Talk:Shirley Temple/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Shirley Temple. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Youngest to win?

I have a question about the claim in the Film career highlights section. It stated that in 1935 at six years old, Temple was the youngest to win an award. She held this honor until Tatum O'Neal won an award at 10 years old. If Temple was 6, how was it she lost this "youngest to win" honor to a 10-year-old O'Neal? (One reason I ask is that an anon. IP just changed the "six" to "twelve", which doesn't jive with the birthdate in 1928 if she won the award in 1935.) Since the awards were different, it might be wrong or at least confusing to imply that Temple lost anything in 1974 (when O'Neal won an Oscar). ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

I must be missing something. Where did all the discussions go? What did Cluebot do with them? There doesn't seem to be anything in the Archive box that helps. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris G! And it wasn't much of a leap from what you taught me to move the other discussion (2) to Archive 2, also. So everything appears to be copacetic. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor narrative structure

There is no transition portrayed between her show business career and her political one. The debunking of the blacklisting claim should be secondary to the narrative of what happened before here political career started. It should at least be made clear what her first political step was. Mark Foskey (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm Leaving the Article for a While

I've done a lot of work on this article but I'm into a new job and I won't be able to spend much time on it after Thanksgiving. Anyone want to take over? I was hoping to send it to FA but some sections need to be puffed up a bit before it goes there. Just step in if you want to take over, I don't own the article. The references I used are listed and available in public libraries so no problem there for someone who wants to take over and needs the books. I might drop by now and then if I have the chance and if you have a question about something just leave a note here. I loved working on the article but I won't have much time in the future for it. Good luck! 808Starfire (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CHILD STAR an autobiography by Shirley Temple

I just finished reading the CHILD STAR an autobiography by Shirley Temple. It was very complete and interesting reading. The only thing I was wondering was did her parents die and if so when. The story written in 1988 ends there obviously. She was literally left without barely any money because of her parents and lawyer's mismanagement. Shirley did not report her father even though it was court ordered that a trust be maintained for her, but it was not legally maintained. She said she would drop the issue of the money and would wait until her parents passed. That was a reprehensible thing to do to their child for all she contributed to the family's wealth over the years. I enjoyed the book, it spoke reams of info about all the people she worked for, worked with and the famous people she knew. About after being married she wanted privacy. Nothing seemed to be left out. Recommended reading if you are a fan of her work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.119.104 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE

I just found that Shirley's mother died 1977 and her father died 1980. So that answers my question that I asked above. She did write the book after both her parents had passed away. I was wondering because it could have caused some problems between them with the info that was detailed about her money not being saved for her. Literally after "expenses" they said there was barely nothing left. Read the book if you are interested. D. Morgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.119.104 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Introduction is out of sequence

Could the Introduction be in simple chronological sequence please? In the real world, 1945 comes before 1958. Since this is locked from public editing, one of the high lords of wikipedia has to fix this. Please do fix it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.246.99 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Massive amounts of copyvio

A lot of copyvios here, some lifted word for word from the sources. I have most of the sources at hand either from my bookshelf or from the public library and will do my best to either delete the copyvio material or paraphrase it. Unsourced material can be deleted at once by anyone. Check my edit summaries, changes will be designated "cv" for "copyvio deleted or paraphrased". Audiobooks7 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete reliably sourced material

Stop deleting reliably sourced material about Temple's German, Dutch, and English ancestry and her brothers John Stanley and George Francis, Jr. This is not controversial material. Other BLPs include such info, see FA Angelina Jolie, for example. And stop adding info about her daughter playing in a rock band - the article is about Shirley Temple not her daughter. It isn't necessary to follow the careers of her children. They are not notable according to Wikipedia definitions and if they are they should have their own articles. Audiobooks7 (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

This page seems awfully bland and devoid of any controversial facts. For her personal life outside of her early childhood, as there is in other celebrities' pages. She was married first at a young age and it would be nice to put some more information in about her children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC) what ever

How sad that you think an encyclopedia should have controversial facts. Sometimes a person is just phenomenally talented and tries to lead a useful life. Sorry that doesn't fit into your scandel-focused view of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.246.99 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for things about her work and friendship with her favorite dance partner, Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson, and there is nothing here. A quick glance reveals that instead there is excessive unimportant detail such as her weight at birth. This article first requires major editing to remove this before further work can be done but this should be fairly easy. --Kovar (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not a lot to write about Temple and Robinson. They worked four films together, had some nice things to say about each other, and that's basically it. I'll find time to work what I have into the article but please don't expect more than a brief paragraph of a half dozen lines or so. OgalalaButte (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the move again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Shirley Temple → Shirley Temple Black – There are numerous advantages to moving this article to the person's preferred name: 1) This is how she has been known for the majority of her life; 2) she has notable accomplishments after her marriage that mean she isn't exclusively known as "Shirley Temple"; 3) this title incorporates her maiden name, reducing confusion for people who only know her by that name; 4) in the spirit of WP:BLP, we ought to use a living subject's preferred name under most circumstances (although exceptions can be made, I see no reason to make one here). As an aside, shouldn't the lead at least mention her married name? Powers ^T 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. A move discussion from 2009 is archived here. (And I added her married name to the lead.) - Station1 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per the archived discussion. She was a superstar before she ever was married (indeed before adolescence); using her married name would be presentism, if she still had a political career. Use the name by which she is known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Shirley Temple Black is well-known by both names. If this article is kept as merely "Shirley Temple", that only covers the readers who are familiar with that name. Renaming this article to "Shirley Temple Black" will cover all the readers who know her by either or both names. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Support! When I joined the consensus in 2009 not to move this page, I also resolved to wait and see if another editor would request the same move. To title this page Shirley Temple Black would be a good and long-needed improvement to this encyclopedia for all the reasons I cited in 2009. This would turn the "Shirley Temple" title into a redirect to the new name, so there is no search engine problem as discussed in 2009. Shirley Temple Black is the lady's name, and she has had a notable impact while going by that name. To move this page is the right thing to do. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 10:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Mild oppose: I believe simply Shirley Temple is the more common name. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- And the name "Shirley Temple" will be right there, along with her surname, "Black". This will cover all the readers of this article whether they know her by "Shirley Temple", "Shirley Temple Black", or by both names. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I fail to see how anyone could say that under WP:COMMONNAME her commonly-used name by most people is anything other than Shirley Temple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe I did. But what about the many caveats I mentioned in my nomination? Powers ^T 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I don't think any of those trump the fact that she is commonly known to most people as Shirley Temple. I doubt whether most people would even know she is now Shirley Temple Black. She is far, far better known as a child actress than for anything she has done since, however worthy that may have been. Say that doesn't matter and you utterly invalidate WP:COMMONNAME, which is one of our central article naming policies - we may as well just tear it up and say it should be ignored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    - That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? It's not like "Shirley Temple" isn't right there in the title, I'm just proposing we add a word to it. Besides, I think you'll find that more recent sources largely use her current name. Powers ^T 13:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      - Ask most people what she was called and they would say "Shirley Temple", not "Shirley Temple Black". Simple. Why do you think an exception to WP:COMMONNAME should be made for this one person? Or do you simply not agree with the policy? Everyone knows it's her common name. I'm sure even you know it's her common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        I already enumerated the reasons for an exception. This is a minor deviation from the letter and still easily within the spirit of the policy. COMMONNAME cannot possibly be written to cover every possible contingency. This is one of those cases where WP:COMMONSENSE takes precedence. Powers ^T 15:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        
        Necrothesp, it is your opinion that the COMMONNAME policy applies to the title "Shirley Temple". IMHO, that is incorrect. The policy covers both names, and Shirley Temple Black is the common name that is familiar to those readers who would come to read this article. That name covers both those who know her as "Shirley Temple" and those who know her as Shirley Temple Black. Keeping this article as just "Shirley Temple" only covers those who know her by that name. Renaming this article to "Shirley Temple Black" will cover all the people who know her by either or both of those names. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        Of course it's my opinion! It's your opinion as well! That's why we have these debates. Are you really saying that people who know her as Shirley Temple Black (which is, of course, a minority) won't recognise Shirley Temple, but those who know here as Shirley Temple will recognise Shirley Temple Black? Come on! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        I'm certainly not saying that you aren't entitled to your opinion. What I'm saying is that it is my opinion that while this article is titled simply "Shirley Temple", then it excludes those readers who are also familiar with her present name. The name "Shirley Temple Black" covers all the readers who come to read this article, whether they know her by "Shirley Temple" and/or by "Shirley Temple Black". I'm no mind reader, so I am not privy to whether there are people in this world who know her better or even only by "Shirley Temple Black". What I do know is that both names are notable and both names are familiar, so both names must, in accord with policy, be incorporated into the title of this article. The title "Shirley Temple Black" fills this bill. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- That policy covers both names, both "Shirley Temple" and "Shirley Temple Black". Since the former is incorporated within the latter, all the readers who are familiar with the subject by either or both names will be covered by the COMMONNAME policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 18:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  - WP:COMMONNAME has examples where the article title is included in a longer name, e.g. "Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)", "H. H. Asquith (not Herbert Henry Asquith)", "Rhode Island (not State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)". There are many other obvious examples such as Barack Obama (not Barack Hussein Obama). –CWenger (^ • @) 18:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    - None of those examples exclude a familiar (and notable) surname. What about Henry Wadsworth Longfellow? We don't exclude "Wadsworth" like we did "Hussein" because "Wadsworth" is familiar to his poet lovers, whereas "Hussein" is not a familiar part of president Obama's name. "Black" is a notable and familiar part of this subject's name, and since the new page name will not simply be "Shirley Black", but instead "Shirley Temple Black", then readers to whom both names are familiar are covered by the COMMONNAME policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      - I don't really see the difference between middle names and maiden names. It just comes down to what is used most commonly (which in this case is simply "Shirley Temple"), and I am not aware of any exceptions for harmlessly adding to the common name. I don't see the big deal anyway, since "Shirley Temple Black" is now in the first sentence. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        In this case there is no difference between middle name and maiden or nee name. Women often take their nee as their middle name when they marry. What are used "most commonly" in this case are both names. Both names are familiar and notable. There are readers who know her most familiarly as "Shirley Temple". There are readers who know her also familiarly by "Shirley Temple Black". To exclude either set of readers is against the COMMONNAME policy. The new name will cover both sets of those readers as well as that set of readers who know her by both names. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        Certainly one name is more popular than the other. According to Google Ngrams, it is overwhelmingly "Shirley Temple". Even if you subtract the Shirley Temple Black trace from the Shirley Temple trace, assuming double counting, it isn't even close. Nobody is being "excluded" because we have redirects. This is just about what appears at the top of the page. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        What appears at the top of the page should be a title that is "most familiar" to the readers. "Shirley Temple" is a very familiar name. "Shirley Temple Black" is also a familiar name, and both titles are notable. It is my contention that both names together would be familiar to all the people who would come to read this article. Since "Shirley Temple" is incorporated into "Shirley Temple Black", then the familiarity is additive. By naming this article "Shirley Temple Black", we are not reducing the number of readers who would find this title familiar, we are actually increasing the number of readers who would find the title familiar. Plus, those who may only know her as "Shirley Temple" (and there may be quite a few like that) might even learn a thing or two about their beloved child star. To illustrate, one might say that "Shirley Temple" is familiar to "millions and millions" of readers, while "Ms. Black" is familiar to maybe a few "millions". Then, to me, it follows that by naming the article "Shirley Temple Black", the "combined" title would be familiar to "millions and millions and millions" of readers. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        Then you think it should be State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations? Article titles are not the appropriate venue for teaching readers. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        Your question sounds like a non sequitur to me. As for your declaration, is there some policy or guideline that you can cite to support it? If so, then please cite; if not, then please tell me: Who made up that rule? I learn things from Wikipedia article titles almost everyday. For example, today I learned that what I thought was attributable to Archimedes, the so-called Archimedes' screw, was actually used centuries before him by the ancient Egyptians. Yes, it might seem correct to rename that article, however the common and most familiar name for the pump is already the title of the article. So what did I learn? I learned that not all article titles reflect the truth, whether or not we personally believe them to be true. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 23:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        Fine. WP:COMMONNAME says to use "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." In this case it that is "Shirley Temple". No exceptions for harmless additions to the common name; no exceptions for educating the reader. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        And that is precisely where you appear to miss all that I've said. Renaming this page is not meant to be viewed as an "exception". The new title will contain "Shirley Temple". As for the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject, pray tell, if you were to meet the lady today, would you refer to her as Shirley Temple? Would you introduce her to your friends as "Shirley Temple"? Of course, not. I maintain that the name that is most frequently used to refer to Shirley Temple Black is: "Shirley Temple Black", a name that is not in contention with "Shirley Temple", not an exception to "Shirley Temple", but indeed subsumes, succeeds, and supercedes "Shirley Temple". – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        WP:PRECISION - "Shirley Temple" is shorter. WP:COMMONNAME - "Shirley Temple" (without "Black") is more widely used. The article is called United States not United States of America, even though the longer version subsumes the shorter one. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        You seem to say that shorter is more precise, not always. How do you know that the child-star name is more widely used, and what it is used for? There are several ways to title the US article. "United States" was probably chosen as the most widely used globally. That analogy is apples and oranges in other ways as well. Here we have a WP:BLP consideration, there is no consideration for the US being called "United States" when it was a baby and "United States of America" when it grew up, and here we don't have other names the subject can go by, only two. And the one she goes by is the one that would be familiar to all for the very reason that it does subsume her child-star name. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - That would be rather unnecessary if you ask me. Go ask anyone about Shirley and the first that pops into their head would be her childhood days. Even the Britannica and The New Book of Knowledge used her maiden name in their respective articles about Temple, but noted that she went by the name of Shirley Temple Black during her later political career. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yes, let's be just like the other reference works! Is Britannica always right? I have a very old set of BoK in my library. I love them, but they're not always correct either. Yes, let's continue to do the wrong thing because others do it wrong. The subject's child-star name is familiar to millions and millions of readers. Add "Black" to her child-star name, as she did many years ago, and the name is familiar to millions and millions and millions of readers. So the "familiar" clause in the WP:COMMONNAME policy makes this article's title change rather necessary. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  - There is really no need to personally reply to every single oppose vote... –CWenger (^ • @) 02:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    - The only need I'm here to fill is the need to improve Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your concern. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      - In actual fact, her child-star name is familiar to millions and millions of readers. Her adult name probably to thousands only, with millions and millions wondering if Shirley Temple Black might be related to the child-star Shirley Temple! What happened to her by the way? This is the reality of the situation. However worthy her subsequent achievements, they will never, ever come close to the fame she achieved as a child. Sad maybe, but still true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
        If what you say is indeed true, there would be no need for sadness. This article really is not able to convey the immeasurable impact this lady had during the Great Depression. Her films, her unmatched talent gave people a sense of hope, perhaps even a vision of a light at the end of the tunnel. There's just no way to measure that or even describe it with accuracy. It's even true that the notable (albeit mostly behind-the-scenes) impact she made later as Ms. Black, while serving in various voluntary government posts, was due in no small part to both name and facial recognition that stemmed from her child-star fame. Nobody can nor would dispute these facts nor the continuing tremendous impact her early films had on later generations. It is precisely that name/facial recognition, which helped to empower her later achievements, that shows us that millions of people knew who she was— that she was that dimpled, curly-headed, mega-talented little girl all grown up! Her adult life was filled with service to others, helping others. Nobody can possibly believe that "Shirley Temple Black" subtracts anything at all from "Shirley Temple". – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 11:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Despite the impassioned discussion, this is a clear common naming issue and, in fact, is disfavored by the entire list at WP:AT of recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. There are 86,600 Google Books hits for <"Shirley Temple" -"Shirley Temple Black"> vs. 5,490 for <"Shirley Temple Black"> and a large portion of the latter, maybe most, just mention her married name in passing for completeness while referring to her by her maiden name predominantly, just as we do when we provide her full name in the article, while titling it by the name she is known by to the world. Restricting results to 2005 to 2011 changes the disparity not at all (14,000 to 620). The idea that because the longer title includes her maiden name so it covers both is false. We recognize names by what they include and don't include. When we see the incredibly famous name, Shirley temple, we expect the article to be at that name. Even though users typing the famous name will land at the article on the intended subject through the redirect, some will not stay there long enough to realize it is the same person since we all know that there are many famous names that are also parts of the names of other people we may not know, à la George Washington Williams / George Washington and a legion of other examples. Retitling this as requested violates the principle of least astonishment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment on the final oppose

The arguments made by editor Fuhghettaboutit are, in my opinion, non sequitur. Yes, I know, the point is moot. Forgive these encyclopedias and other references, for we all know deep down that this unmatched person is, and always will be, Shirley Temple Black. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 04:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's rather ironic that you would characterize my comments as a non sequitur in the above, shall we say, opaque post. Care to provide some reasoning behind that assertion?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No irony involved if one reads my comments in the above discussion. It was just an opinion, Fuhghettaboutit, my own little humble opinion regarding the outcome of the move request. Best to you!

PS. Oh! and about the below assertion by the IP regarding "consensus". The IP seems to have asserted consensus based merely upon the obvious "votes". And you and I know what "consensus" really means, don't we. The outcomes of move requests are based upon the supported and frequently discussed "!votes" of the people who add their meaningful input (and yes, even non sequitur input can be meaningful). In this particular case, there clearly and truly was "no consensus" to move this page to Shirley Temple Black. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I find it weird that this closed as no consensus when there is a clear consensus to not move. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason RMs closes are often couched in this way for two reasons. Both on Wikipedia and off, it's normally much easier to judge that consensus has not been achieved than it is to determine what the consensus is, so if a discussion is susceptible to a no consensus conclusion (not all discussions are), it becomes habit to take that less thorny path. Second (relatedly), when what is at issue is whether an action should be taken (here moving), and where inaction maintains the status quo, a close rationale of "no consensus" neatly conveys that the action is not to be taken, rather than directly addressing the underlying subject matter of discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that subsequent move request are sometimes opened immediately with the rationale that the last discussion closed as no consensus thus are available to be rehashed with the exact same reasoning immediately. Also, a later move request also would cite a no consensus closure as a reason to rehash the exact same reasoning at a later (not immmediately later) date. I've seen that happen (both immediately after closure, and some time after). When pointing out that there actually was a consensus to not do the move, the nominator would simply point to the closure statement of "no consensus", resulting in some disagreements by various editors on whether there was a consensus or not, whether there should be a speedy close or not, etc. The immediate renomination is irksome, as clearly though WP:CCC, it can't happen immediately, unless every is capricious; the delayed case results in potentially misleading the audience as to the actual state of affairs in the last discussion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Did she ever give any retrospectives on her experiences as a child performer? Did she feel traumatized by it? OK with it?

Is that correct that she was never in Congress? I thought she did get in at one point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, she was never in Congress. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

BBC, ABC, and The Guardian have confirmed it, personal feelings aside, how are those not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.69.24 (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with the BBC source that was provided by someone saying Monday/10 Feb, I don't understand why this so contentious. I particularly don't understand why IPs keep changing it to 11 and making it sound like she is still alive. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps people could also do with a refresher of WP:OR in particular WP:OR#Routine calculations. In a case like this where IMO it's clear the family does not mean a previous Monday and definitely not a next Monday, there is no doubt that Monday implies 10th February and it is not OR. Or in other words, the only question is whether or not it's possible the family meant some previous Monday, converting the Monday which just passed to 10th is a clear cut example of a routine calculation which is not OR.

The only complexity could be timezones, but there's no way that would justify 11th considering she died in the US and the BBC would be using UTC, not Hawaiian time. And in any case, timezone issues apply whether they said 'Monday' or '10th February'.

I guess in a pinch you could argue for imprecision (in that if someone dies at 12:30am 11th February people may say they died on Monday or 10th February since they're still thinking of it as the same day, even if it's past midnight and so the death actually happened on the next day), but again that applies whether they said the 10th or Monday.

In summary, the two main questions are whether we accept the family definitely meant the Monday which just passed (if we do, then 10th February comes automatically without OR); and also whether the sourcing is sufficiently clear and strong enough on the date of death (which is always a concern at the early stage). Regardless of how you you feel about either question, there's no evidence for a date besides 10th February at the moment so the question is whether to include it or not. There's no justification I've seen for 11th February.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see this article was first updated with her death at 10:27 UTC, which I believe is 02:27 California time, which suggests she probably died a few hours earlier the day before. PatGallacher (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried to change the source of the death to a reuters article which gave the exact date and time but someone changed it to a bbc article that doesn't mention time or date....just says Monday. Of course we all know it meant feb 10 but would not a more precise citation be better? Confused as to why someone would change it to be a less precise citation. A few weeks/months/years from now it may not be so easy to know which Monday was meant without having to look at the article date and a calendar. Leahneuhauser (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I came across your citation independently and added it backed. I later noticed you added it and was going to use the citations details you added to fill in (as I just included a bare citation) but someone beat me to adding the details (probably independentally). I'm not sure if your citation was removed intentionally, there were intervening edits by someone who appears to be a vandal which may have caused confusion over what you were trying to do.

Note however while your edits were made in good faith and the citation was a useful addition to the article, your removal of the BBC citation was problematic because it was used elsewhere but you only replace its usage in one location. If you look [1], which is your revision, you can see there is a red warning because of this. The solutions to this are 1) Replace the BBC citation in both locations making sure it verifies everything it's supposed to verify or 2) Don't replace the BBC citation, keep both citations.

While someone could have done this for you, as I mentioned the confusion due to the vandal combined with the error may have made it even less obvious what you were trying to do if someone missed your edit summary, particularly since this is a high edit rate article.

BTW, I think this vandal was part of the problem. While some editors were clearly acting in good faith (like Anupmehra), I suspected before my posts above that the IP hopper who kept changing it to 11th February early on was not (particularly since their edits continually changed the article back referring to Shirley Temple in the present tense, removed the entire death section while keeping the date of death in and other clearly unwelcome stuff). But I WP:AGFed that they were and so wrote my comment above accordingly. However they continued to add nonsense including stuff like the death being in 2015 or February 9th before the article was semi protected so it's became blatantly clearly they are a vandal.

Unfortunately the mess and confusion this editor created got mixed up with the various good faith edits to what was already a high edit count article likely causing further confusion. (I think people independentally added a death section a few times after it was removed by this editor.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it may have been a mistake on my part, at least one good faith edit may have got reverted along with an incompetently formatted edit, but I am not familiar with the details of reverting. PatGallacher (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I've only contributed to wiki pages a few times but I'm a little obsessive about information being correct and current, so when I noticed there was no date, I figured I'd change it since I knew the date and time from a reliable source... a simple fix I figured....I had no idea what I was getting into:-) Leahneuhauser (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In the first entry of the notes section it says ST's bday was changed to prolong her "babyhood". It doesn't matter how you change someone's bday or birth cert....it's not going to prolong babyhood. Perhaps it would be better to say that it prolonged her desirability as child actor? Leahneuhauser (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Birthdays are rarely changed, but many actresses change their year of birth (normally to make themselves younger, but sometimes in the opposite direction, usually to be able to work legally, such as Jane Wyman). However, there is no indication this is the case with Temple. She was also a U.S. diplomat, don't forget, and her true year of birth would be on her paperwork, passport, etc. Quis separabit? 21:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Reflist width.

Perhaps we should reduce it to possibly three columns? It's a bit unsightly in its current state. I'd do it myself, but I'd rather reach a general consensus, than act alone, here. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I think 4 columns was far more compact and aesthetic and it should be returned to 4-columns. Currently it's three. 123.2.117.167 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Need a navbox

We really need a Shirley Temple navbox created and placed at the bottom of this page and on all other pages for each of her movies. Anyone want to get started on that? 123.2.117.167 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

copied "note" source from [en: Shirley_Temple&oldid=616472469] to [jp:シャーリー・テンプル&oldid=52238330]

Comparing with [en: Shirley_Temple&oldid=616472469] and [jp:シャーリー・テンプル&oldid=52238330]　Omotecho 18:24 July-10-2014: aiming to update. Memorandum, maybe [en: Shirley_Temple&oldid=99130596] is used for [ja: シャーリー・テンプル&oldid=16967740] on 06:17‎ 20071224 last edition by the original translator then called Great hives (aborted as 125.13.15.71).

http://ja.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=シャーリー・テンプル&diff=52210671&oldid=16967740

--Omotecho (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Movie Cameo

Shirley Temple did a cameo as an extra in the 1963 movie Bye Bye Birdie about ten minutes into the film. She played an office worker. She did not have any lines. She was 35 years old at the time. The primary actress in the scene was Janet Leigh as Rosie. The cameo scene can be seen at the 09:43 to 09:48 mark in the following-linked video of that movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeF8-w2TLtE&list=PLD1F5BD201AB4AD56 7Jim7 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Parents cashed in?

I am confused. I thought it was common knowledge that Shirley's parents spent all of those earnings mentioned in the article?

When she became an adult, she had assumed that at least $3m was in an account held for her, yet a pittance remained?

Why is this not given acknowledgement? Even if the millions disappeared (little proof nonetheless, come on man)? SChalice 03:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Postage stamp, April 2016

  The United States Postal Service will honor Shirley Temple, April 18, 2016, with issuance of the 20th stamp in the Legends of Hollywood commemorative series.
  The first-day ceremony will occur in Los Angeles, Calif., at the Geffen Playhouse at 10886 Le Conte Ave.
  The self-adhesive stamp:
    features a painting of Temple as she appeared in Curly Top, the 1935 film;
    artwork is by Tim O’Brien; design by Ethel Kessler;
    will be issued on a sheet of 20 along with a black and white 1933 publicity photo of Temple on the sheet.

148.159.128.51 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox collapsing

To editor Sunshineisles2: Readers should not have to take the extra step of clicking a show link to see what they expect to read "at a glance". Infoboxes are placed in articles specifically to show at a glance information for readers that will either be all the info they need, or will make them want to read more. No one should have to take the extra step of finding and clicking a link to glance at that information. Please cite a discussion that shows a consensus for this collapsing of infoboxes. Stick to sources! Paine 21:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is of my opinion that the infobox as is is far too unweildy. While it is a marked improvement from the previous two-infobox setup (person and officeholder), having the thing stretch down well into the biography section can also be a turn-off for prospective readers. Even the collapsed introbox on Frank Sinatra -- an even shorter box -- was done out of a last minute negotiation and nearly entirely lacked formal consensus at the time.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit long, I'll give you that; however, the final three "in office" sections can be eliminated as they are redundantly shown at the bottom of the page. Their erasure would bring the bottom of the box nearly out of the first section for most readers. I have been known to shorten very long iboxes by collapsing a part or parts of the info, but never the entire ibox. Would you agree to collapsing the "Notable work"/"Television" sections and either eliminating or collapsing the "in office" sections? Stick to sources! Paine 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably due to the intracacies of the infobox template code, the Collapsed infobox section begin and end templates behave in a less than expected manner. Perhaps the bare minimum information would be acceptable to right the wrong of the lengthy ibox in the article? For example, as I've recently edited. Stick to sources! Paine 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

United Nations

On the page it says that Shirley Temple was a "representative to the United Nations" but not ambassador, and she is not listed on the State Department's list of Ambassadors. Does anyone know what is the difference between a "representative" and ambassador? I can't seem to find an answer anywhere. I think this distinction needs to be made in the article or a link to another page defining both terms. Stidmatt (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The term is "delegate," and it is in her NY Times obituary. I will fix it in the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Fired by President Carter after inauguration

I want to save this interesting sourced material that indicates Shirley Temple Black wanted to continue working for President Carter, but he fired her anyway, as many Presidents do to install their political friends and donors in presidential appointment jobs:

Page 93: Then in July 1976, President Ford made Shirley the first female Chief of Protocol at the White House. During her swearing-in, she said humbly, "I'm pleased to be the first woman in 200 years to hold this job." Shirley carried the rank of Assistant Secretary of State, commanding a staff of 40. She later described the post as "a lot of parties for one who doesn't like parties." Her tenure, however, was short-lived, as Ford was defeated in the November election. Even then Shirley was in demand: She was tapped to arrange the details of President Jimmy Carter's inauguration and inaugural ball. "I remember telling President Carter on his first night, when I was escorting people around, that I was interested in continuing public service and that politics didn't matter," she said. It wasn't up to her, though, and she joined her fellow Republican staffers on the unemployment line.^[1]

I am not a regular editor on this article, so feel free to use this if it can be worked in if possible. Here's the publisher's current catalog page for the special issue, on newsstands until June 12, 2017. 5Q5 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

^ "Shirley Temple". Weekly Closer magazine Collector's Edition. New York City: Bauer Publshing Company, L.P.: 93 March 13, 2017.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shirley Temple. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150114061915/http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/specialevents/honors/history.cfm to http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/specialevents/honors/history.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Shirley Temple Black redirect categories

Article categories to the redirect page Shirley Temple Black were removed by Johnpacklambert.

I am not familiar with Shirley Temple's name usage throughout her lifetime. This article currently refers to her exclusively as "Temple". Did she use "Black" as her surname? If so, then I suggest the categories referring to her post-marriage career, such as Category:Ford administration personnel, be placed in Shirley Temple Black. If she used both names throughout her lifespan, I would suggest including both Shirley Temple Black and Shirley Temple in the applicable categories.

My suggestions are based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles. This has previously been discussed at Talk:Shirley Temple Black#Redirect categories and Talk:Shirley Temple/Archive 1#Categories on the redirect. Daask (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories should be done on one person, one set of categories. We should put a person in all the categories that apply to them, and redirects from an alternate name for the same person should not be in any.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I don't think the guidelines linked above agree with your statement that "redirects from an alternate name for the same person should not be in any [category]". Daask (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shirley Temple. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Vatican investigation"

Reading through this article, something struck me as off about the idea that "that the Vatican dispatched Father Silvio Massante to investigate whether she was indeed a child." Why would "The Vatican" (an ambiguous term in itself, by the way) be interested in investigating rumors related to Shirley Temple? I don't have a full copy of her 1988 autobiography, but Google Books provides a snippet view (here) and just from what you can see there, it seems that this story has been somewhat exaggerated. Father Massante was simply a representative of Osservatore Romano, presumably writing a piece on Shirley, and during the course of the interview made mention of the rumor in what seems to be a joking fashion. So saying that he was "dispatched" to "investigate" is really rather misleading and should be rephrased. Does anyone have access to Temple's full autobiography to fill out the facts on this a little? — AJDS ^talk 12:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Political Career

Shouldn't there be something in this article about her political career, as she both ran for elective office and served as a U.S. ambassador to 2 nations as a Republican; one in Europe, one in Africa? I believe she also served in other political capacities, but there is no mention in the article of any of her political achievements. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It was mentioned here, actually. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Photograph in infobox

Since she is notable primarily for her work as a child movie star and secondarily for her work as a diplomat, shouldn't the info box have a photograph depicting her at one of those two times in her life, rather than as a young adult (after the peak of her movie career but before the start of her government work)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.40.77 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The Little Princess (1939) full.ogv

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The Little Princess (1939) full.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Shirley Temple". Weekly Closer magazine Collector's Edition. New York City: Bauer Publshing Company, L.P.: 93 March 13, 2017.

[1]