Talk:Van Johnson

message: Sorry, I just reverted an edit here and hit the save page without explaining why.  Although the source is cited, the text is copied directly from it and this is not permitted as it violates copyright.  Rossrs (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: Is that really necessary? I thought that was more for people when the circumstances of death were undetermined. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent death template

message: A few days ago, in a stroke of pure coincidence, after watching a Johnson movie on TV, I thought I'd find out more about the actor. This on or about the December 13.
Personally, my favorite performance of his, is Holly in Battleground - a gritty WWII movie that is one of the finest of its genre.
Nevertheless, I read (a few days ago) in the Personal Section that his wife said he was gay and that was the reason their relationship failed.
Now as a result of his death, there has been a flurry of activity and the armchair wikipedian brigade have been furiously tinkering.
The article that I read a few days ago has been almost rewritten and the point about his homosexuality has been removed...another example of wikiality at work.
All I can say, if he hadn't died, would things have stayed as is? But now that he is dead, revision is the order a la 1984. 
I know what I read it and I have since read other articles from other sources that suggest Van was gay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.68.11 (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The references rely on claims by the son of his ex-wife, or words attributed to the ex-wife, and any such claims would be attributed in that manner rather than stated as a "fact." Rumors about the deceased which are not backed by a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards do not belong in a biography.  The changes in the article started well before his death, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's natural that an article may attract more attention following the death of its subject, but it's true that the changes began well before he died and will continue into the future.   The comments regarding his sexuality have not been removed, but a comment that appeared to have been taken out of context was removed, and several editors including myself, felt that his sexuality was given greater importance in the article than his acting career, which is the only reason for his notability.    Several people have looked at the information, considered whether it was conveyed in the clearest and most accurate manner, and with an appropriate emphasis, and then worked at changing it, all the while appreciating that it was not a done deal and that future editors could continue to develop it.  I'm not sure how this demonstrates a "larger failure of Wikipedia".  Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what this person's (86.166.68.11) point is. There was a lot of discussion on the "personal life" section a good month before his death, in a discussion section that I initiated. At that time I expressed concern about the excessive discussion of his sexual orientation. The commenter does raise a good point about Battleground, which was a crucial role for Johnson. The discussion of that film and others needs to be increased, and I hope that he or she comes in and participates in the much-needed expansion of this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Johnson and the larger failure of Wikipedia  

message: I think that we need to discuss what category, if any, should be placed concerning Johnson's sexual orientation. One editor added the "Gay actors" category and put it back when removed. My feeling is that there is insufficient sourcing for that. Frankly I feel that Wiki show business biographies dwell too much on sexual orientation in the first place (see William Eythe), but this is not the place to discuss that I imagine. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At htis point, there is no evidence allowing us to firmly state that he was in any particular "sexual orientation" category. Statements from an estranged and angry spouse and stepson are of quite marginal probitive value indeed.  :abelling a person without solid evidence is arguably a bad practice. Collect (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I am troubled that so much is devoted to allegations against Johnson by his ex-wife that have nothing to do with his notability. Even though some of these have been repeated in the media, my personal feeling is that it has no place in Wikipedia. An ex-wife involved in a bitter divorce is not a reliable source for allegations concerning sexual orientation. I'd like to take it out unless someone objects. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegations by angry spouses in general do not make for reliability - not just on sexual orientation.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, I removed the ex-wife's allegations and then they were reinserted. I'm going to take the liberty of removing them again, and I hope that there can be discussion on this if there is disagreement.  Stetsonharry (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summary interrupted: sorry, I meant to say in an edit summary that I was removing the "LGBT studies" tag at the top of this page, as at the moment there is not enough evidence to classify Johnson as gay. I think that there needs to be more than the allegations of the ex-wife. Johnson himself never admitted it, and his biography, which I don't have but I've seen in Google Books, does not explicitly say so and also seems to be sourced again to Eve.Stetsonharry (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The is ample evidence that Johnson was Bisexual if not gay. The recent book by his daughter confirms that and an enlightening article by entertainment journalist Michael Musto entitle "Van Johnson Was Gay!" for the New York News is unambiguous about Johnson's sexuality. Will someone please do more research on this? Since his death a lot more information about his life is coming forth. 76.99.49.53 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now documentation concerning Johnson's sexual orientation in a biography published by a reliable academic press.  This is discussed in the article under "personal life".  An attempt was just made to delete this reference because, if it had been true, according to the deleter, it would have been reported in the National Enquirer.  This is absurd.  Using non-existent NE article is even less reliable than an actual NE article. --Jburlinson (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual orientation category

message: I have always wondered why on the actors infobox, some are gold and some are silver color backgrounds. You know, the box, on the top right of each actors page above their main picture. And specifically, I remember reading Van Johnson's article last month and it was Gold background, now it is silver background. Does it mean that the article was higher rated from gold, but reduced to a silver quality article. Can someone please explain, I can't explain this, it doesn't say it anywhere on wikipedia. Thank you. 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, It's interesting that you noted the change in color.   It would have changed when he died.  If you look around other articles, the gold ones denote living people, and the silver ones denote people who are deceased.   There is something built into the infobox template, so that if there is no data entered into the "date of death" field, it shows as gold.  When data is entered into the field it defaults to silver.   Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold to Silver Infobox color background

message: Very odd that for anyone born after 1970 the two televisin appearances that Mr. Johnson is continuously known for are not listed in the article.  Van Johnson was on I love Lucy and on Nanny and the Professor (episode entitled: "Separate Rooms") Rozzz-L (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Section 

message: The image :File:EarlHollimanPlaybill.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:EarlHollimanPlaybill.JPG

message: After stumbling on this article, I noticed that a "many cooks syndrome" has set in, and may benefit from a review and rewrite. Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite started

message: Tried the link for #3, and it did NOT go to the article listed.
Could someone else check and make any needed cotrrectionsy?
Thank you.  2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References note