed these things can be sourced, I don't see why a source wasn't provided to begin with. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a call for a source for the claim that Morrison's knowledge of Ray's sexuality. Does anyone have one, or know where to find one? - Revolving Bugbear  18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had looked for one, and could only find a page that appears to have copied the Wikipedia article, which is why I marked it as needing a source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving "Personal life" alone, adding the musical issue of full orchestra versus a lounge act
If "Wildhartlivie" is "interested in removing speculation and connections of unrelated material made to reflect what isn't explicitly written elsewhere," then he/she should support the inclusion of Ray's marriage to Marilyn Morrison and nothing else under "Personal life." What I have said in disputes over other Wikipedia articles has no relevance here. Johnnie Ray is a different animal, different most importantly because he was very famous in the United States for five years, then he wasn't famous after that.

For that reason, microfilmed newspapers and magazines are important sources on Ray. One of the many Los Angeles newspaper articles that covered the 1957 Confidential libel trial does mention Johnnie Ray's name. The mentally unstable, disgruntled former Confidential editor Howard Rushmore identified the Confidential article calling Ray a "homo" (in the headline) as one of many he had written under a pseudonym using questionable sources. The Theo Wilson book doesn't mention Ray's name, but Ms. Wilson does prove, using many primary sources, that Rushmore was mentally unstable. Would people like page numbers for Wilson and a newspaper title, headline, date and page number for Rushmore identifying the lies he had spread?

Rather than debate how to handle all of this in the Johnnie Ray Wiki article, maybe we can just leave the "Personal life" section the way it is. Even if you don't want to "whitewash" someone's life, you have a problem when potential sources who can paint a darker picture died without painting anything. Nobody interviewed them about a particular person they knew. That seems to be the case. Many people who knew this man are gone, and so are the people who picked on him during those five years when he was very famous.

When Ray died in 1990, many, many years had passed since the end of his American fame, so even Tad Mann, author of the sole Ray biography, cannot prove why it ended. Nobody was interviewed about it in the 1960s when the issue was fresh.

If people want, I can provide the page number in the Mann book for his claim about positive things that Europeans and Australians did that contributed to Ray's lasting fame in their countries. Mann attributes Ray's longevity overseas to foreign concert bookers who were kind enough, or maybe the right word is smart enough, to give Ray full orchestras instead of the small combos that Las Vegas bookers gave him. Mann says full orchestras accommodated Ray's hearing loss very well, but small musical ensembles didn't. If you're a hearing - impaired singer and you have trouble hearing cues and feeling the rhythm of your accompanists, you are better off with as many accompanists as possible. Your ears - cum - hearing aids can pick up a greater variety of sounds from a full orchestra than from a Vegas lounge combo, and you can look at more people. Hearing impaired people depend a lot on sight, of course. And Ray always played Vegas lounges, never the big rooms where Siegfried and Roy, Liberace, etc. played.

Maybe there is some way of including this issue about the orchestra versus small lounge ensemble in the article. Rather than speculate about a connection between Ray's American career decline and homophobia, we can use Tad Mann as a source on the positive actions of music business people in foreign countries. Oh, and Mr. Mann knew Johnnie Ray very well from sometime in the 1950s until Ray's last year of performing (1989). Mr. Mann was his road manager for all concerts Ray gave here and abroad, including ones in England and Glasgow, Scotland in 1989. Thanks for reading this far.Dooyar (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This has to be discussed point by point, Dooyar. The current question is about whether a source exists regarding Ray's wife having knowledge of his sexuality. Having said that, if the Theo Wilson book doesn't mention Johnnie Ray by name, then the book isn't a relevant source, and by extension, neither is anything regarding the Confidential trial, nor Rushmore's mental status. The article isn't about him, or the magazine. It's about Johnnie Ray. The Wilson book isn't the only source in the world regarding Johnnie Ray's sexuality. Because the present sources don't acknowledge Ray's sexuality does not mean the question doesn't exist. The task is to source it, so no, I don't support just leaving the personal life mentioning he was once married, which, by omission, implies he was heterosexual. I'm not aware of anyone alleging that the decline of his career was related to homophobia except for what you added to the article. By the way, there is no need to put quotation marks around my username. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your point that "just leaving the personal life mentioning he was once married .. by omission, implies he was heterosexual." Many Wikipedia readers are smart enough to know that marriage means little except that a wedding took place and a legal document exists. If there are children, you might find out if the allegedly bisexual husband is or is not the biological father of one or all of the kids. That's it. As Johnnie Ray and Marilyn Morrison had no children, most Wiki readers are smart enough to see it for what it was: a short - lived marriage. (Lasting more than 18 months, it actually was longer than many other show business marriages, such as Katharine Hepburn's union that lasted less than a month.)

I cannot find any source on Marilyn Morrison's awareness or ignorance of her husband's bisexual behavior. Tad Mann, author of the only Ray biography, does not address that issue. He never met the woman, who died in the mid 1990s after refusing a San Francisco journalist's request for an interview. Mann knew Ray very well, but, like many of the singer's friends and associates, joined the team after Ray's 1954 divorce from Morrison. People who did know the couple during the marriage seem to be all gone now because it was more than 54 years ago. And Marilyn Morrison married another man after the 1954 divorce and they had children, who have not come forward with any sort of diary or hidden treasure that tells the whole story. It's all gone. Dooyar (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean there is no reliable source to verify that Morrison had knowledge of her husband's apparent sexuality? - Revolving Bugbear  17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The story on Johnnie Ray at the GLBTQ project brings up the issue of Marilyn Morrison and states that she did know about his sexuality. It also refers to arrests - in 1951 where he pled guilty and then in 1959 for solicitation in a gay bar and the not guilty verdict. It also identifies Bill Franklin as his lover. The site however, doesn't cite sources and probably can't be considered reliable. Then there is a 2005 doctoral dissertation from the University of Maryland, and available online entitled Queering the Texture of Rock and Roll which does describe Ray's marriage to Morrison as staged, an "overt move gesture toward normalcy" and a marriage "under false pretenses." Doctoral dissertations, this one included, are heavily referenced and subject to a high level of scrutiny and verification.


 * The Tad Mann biography isn't the only one on Johnnie Ray. Cry: The Johnnie Ray Story by Jonny Whiteside refers to Ray as bisexual. The book itself would have to be located to confirm in more depth what it says about Ray. However, I have located two books which identify him as at least bisexual. Queers in History by Keith Stern includes him in the book, and Ava Gardner: "Love Is Nothing"  by Lee Server, describes a night when Ray and a couple friends go backstage to meet Frank Sinatra and Gardner. Ray is described as "an eccentric, partially deaf, slightly effeminate bisexual who performed with flamboyant intensity" and includes an anecdote of Gardner squirming on his lap, and whom Sinatra considered part of Mitch Miller's freak show. While I realize that Sinatra wasn't always the most objective of persons, all of this adds up to relevance for inclusion in the personal life section regarding sexuality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's sourced information that states he was bisexual, the fact should be included. This disclosure also seems to be supported by the fact that Ray is included in the WikiProject LGBT studies. I find it odd that the topic of his sexuality is only addressed briefly in the article in a somewhat dismissive manner. In fact, it seems quite a few events are left out including things like Ray's arrests, his alcoholism, his problems with the IRS, and his long term relationships with other men. Good or bad, these things are all notable and should be at least presented. The entry also states that Ray's former wife:


 * ".... was aware of Ray's homosexuality but told a friend of his that she would 'straighten it out.'"


 * Since there's a source stating that she was at least aware of Ray's bisexuality or at least acknowledged it to another person, there's no need to use words like "supposedly" because it can be cited. The GHLBTQ entry seems to be reliable as it uses several different sources including  Cry: The Johnnie Ray Story. Since all of this information can be sourced, there's no reason why it should be omitted. Pinkadelica (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it terribly frustrating that we opened this because of a dispute with Dooyar, and now he/she has not bothered to acknowledge this for 9 days. I'm wondering how long we wait for a response and where we go from here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dooyar
Dooyar has no contributions since 25 Jan. Honestly, I wouldn't assume that he's coming back any time soon, and anyway he's made it clear that he is not wedded to the inclusions he was previously trying to make. I would recommend closing this and taking further issues -- which you, Pinkadelica and Wildhartlivie, seem to be able to discuss constructively -- to the talk page, unless you feel there is something to further discuss here in the absence of Dooyar. We can leave open the possibility of reopening the case if Dooyar returns and objects.

Thoughts? - Revolving Bugbear  18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable to me. Pinkadelica and I have no issues in contention between each other and in fact, work together quite well. I appreciate the offer to possibly reopen the case if necessary. I do expect a return once this is closed and suspect that the progress, or lack thereof, in this is being monitored. Thanks for your attempt to help, Revolving Bugbear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's completely acceptable to me as well. Wildhartlive and I can rewrite the article with the references she provided and if any problems arise, which I'm sure they will, we both know what to do. Thanks so much for your help, Revolving Bugbear. Pinkadelica (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)