Talk:Mary Martin

message: I added this information, under the "Later career" heading, when I saw that it was missing.
Supporting link: http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/dyk/index.html , under the "Diva! Diva! Diva!" heading.  --Harlezah (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her special Tony Award of 1948 

message: 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 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: Text and cat removed since based on rumor not fact. --FloNight 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s right. Boze Hadleigh has a Wikipedia article, but that does not mean he is an RS by Wikipedia standards.  He is not one.  A few minutes ago, I reverted an edit to this article that originates with his assertions.Brent Brant (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconfirmed bisexual 

message: Regarding claim that Mary Martin and Janet Gaynor had a lesbian relationship:
"This claim is echoed, with differing strengths of conviction, on various websites - ([[1], [2], [3], [4]),..."
Link #1 http://www.answers.com/topic/mary-martin contains the Wikipedia article, so it's not a separate claim
Link #3 http://www.hollywood-underground.com/hf.htm makes no such claim
Link #4 http://www.gayinfo.tripod.com/A-Z-G.html is dead
Gee, this doesn't seem kosher to me. These don't strike me as very respectable sources of information. Any kind of "lesbian affair" seems to be based on rumors and guessing, as opposed to any kind of evidence. This lady spent most of her life as a wife and mother. She is dead and not here to defend herself against such wild claims. I think these statements are damaging and untrue. I am going to remove that paragraph, about her being a lesbian. If somebody objects, please, let me know and I'll be glad to discuss it. Thank you. MegaMom 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: :Image:PeterPan1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PeterPan1.jpg

message: This page has several citations that look as if this is a research paper, mostly following quotes with (p. ##).  Are these from the book listed in 'Further Reading'?  Regardless, these need to be removed. --131.107.0.101 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Citations

message: For the record and in preparation for delting and reorganizing the "education" material.
An IP added (on 03/16/09) the sentence: "attended the university of texas, pranchon andmarco achool of the thearter hollywood, ca". (I moved it and added initial caps). In looking at her bio by Ronald L. Davis, he writes, on p16 "Mary was sent there [Ward-Belmot, a finishing school in Nashville] in the fall of 1930 after graduation from high school. She was sixteen years old...'Mary was miserable...She hated math,...One of the few bright spots in her brief 'higher education' was a chance to see silent screen stars..."[Mary Martin bio by Davis]. I think it highly unlikely that Mary Martin attended the U of Texas, as there is no further discussion of her "higher education" in this bio. As for the pranchon and marco achool of the thearter hollywood, ca, that also is not mentioned in the Davis biography, in that spelling, but is noted on p. 21: "She looked into schools that taught dance teachers and determined that the famous Franchon and Marco School of the Theatre in Hollywood would meet her needs best." There follows a section on Mary's training at the school, although it does not say how long she attended. Based on the foregoing I am integrating the correct name of the school into the article, and deleting the Un. of Texas reference. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: The article was assessed C-class, for insufficient or inconsistent use of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary 

message: I have a most superficial knowledge of Mary Martin.  I looked her up after reading about Noel Coward's alleged frustrations at her starring in his "Pacific 1860" in London because she seemed to be managed, dominated and perhaps manipulated by her husband Richard Halliday.  There is of course another side to this, and I was curious to learn it.  Also to find how the Halliday marriage related to her having a son called Hagman.  The article has nothing on the particular show (okay, her life was long) - but also nothing at all about the second husband that I can find, except the dates of the marriage.  Seems surprising.  On another level - a little odd to say that she was "legally married" to her first husband - not when talking about the period between separation and divorce, but when the young couple simply were married.
                                                                                                A reaction from someone completely detached may have its own point to make about the article.
Rogersansom (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberately Commenting From Ignorance