Jump to content

Talk:Geraldine Doyle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.106.46.205 (talk) at 05:04, 2 November 2012 (→How is this a feminism article?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Picture?

Is that picture Geraldine Doyle? The details say it was from Ft. Worth, Texas and there is no mention of Doyle being in Ft. Worth. It may be misleading to have that photo if it can't be tied to her. --DHeyward (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2-year-old comment. Is it still or was it ever valid and if not can it moved to the bottom or simply removed entirely? -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly unsourced article

There is no authoritive citation for just about anything in this article. EVERY link in the references is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilla1126 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment does not appear to be true, since I have clicked on several of the links in the references and seem to be able to follow them without a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone adding a deletion notice...

Someone adding a deletion notice, but providing no discussion material regarding deletion. This strikes me as an irrelevant addition, since the subject is purportedly the subject of a very famous piece of artwork, and the person who suggests deletion has given nothing other than the suggestion of wanting to remove the article.

I would say that before this recommendation should be given credence, that the suggester also provide a defense of the suggestion to delete and completely remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get to the discussion, click on the bold "this article's entry" part of the notice, or just click here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the history of the page and this talk page prior to the addition of the recommendation to delete it, and after reviewing the Wikipedia recommendations on deletion of articles at [1] , it seems that the person who nominated this article provided very little in regard to why they would choose to nominate this article, especially considering the fact that it has been present on Wikipedia since 2005. The recent death of the Geraldine Doyle seems to be the only motivating factor in this article being noticed and then recommended for deletion. Since the Wikipedia "Guide to deletion" suggests several alternatives, and since having this recommendation active currently makes the page appear less credible, my recommendation is to use the suggested alternatives that Wikipedia has in place, rather than having the extreme action of the delete recommendation in place. 68.97.117.233 (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Unfortunately, the AfD is perfectly legitimate, to be honest. And the message at the top clearly states; "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". And from the looks of things, it's going to be a keeper either way. In fact, I voted "keep" myself :) If and when it passes the deletion discussion, it should be in a much stronger place, too. Pretty-much anyone can nominate anything for deletion and the article goes on to fall or stand on its merits. That's just how the process works here - Alison ❤ 10:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that anyone should be able to nominate, but Wikipedia has quite a few alternatives and suggestions for how someone should approach deleting an article. It doesn't appear this suggested process was followed at all. In addition, the timing of this suggestion for deletion seems very contrived since the article has been on Wikipedia for 5 years, and only when the person died did someone decide that it ought to be deleted.

Also, considering the timing, it would probably be better to simply wait a few days until the news of her passing is less prominent. Since no one is saying the article is actually inaccurate, it won't serve to misinform people for the article to be left alone. Having the big deletion notice splashed across the top makes the article appear less credible, when it fact the recommender is really suggesting that the article is misplaced, which could have been accomplished by recommending a merge or asking for feedback on notability. In my opinion, the deletion recommendation is poorly timed and is actually requesting a different purpose. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Maturity Magazine

This article says, "she came across the original photograph in a 1940's back issue of Modern Maturity magazine"; however, if you follow the link, it says Modern Maturity magazine was established in 1958, so there is an error somewhere. Also, there is no reference for this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.86.218 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that discrepancy as well. In reviewing the various news accounts (previous to the recent 2010 stories), it appears that it was an issue of Modern Maturity from 1984 that had featured these old images from the 1940's. It is also possible that Modern Maturity went by a different name at some point before 1958 and they were using the more well-known name instead of its previous name. Either way, it does stand out as an anomaly, but it does seem clear that the year that she became aware of her image being used was 1984. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy-handed editors

Over the years since Wikipedia started, I have periodically contributed edits and additions. Recently, I noticed Geraldine Doyle in the news and thought I would come to Wikipedia for more information. When I arrived here, I noticed that it was nominated for deletion by someone whose entire rationale was summed up in only 1 small sentence. The Wikipedia guidelines recommend dicussion prior to recommending a deletion and even provide alternatives to deleting an article. Yet instead of following this, an editor felt that 1 sentence was enough to justify deleting a 5-year old article.

Now I come back to review how the article is doing and another editor has used only 1 word, socks, in their justification of semi-protecting the article. After going to look up what this meant, I don't see where this was warranted or needed really.

Wikipedia typically strikes me as very authoritative and professionally done and maybe this is typical and I'm just not aware of the culture, but it would be nice if people are going to do major things that they try to provide a defense or reason that is more than just a passing glance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation

Article says Doyle "found work" after graduating high school. True enough, of course, but the newspaper piece cited in footnote 1 quotes her daughter saying Doyle "felt she wanted to do something for the war effort." As it stands, I think this article implies that Doyle's motivation for going to work was more pecuniary than patriotic It would be nice if the relevant sentence were changed to read "In 1942, after graduating from high school in Ann Arbor, Doyle felt she wanted to do something for the war effort, so she . . . ."

I'd change the text myself but it's locked#### —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.255.225 (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a feminism article?

Nothing in the article is related to feminism.

We don't know what Ms. Doyle thought about feminism.

Rosie the Riveter was about the war effort.

How is this an article about feminism?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geraldine_Doyle&oldid=521008047"