Talk:Mary Martin

Her special Tony Award of 1948

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)

Gay Icon Project

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)

Unconfirmed bisexual

Text and cat removed since based on rumor not fact. --FloNight 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Mary Martin as a Painter

I was just visiting my mother and asked her about the painting from Mary Martin she had hanging up in her dining room. She explained that she got it from her sister-in-law about 30 years ago, and it was painted by the actress. It's an oil painting, a still life of flowers in a vase. I haven't been able to find any other reference to Mary as a painter. Is anone aware of her work? April 2006

Yes, I have a painting of hers, apparently done while she was in "South Pacfic."

Trivia

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)

Mary Martin at the Royal Variety Performance

This is not mentioned. She was brilliant! Her son Larry Hagman came on and fluffed his lines! Surely this should be mentioned too in her biopic.

Fair use rationale for Image:PeterPan1.jpg

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)

Page Citations

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)

Education

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)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed C-class, for insufficient or inconsistent use of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately Commenting From Ignorance

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)

Janet Gaynor’s article omits LGBTQ, so why should Mary Martin’s have that speculation?

An hour ago, I deleted assertions from Boze Hadleigh about possible LGBTQ. He is not an RS by Wikipedia standards. Just because he has a Wikipedia article does not mean he is an RS, and does not mean his assertions about a Mary Martin-Janet Gaynor same-sex relationship should be included in either lady’s article. Ms. Gaynor’s article used to have the allegation many years ago. It was removed. Why should Ms. Martin’s article have it? Brent Brant (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

First: the article does not say that Martin was gay or bi. It says that there has been a lot of speculation about this, going back decades. Reliable sources have commented on this. It's been in academic papers. That's what 'notability' means: "has been noted".

Second: even if we were to eliminate Hadleigh as a source, he's one of several cited.

Third: given that this is all about speculation anyway, that's why we attribute instead of just cite. The article doesn't say "Martin was etc", it says "In 1979, Patsy Kelly told Boze Hadleigh that etc". If you really want to be fussy about it and cast aspersions on Hadleigh's reliability, we could rephrase it as "In his 1994 book Hollywood Lesbians, Boze Hadleigh reported having been told by Patsy Kelly in 1979 that etc."

Fourth: if you cite your sources, other people might actually check them to confirm they say what you claim. I followed that link you posted in the edit summary. It's an anonymous comment on a blog post, that says "citing Boze Hadleigh as a source is dodgy at best. A great deal of what he wrote in those books seems pretty clearly made up," with no further detail. An anonymous comment on a blog post that says "I think he probably made up a lot of stuff" is not a reason to discount a source. DS (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is another online source on Boze Hadleigh’s deceitfulness, and it’s not an anonymous comment on a blog post. Please read it in its entirety. Boze Hadleigh’s deceitfulness Brent Brant (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You are discrediting the sources in the article by using a blog, which is not reliable. The blog author may have personal or ideological biases. The sources don't make definitive claims but highlight publicly discussed issues. The article did not harm the artist's integrity as @DragonflySixtyseven: said.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Publicly discussed issues? Were the sexual fantasies of Mary Martin discussed publicly more than 20 years after she passed away? I can understand if someone explained to Leeza Gibbons that “Daddy” in “My Heart Belongs to Daddy” was supposed to be Mary Martin’s boyfriend, not her dad. But the fantasies in Mary’s mind were discussed . . . publicly?! Brent Brant (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you not looked at the non-Hadleigh sources? Academic papers about why it matters to the queer community as to whether Martin was gay. Comments by her biographer. A comment (possibly a dismissive one, depending on how you interpret it) by a major gay publication. You are free to dismiss each and every one of these sources, but they exist, and they speculate. That's the point.

I should also note that the Gaynor article does comment on her sexuality, in a carefully-worded statement that has multiple sources. DS (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The Gaynor article says only that Gaynor, Martin and their husbands traveled together. It says there were rumors about her sexuality, nothing more. The “queer community,” and said term insinuates that millions of people agree on everything, is using people who have been unable to tell their stories for thirty or forty years. Mary Martin did tell her story in her 1976 book My Heart Belongs. That was published long before the acronym LGBTQ was created, but the word “bisexual” existed, and it never appears in the book. Mary does say she enjoys doing needlepoint. Brent Brant (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course she didn't say that she was bisexual. That's why our article says that there's speculation. Multiple published sources have seen fit to address the question, over the years. That's what "notable" means. We are not saying that Mary Martin was lesbian or bisexual. We are saying that there is speculation in multiple published sources as to that issue. DS (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s purpose isn’t to speculate about a long-dead person, about a part of his or her life that is unknowable. How strange that a third person isn’t commenting here about Wikipedia’s purpose! Wikipedia is filled with standards. Brent Brant (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That's why we're not speculating about it. We're mentioning that many other people have speculated on this topic, including in reliable sources. DS (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator made two edits several hours ago. Here is the edit summary for one of them:

Configured pending changes settings for Mary Martin: Persistent disruptive editing (TW) [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)) Brent Brant (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)