Jump to content

Talk:Blossom Dearie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gay Icon Project

[edit]

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Always True to You in My Fashion

[edit]

Her lasting "hit" seems to be "Always True to You in My Fashion". AnonMoos 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

[edit]

I guess she's a fan.--T. Anthony 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True birth date

[edit]

Is it 1924 or 1926? Thanks. Huntington (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All references I'm aware of say her birth year was 1926. Why do you think it might be 1924? Afterwriting (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in the article, but it looks like someone fixed it; I have no opinion one way or another. Huntington (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times' article may be correct both about her birth year and actual name but it is the exception to all other available references so I think we should stay with 1926. I added a comment about the other possible first names. Afterwriting (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her birth date has reverted back to 1924. Since there seems to be ongoing debate here, can we include the debate/ lack of clarity in the article? Sojambi Pinola (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Margrethe"

[edit]

In case the NPR archive link disappears, I am entering here a transcript from Marian McPartland's Piano Jazz of February 9, 2009, from approximately 7 minutes 10 seconds until 7 minutes 40 seconds:

(McPartland) "A lot of people ask me all the time, 'Is Blossom Dearie her real name?'"
(Dearie) "Yes it is my real name."
(McPartland) "I can't figure that out, how that came about."
(Dearie) "Dearie is the family name. It's a Celtic name, Scottish and Irish. And my Christian name is Margrethe -- which is the Scandanavian 'Margaret' -- like Princess Margrethe of Denmark."
(McPartland) "Right"
(Dearie) "M-a-r-g-r-e-t-h-e. And the 'Blossom' was given to me 'cause I was born in the Springtime, and my brothers brought peach blo- uh, pear blossoms or something in the house and my dad said, 'Let's call her Blossom'"

Thanks for this information. Whilst it may well be correct I don't think it adequately meets the Wikipedia criteria for a verifiable source. I will try to amend the article to include this. Please note this your comments should have been placed at the bottom of this page rather than the top. Afterwriting (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved to bottom, thanks for the reminder) Why did you remove the footnote link to the Piano Jazz program archive? Did you listen to it? In that program one can hear Blossom stating in her own voice the spelling of her name. I think one can reasonably accept that a person knows the spelling of their own name! Please help me understtand why you consider Blossom Dearie herself to be "no actual source" 131.241.8.250 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the NPR program's accurate. The problem is that the program isn't a published source and, if I correctly understand Wikipedia policies, only published sources are acceptable for references so I very much doubt that even a link to a webpage from which the program can then be listened to is acceptable. If there was a published transcript of the program it would be entirely different. Hope this helps. Afterwriting (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has changed since 2009! An archived radio program from a reputable party such as NPR is now considered a reliable source (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published). Reverted the undo. I do appreciate your concern for accuracy and reliability. JeffBuckles (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blossom Dearie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light and girlish

[edit]

Re: templates in the lede, what's the objection to calling her voice light and girlish? If those words are used in the sources given, is that OK or is someone suggesting synonyms be used? Or perhaps some other way of phrasing?
–Vmavanti (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These edits were made by an IP editor which I just reverted. Clearly someone hasn't heard Dearie and/or read the citations. Ckruschke (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I was not the one to describe her voice as"light and girlish", but it seems like a perfect description to me. Unschool 06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of 'girlish' - anyone know how she described herself? If she described herself like that, or if other notable reporters did, that's fine. Historically, we should be careful to explain who is telling her story - i.e. "she was described having a 'girlish' voice at the time by many critics". Otherwise, I don't think it's appropriate to describe a musician as 'girlish'. It feels derogatory - especially because that term has been used that way to take music by women less seriously. To the point of reading the citations - reference 5 describes her as a "jazz pixie with a little-girl voice" and yes, I could hear why people would say it sounds 'girlish' from tracks like 'Plus Je T'embrasse', but that doesn't mean it's the right way to describe someone. For example, articles like 'Why Calling Women ‘Girls’ Is A Bigger Deal Than You May Think' does a better job of explaining it. Madsen has another article, 'Is calling women ‘girls’ a problem?'. "Language [like girly] can make women feel less mature, professional or responsible," which is her point. Instead, what if we focused on music descriptors, like her vocal range being something like D#3 - A5 or her use of head voice (the lightness we hear). I think users will find it more respectful if we remove gender associations like I tried to do in my last edit. Abro.research (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying name omission

[edit]

Currently the assertive reads, "Dropping her first name,[2] she began to sing in groups such as the Blue Flames", which presumes that earlier in the article, her given first name is mentioned, but as of January, 2018, it is not. Either this sentence need to be dropped, or the dropped name needs to be added beforehand. Unschool 06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - feel free to be bold and make a change. Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

"One of the last supper club/cabaret performers"

[edit]

What does that mean, in the lede? Are there no longer supper club/cabaret performers? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. It wasn't supported by the link so I deleted the statement. Ckruschke (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that "Give Him the Ooh-La-La" be merged with the Blossom Dearie article. The former is an unsourced, one-sentence "article" with a maintenance template from eleven years ago.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what should happen is the Ooh-La-La page should be marked for speedy deletion (which I'll do right now). If that song was a memorable one for Dearie, and I've never heard of it so I don't know, it can be mentioned here. Ckruschke (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the song, but certainly it does not merit an article. But it was a significant recording for her, so it should be mentioned both here and at Cole Porter, whom I believe wrote the song. Unschool 22:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's cool. Mostly saying that the song - as a stand alone entity - is not notable. Ckruschke (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Right. I agree. Wikipedia editors are supposed to judge by notability as outlined in the documentation, not by whether it was a significant recording.
Vmavanti (talk)
Makes no sense to merge to Blossom Dearie. Perhaps could be merged to Give Him the Ooh-La-La (album) or to DuBarry Was a Lady, but if neither is clearly primary topic for the song, that would be a rationale for keeping an independent article. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the stub article to Give Him the Ooh-La-La (song). Obviously it's not the clear primary topic if it was proposed for deletion, while the album still has an article. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks for doing this! Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blossom_Dearie&oldid=1248582521"