Talk:Johnnie Ray/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I added several footnotes. I put back in the detail about Johnnie Ray never appearing on "The Love Boat." Europeans might not know this, but if you were an aging cocktail singer in the late 1970s, you had to appear on "The Love Boat" or else your career tanked. Johnnie Ray did not go on the show, and his career tanked. His career had been almost non - existent in his native United States since the early 1960s. A Love Boat episode could have helped revive it. But that was not to be.

The facts about the 1957 criminal libel trial that ruined "Confidential" magazine come from the 1996 memoir of Ms. Theo Wilson, who was one of the most respected trial reporters of the 1950s. When the judge ordered the editors and publishers of all the scandal magazines (including Hush-Hush and Whisper) to put an end to the smut, they did. Millions of people had been reading the magazines for less than five years, which means the smut, including the dirt on Johnnie Ray, was fresh enough in their minds for them to doubt what they had read. This is relevant to Johnnie Ray's changing relationship with the American media. The point is not what he did in the bedroom, but rather who paid attention to that and whether it mattered very much. We don't know that it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have recently added the {{Wiki}} and {{POV}} tags to this article. The unresourced fancruft currently within is best exemplified by the following paragraph.

"After the loquacious Rushmore shot his wife and then himself to death in early 1958, more open-minded Americans of the time realized that Ray had been smeared deliberately. By that time, however, the rapid rise of rock 'n' roll and his failed 1958 ear surgery had cut him off from the songwriters who were so vital to less rhythmic singers like himself, Tony Bennett and Johnny Mathis, who penned little of their own material. When rock 'n' roll proved in the 1960s that it was here to stay, and not a fad for screaming adolescents, Bennett and Mathis continued to score hits penned by songwriters, but Ray recorded rock-oriented material that often seemed wrong for him. His relationship with his last American record label ended in 1961. Ray disappeared from the American television networks until a Hollywood Palace appearance in 1968, by which time serious music fans liked the fact that rock 'n' roll bands wrote nearly all of their own material with the members collaborating."

To be fair, parts of the present article are good (and resourced) - but some are extremely non-encyclopedic. Can someone improve the situation ? "Dear old Johnnie Ray", indeed.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the above paragraph being "fancruft." I say there is nothing wrong with it. It places Johnnie Ray's downfall in the context of its time. Nyannrunning (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start discussing whether the Love Boat thing is notable here on the talk page rather than reverting each other. If the edit war keeps up, I'll put a notice on the page protection request board and have an admin take a look. Thanks.

People in Australia claim to keep the flame of Johnnie Ray. They did in the 1980s when he was alive. That's fine. They may have seen The Love Boat, but they don't know how vital it was for an easy - listening singer of the late 1970s and early 1980s to appear on the show. If you weren't rock 'n' roll and you didn't do "Love Boat," then your career was low - profile in the United States of that era. Australians didn't care if you were on "Love Boat" when they remained loyal to an aging performer. But the article needs to focus on Johnnie Ray in the United States. He was American.

It is relevant that at least three musical - comedy performers with whom Johnnie Ray had worked in the 1950s did go on "Love Boat": Ethel Merman, Donald O'Connor and Janis Paige. The article should contain just two sentences about this crucial American TV program and those three performers. Is it too much to ask for the two sentences to stay in the article ? It's not a very long article. They are just as relevant as Ray's sex life. The reason Americans didn't know him during the disco / heavy metal era had nothing to do with homophobia. The reason is he never appeared on American network TV. It's that simple. Johnnie himself said for publication in the 1980s, "If you don't appear on a cable TV channel every twenty minutes, then people in Los Angeles think you're retired or dead."

As for sources, the article has plenty of them. Nothing is fancruft. The fact that Johnnie's 1960s downfall had to do with American songwriters is sourced. Nyannrunning (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is the section being discussed:

Several musical-comedy performers with whom Ray had worked in film and in the legitimate theater in the 1950s found work on The Love Boat starting in the late 1970s. They included Ethel Merman, Donald O'Connor and Janis Paige. Johnnie Ray never appeared on this long-running American television show, although Australian promoters flew him to their country to perform every year until 1989.

Reading just the article, the importance of Love Boat is not explained. The explanation is all off the article page. In edit summaries and on talk pages, you mention that any performer of Ray's era, who didn't appear on the show, was lowkey. That may be true, (and it may also be untrue), but it also sounds like a

original research. If it could be put into some kind of context in the article so that the significance is immediately clear, it would be different. It would need to have a source provided so that it reads as more than personal opinion, but if a rock/music/entertainment historian for example, could be quoted, that would be one way of clarifying the point. "If you don't appear on a cable TV channel every twenty minutes, then people in Los Angeles think you're retired or dead." - is a great quote. If you can source it, it would be a really good addition to the article. Regardless of your comments regarding grammar, linking the Love Boat comments to "although Australian promoters....." suggests there is a link between the two. Let's not be too pedantic over the finer rules of grammar. The article should be easy and clear to read. The point is that when people read a sentence they form a particular impression as to what message is intended. If the link is "tenuous" as you say on your talk page, it actually reads as more than tenuous, the way it's written. It could reworded to make it clear that the two issues are not linked. eg "Although Ray's career opportunities in the US were limited during the 1970s and 1980s, he remained a popular performer in Australia, where he performed every year until 1989." I disagree that Ray should be written about mainly from an American perspective. Your comments suggest a kind of American "ownership" of Johnnie Ray and some kind of indignation that "ownership" is being claimed by other countries. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but that's the impression I get. I believe that because he achieved different levels of success thoughout the world at different times, he should be written about from a world perspective, and certainly in this venue, which is an English language article that can be read by anyone in the world, it's important that a reader in the United Kingdom or Australia also gets information relevant to them. But you are right - the article should address the disparities and make it clear in things like discographies which songs were successful in which market. I completely agree with you on that point. Although I'm not a fan of tables, perhaps a table format would more clearly indicate where the song was and was not a hit. Rossrs (talk

) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of that information isn't needed. There is absolutely no way to determine that every media outlet ignored the condition of his health. Saying that major media outlets ignored it would be fine if it was sourced. Also, stating that a channel has the transcripts of the show and a person remembered watching it is not a reference, that is original research. If the transcripts can be found online, please provide it, otherwise, that reference is not even close to being acceptable. Pinkadelica (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the media's overlooking Ray's failing health in 1990 is original research. But the insanity of Howard Rushmore isn't. He originated the rumor that Ray was gay. All of this is sourced. Dooyar (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors

do not own articles. When you roll back an article over several intermediate edits, 7 in this case, with the flimsy edit summary addressing only one small point in the intervening edits, is unacceptable and is not something new that you've just started doing. If you want to add back some of this material, it will need better citations than what most of it has. Meanwhile, some of it is not relevant to this particle article. I'd be glad to open a dispute resolution over this article. Meanwhile, add things systematically and desist from rolling back articles on a blanket basis. You ignore other changes on the page when you do this, and with no justification. Others have the right to make edits on articles and no one is obliged to retain the last version you approve. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dooyar, I didn't question that content. However, calling someone a "psychopathic murderer" on an edit summary and "insane" on the talk page reeks of bias. Personal feelings about a subject, negative or positive, should be put aside when writing in the context of an encyclopedia. If that's not possible, I suggest you not work on this subject. I didn't make the majority of edits on this page, I merely did a reference check, but a lot of what was reverted and changed wasn't necessary. Everyone is suppose to assume

good faith when new content is added and unless a page is seriously vandalized, it is not to be reverted over several edits. Removing maintenance tags without providing proper citations is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If content is added, it needs to be sourced right then and there. If the sources are not at your disposal, hold off on adding the content because, inevitably, it will be removed by someone because unsourced content is subject to removal at anytime by anyone. If the massive reverts and addition of unsourced content continues, a dispute will be opened. Pinkadelica (talk

) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard Rushmore the murderer.

Sources are also available for the fact that Rushmore had stalked his estranged wife for several weeks. And that he stalked celebrities and made up stories about them using violent prostitutes as "sources." He testified under oath that his tabloid articles on Johnnie Ray were part of the fiction. That is why Howard Rushmore's insanity is relevant to this article. It is only part of a sentence, which takes up very little space. I hope you are male because any woman who can't see through a wife beater / killer is asking for trouble. Dooyar (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the name Pinkadelica just screams masculinity. For the record, I'm actually a grown woman. Since it seems that you have selective vision and always have a knack for addressing something that no one brought up or accused you of doing, let me make this clear. I didn't say you said Johnnie Ray was a psycho. Look right above and you'll see I wrote the word someone, not Johnnie Ray. I know someone is a pronoun and perhaps I should have been more clear, but seeing you wrote the words, I figured you knew the person I was referring to. My mistake. Believe it or not, you do not have to define what you think insane is to me. Having worked around convicted felons for most of my adult life, I can assure you that I know firsthand what a true sociopath is. As much as you'd love to think it, I'm really not the idiotic twit you assume I am, neither is anyone else who dares to question you. I've dealt with the most pathetic excuses for supposed human beings in REAL life and I did not have the advantage of hiding behind the safety of a monitor, book or magazine either. Since you're oh-so-concern that I might possibly be asking for trouble, let me assure you, I know what real trouble is and if I chose to ask for it, I'll be able to handle myself just fine. If you honestly think that going to a library and reading old newspapers, tabloids & microfilm makes you intellectually superior or some sort of expert in psychology or whatever other topic you choose, great, that's your prerogative. However, your above remark is the very last time you are going to talk down to me or anyone else for that matter. The snarky comments and name calling end now. If you cannot conduct yourself in a mature and civil manner, I suggest you bow out gracefully and take your sardonic remarks elsewhere.

Add whatever you want to the article. If you think your opinion is gospel truth and everyone else is a complete moron, have at it. Frankly, I'm tired of the excuses, rationalizations, and the complete lack of respect and decency. The game stayed the same, only the page and person changed. If we have to go through the same arduous dissection process again, so be it. Obviously, that is what it will have to happen yet again and I'm prepared for that. By the way, the link you left above directs to a page on a site that requires registration. I know you don't care because, evidently, rules and guidelines don't apply to you, but that isn't a valid source. Free registration or not, it's not acceptable. Now, feel free to completely misconstrue anything I've written. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a single name I have called you in this Johnnie Ray discussion. Just because Howard Rushmore is much more obscure than the felons you have met, or the celebrity murderers of the 1990s, doesn't mean you must make a great effort to find him. He does not have a Wikipedia article, and it's not my responsibility to start one, but he is easily reachable in two books from Amazon.com: Sam Kashner's "The Bad and the Beautiful" and Theo Wilson's "Headline Justice." Both books have good stuff about other dead people who are the subject of Wiki articles !

Want a little evidence about Rushmore before you stand up this evening ? Then you can, in fact, see a thumbnail of Rushmore slumped over the wife he has just shot. The link I inserted above worked yesterday. Even though it since has been reduced to the NY Daily News home page, here is a way to see Mr. and Mrs. Rushmore by making just a wee little more effort. First click on

Then scroll down just a little until you see "Search Archive" next to a white field. Type in "howard rushmore."

You will get four Daily News covers from 1958. Two show the couple smiling for the camera. With very little eyestrain you can find the others in which they are unable to smile. Click on one of them to enlarge it, and ... you learn a lot more about the person who originated the "Johnnie Ray is queer" rumors.

I apologize profusely for assuming that you already knew about Rushmore's character and reportage when you said he doesn't belong in the Ray article. You think I show "a complete lack of respect and decency ?" I thought you were showing that to the memory of Johnnie Ray. Now I realize you are not one of those people who believe in the concept of "gaydar," and that's going to solve all the world's problems, including people's understanding of dead people. You would be surprised what people have done to Johnnie Ray's memory in certain blogs. He was to gay people what Martin Luther King was to Black Americans, etc. Ninety-nine percent of people who blog on Ray are either like that, or they are Australians and Britons who could care less about anything that happened to Johnnie Ray in the United States over a period of 63 years, which was his life.

I am hoping the harsh fact about his gig at El Camino College in 1987 stays in the article, but I have read blogs from Australians who insist that El Camino College is in Mexico.

You've worked with felons and people doing heavy time ? Great! Then you know how stupid it is to say Johnnie Ray died for the sins of 200 million Americans! He was not a gay Christ figure for the Yankees. His personal business in the 1950s, when personal business was personal business, was not Topic A in that era. Now let's learn to use the words "Personal life and scandals" accurately. Can't ? Then leave it out and focus on the man's music. There are sources indicating that he transitioned Americans from Sinatra to Elvis to the Beatles. Maybe that can stay in the article.

While I've never visited a penitentiary or probation office, I know enough about the Internet to know that the studliest man in the world can come up with a name containing "pink" in five seconds. That's longer than it takes certain lonely people to latch on to his opinions for whatever reason. I promise to look more closely at the surface the next time I address a contributor. Dooyar (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gotta admit, you did not disappoint me. Your responses are always incoherent, rambling and condescending. Your whole diatribe brought up things I didn't even talk about. It's as if you are in your own little world and you make up conversations. Your ramblings about El Camino college and my supposed disrespect to Ray are yet another example of how you assume someone's thoughts or feelings and assume that the rest of us also edit articles based on our personal feelings. You can do all the research in the world, the fact remains that the way you present information is unacceptable in this context. Leave your opinions and unsourced statements out of articles. If you want to write a memorial to someone, do it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. Like I said before, add what you want, if it's unsourced or lacking proper citation placement, it will be removed. If it's not presented in a neutral tone, it will be removed. No one reads Wikipedia to learn other people's conjecture. If you find it impossible to remain neutral and present the information as such, I'd say that's a major

conflict of interest and it needs to be dealt with. This is not the first time your edits have been called into question and we are not the first and only editors to have issues with you. Either everyone else on Wikipedia doesn't know what they're talking about or you're not following the rules and guidelines. Pinkadelica (talk

) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your responses are often longer and more rambling than mine. That is the case here. I'll keep this short and sweet. El Camino College is the best gig Johnnie Ray could get close to his Hollywood Hills home in 1987. Rather than say the college's name twice in the article, I eventually put a reference to Torrance in the first paragraph, and I used the college's name the second time, which is in the final section called "Later career and death." I said "Torrance" after first saying "El Camino" by mistake. I made a mistake, then I fixed it. You seem like an angry person with very little tolerance.

Please remain in harmony with "everyone else on Wikipedia." I've read hundreds of Wiki articles made and edited by thousands of contributors. Your social networking is impressive. Dooyar (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have time to dole out armchair psychoanalysis to people you don't know, you've got plenty of time to answer the mediation case that has been opened. If you'd rather keep up all these diversions, let us know so we can move forward without you. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just briefly going to go over material that was removed from the article, on which Dooyar did a massive reversion, with no consideration of what the edits did.

1. There is no need for an "Overview" section. The lead paragraphs are to be short and concise. No matter, it was returned.
2. A discussion of wha Confidential and other magazines alleged was included in the lead with no direct citation whatsoever, and employed the use of the word "probably," as did material about his ear operation, in regard to his declining career. Also, connecting hearing problems to his connection to songwriters is also unsupported. Both are speculative and do not belong in a Wikipedia article.
3. There is no need for an involved explanation of an injury that damaged his hearing. It lends undue weight to the explanation, the setting for the event is sufficient.
4. A number of citations needed tags were removed with no addition of sourcing.
5. Formatting of existing citations into approved format was undone.
6. References to "explanations given by the couple" being similar to ones by columnists were vague and had no reference for them.
7. Reading the cited work re: a trial had no context for Johnnie Ray. Because a chapter was devoted to the trial does not make it germane to this article. It is extraneous to this article.
8. Referring to a person mentioned in an article as a psychopathic murderer is inappropriate and out of context for this article, and other parts of this article lead one to conclude that more than Howard Rushmore was involved in talk regarding Ray's sexuality.
9. Comments analyzing Rushmore's demise are out of context for this article and imply original research when mentioning his intentions toward Ray.
10. Additionally, material that reads "Ray recorded rock-oriented material that often seemed wrong for him" and "serious music fans liked the fact that rock 'n' roll bands wrote nearly all of their own material with the members collaborating" is a personal opinion (POV) and not objective factually based material.
11. Supposition regarding what Dorothy Kilgallen would or would not have done for Ray's career is simply supposition. It has no place in this article, nor does the Bobby Short material.
12. There is no foundation for mentioning what a performer did not appear in.

Finally, the massive rollback also removes formatting of songs into columns and proper headings for it.

If Dooyar wants to better support some of this material, bring it up on this page. If this type of rollback occurs again, we will request a dispute resolution for this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "probably" is the only way to go because nobody knows for sure why Johnnie Ray's career declined in his home country. Your version of the article has just as much POV as the others because you included the allegation that Ray was gay. You can't prove that. You included the allegation that Ray's alleged gayness was the reason his career declined in the United States. That's POV. You made "Personal life and scandals" a chapter heading. You don't cite a source for Johnnie Ray ever having a scandal. If you bothered to read the sourced material that was in the version you vandalized, you would know that the only provable scandal centered around Howard Rushmore, not Johnnie Ray. Rushmore committed murder. Go ahead and request dispute resolution. The article was untouched for two months until you vandalized it at your convenience. Dooyar (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of vandalism is completely out of line. Your assertion that in the last edit summary that the article had not been touched for 2 months is simply a lie. The word "probably" does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Quit twisting things. Another article that was locked was done so at the request of another editor and myself for the very reasons you are starting now. I added no material to this article to call POV. In fact, I removed original research of yours. Again. We will institute a dispute resolution. That is a request that the article be locked, not as punishment, but protection. Another accusation that I am vandalizing will be taken as a personal attack and steps taken to stop it.

I would have to say that since this article is under the Category:LGBT musicians from the United States category that any comment you have to make regarding that is off-base. However, the edits I made did not assert that his career decline was due to homosexuality. I don't cite a source for a scandal involving Ray because I am not aware of one. However, bringing Confidential magazine into the article, and comments regarding "bitter confessions" by Howard Rushmore does bring scandal allegations into it. It doesn't belong, nor do the other abstract references you've included. It doesn't much matter what Howard Rushmore did, his name doesn't belong in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then Johnnie Ray's alleged sexual preference doesn't belong in it, either. He was married once to a woman. That's a fact. We have a source that the mayor of New York City attended the wedding.Dooyar (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He was once married to a woman? Um, so were Rock Hudson and Elton John. Then Elton married a man. It means nothing. However, please turn your attention to the dispute mediation, which you said to go ahead and open. There will be no further debate here until that is finished. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I also have the right to get in the last word. Rock Hudson and Elton John remained super-famous for decades after their divorces from those women. Their careers never declined inside the United States. Hudson's death was such a big news story that many people who had barely known him commented publicly, making his ex - wife seem like an expert by comparison.

Johnnie Ray's American career went right down the toilet three years after his divorce from a woman. That meant nobody cared whether his long - ago marriage was genuine. By the time anyone cared to investigate, Ray was dead. His ex - wife survived him, but she refused to talk for publication. Then she died. If you insist on adding speculation after the mention of divorce in Ray's article, then you're doing original research. Not to mention libelling a dead person. Dispute resolution ? Strange, nobody has altered the edits I made to include Torrance and El Camino College. Dooyar (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for full page protection and dispute resolution have been initiated regarding this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I would like to help with this problem.

The first thing I need is for everybody to let me know where they stand as regards the current problem. I think the best thing would be for everybody to leave a brief summary of what they believe the major issues regarding the article are on this mediation page. Say briefly what you think needs to change.

I have to request that, until everyone has given an indication as to where they stand, that a) you not respond to others' comments on the mediation page and b) you not make edits to this article. Once everyone has registered their opinions, we can start a real discussion about this.

No need to say whether you "submit yourself to mediation" or any of that. Just come on over to the mediation page if you're willing to at least give it a shot.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to make a simple edit before your request becomes etched in concrete. Rather than reword what others have written for the article, I'm removing the entire chapter "Personal life and scandals." That's all I'm doing. Checking its history, I see that the contributors "Wildhartlivie" and "Pinkadelica" had nothing to do with its creation. They have removed other stuff about what Dorothy Kilgallen might have done had she lived longer, and stuff about a rock group with collaborating songwriters having more appeal than one man named Johnnie Ray. That's fine. I now admit that all that is speculation.

But Wildhartlivie and Pinkadelica seem to miss the point that that entire "Personal life and scandals" is also speculation. It has no sources. I was hoping to attach a source to sentences about a psychopath named Howard Rushmore. If Wildhartlivie and Pinkadelica continue to insist that nothing about that man is relevant to Johnnie Ray, not even the facts that he originated the gay rumors and he murdered his wife within five years, then I insist that we chuck all the "scandals." You have to establish that they were actually "scandals" in the first place. Oh, and remember that original research is not allowed. Over the years I have brought up Johnnie Ray's name while conversing with people much older than myself, and I sometimes get a reaction of "He was queer," but even that occasional reaction does not belong here. In order for the "scandals" to belong in the article, you have to source these allegations:

1. 1 -- They were, indeed, scandals in 1950s America. You know, like the furor caused by Ingrid Bergman's out-of-wedlock pregnancy that provoked a United States senator to complain about it on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill.

1. 2 -- The "scandals" played a part in the decline of Johnnie Ray's singing career in the United States. Other parts of the article source the fact that his singing career did, indeed, plummet sharply in the late 1950s and 1960s while it remained strong in many other countries. Unless that was caused by him being "openly gay," let's have proof that A) he was, indeed, "openly gay" in that era and B) that ruined him in his home country all the way until his death in 1990, which was five years after the spread of AIDS. Thank you for reading this. Dooyar (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not such a bad idea, actually, to remove controversial information until it can be deemed appropriate. We can discuss the "personal life and scandals" section, too, and if we find things that are sourceable and need to go back in, all the better. - Revolving Bugbear 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a round up of my minor changes from several minutes ago. I maintain that they did not revert other recent edits. If you think I did revert them, please explain.

In the first section that comes right after Johnnie Ray's vital dates, I added a clause to the sentence about him living in the Hollywood Hills from 1976 to 1990. Without this new clause, a house in Hollywood Hills is irrelevant. The clause informs the reader that despite his living the good life, the best gigs he could get near his home were in "less affluent neighborhoods such as North Hollywood and Torrance." In one edit I said "El Camino" instead of "Torrance." My bad. I assumed El Camino College was in El Camino until I found Torrance, so I changed it to Torrance in a later edit.

Without this clause, the information that another contributor added about spending 1976 to 1990 in the Hollywood Hills is superfluous. Millions of people lived there during that period, including many has - beens.

Instead of totally removing "Personal life and scandals" as I said I would do, I changed it to "Personal life." I retained just the marriage to and divorce from Marilyn Morrison. I added the fact that her father owned a Los Angeles nightclub. That's relevant because Ray's American fame depended on nightclubs. As his American career sagged, so did a lot of nightclubs. I added the words "from the start" and "anyway" to clarify the sentence about whatever role his "alleged bisexuality" played in their divorce. If someone wants to remove "alleged bisexuality," that's okay. Johnnie Ray never came out, and he never discussed his personal life with journalists after his divorce.

Under "Later career and death," I added "in 1965" to the sentence about Ray's Tropicana gig in Las Vegas. Added a footnote about it, too.

One more minor edit was absolutely necessary. Remember El Camino College ? It is not the El Camino College. I changed the clause to "such as El Camino College."

As I said before, asserting that people's awareness of Johnnie Ray's sex life caused the decline of his American career is speculation. That people paid much attention to his sex life in the first place resulted from the unreliable reportage of a 1950s "journalist" who showed signs of psychopathy within five years of his hatchet job on Ray.

Before the several recent edits, the article said that European and Australian concert promoters gave Ray musicians who accommodated his hearing loss much better than American musicians did. In foreign gigs Ray always worked with full orchestras, but in the United States he was stuck with small combos after 1958, and small combos need the singer to keep up with every pulse and every cue. A source says this was probably the most important factor in his longevity everywhere but his home country. His sex life wasn't. Here is the source: a 2006 Johnnie Ray biography by Tad Mann that you can buy on Amazon.com. I'm keeping all this out of the article because it might be too long as it stands. Maybe we should just let Johnnie Ray divorce his wife in 1954, and then we can leave him alone. Dooyar (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See here. This oughtta be included. Thanks, Oregon Historical Society. I guess. -Pete (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the foremost issues about this article was the issue about Ray's sexuality and what was, or was not, going to be said about it. In good faith, Pinkadelica and I tried to participate in the mediation. However, Dooyar simply did not try to participate and in fact, ignored requests and direct questions, regarding the mediation. The mediation was closed because of his/her non-participation. Unfortunately, the first edit Dooyar has made to the article since the mediation is one that again tries to imply meaning from the absence of sourced material, which is one of the issues we intended to address in mediation. If Dooyar now desires to again try to slip this alleged meaning in, then I must assume that he/she is now ready to participate in the mediation, which Pinkadelica and I fully intend to re-institute with the introduction of such material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, if changes are made and sources are not provided immediately, those changes will be reverted. This article is already full of unsourced content and any additional unsourced content is not needed. If it can't be sourced, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I "simply did not try to participate" because I was doing my income taxes. People have lives. In the 1950s, which is the decade when Johnnie Ray married, separated and divorced, newspapers, radio and TV did not report anything about his alleged gayness. It was not published or broadcast until he was dead. Therefore, referring to it in the article without referring to the journalists of the 1950s implies that his sex life was Topic A. It wasn't. Millions of people knew who Johnnie Ray was without knowing anything about him as a person. If you refer to rumors that came out decades after the man's divorce, you have to clarify that journalists did not report them. It is a fact that they reported his marriage to a woman and their separation and divorce. This is Wikipedia, not the National Enquirer or a Kitty Kelley book. Dooyar (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You were on Wikipedia and made edits but ignored direct requests to participate. Your history of contributions indicates you were here, while you made comments on this page and ignored the mediation. Then you stopped using your Dooyar account.

Having said that, you cannot add material to an article which implies meaning with no sources, and then skew how it is written to imply either a coverup or that something wasn't an issue. Newspapers, radio and TV didn't mention anyone's sexuality at the time, so the fact that it wasn't mentioned means nothing. Reference Rock Hudson, Cary Grant, Randolph Scott, etc. etc. The sexual lives and preferences of public figures were squashed but it doesn't mean it didn't exist, and the implication that no mention equals no existence, to me, is your attempt to bury it. Further, it is your point of view that mentioning his sexual preference implies it was the most important issue regarding him. Sexual preference does not equal sex life, so again that is your own perception. Since the issue was raised and has not been refuted makes it mentionable in the article. Rumors were in fact around before Ray's death, and there were in fact published arrest reports of Ray for solicitation of males on two occasions. Apparently there is need to contact User:Revolving Bugbear to re-open the mediation since this is the exact issue that was on the table when you conveniently had to stop editing for a month to do your taxes. That it had to stop because of your non-participation does not mean the issue itself went away. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are making a personal attack. There is nothing irresponsible about my disappearance for a month. Of course, I stopped using my account. It is my account, and I had to live my life instead of participate here.

I am not attempting to bury Johnnie Ray's alleged gayness. What is your source on rumors about it spreading when he was alive ? I checked microfilmed newspapers in Detroit from the week of his 1951 arrest there and his 1959 arrest there. They did not publish arrest reports. In 1951 they revealed nothing. In 1959 they reported that he was tried and acquitted of solicitation. What gives you the power to convict him when he's dead ? You can request mediation if you want. I'm making another edit to the article, which is just what you did without announcing here what you were going to do. Dooyar (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When you remove all reference to Ray's sexuality, you are in action burying his sexuality. There are sources for all of this, which were brought up in the mediation shortly before you stopped participating, including more than one extant biography. I have returned the passage you deleted and other material, along with supporting references. Removing the sourced material will be considered vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Personal Life" section is correct except for how Johnnie Ray met Dorothy Kilgallen. The story of them meeting at What's My Line? is a falsehood that originated from Lee Israel's biography of Kilgallen. Israel claimed Ray was a mystery guest "in the early part of 1956." According to the TV.com web site, which has details of most episodes, he never went on the show in the early part of any year. The two dates he did the show were August 22, 1954 and June 9, 1957. Israel said in the End Notes at the back of her book that these episodes were not among the ones that producer Mark Goodson gave her to watch on a 16 millimeter projector in the 1970s. Her only source on "the early part of 1956" was a long interview she did with Johnnie Ray in his home in 1976 when he had to recall the television broadcast from twenty years ago. I plan to say in the article that Kilgallen and Ray met in 1952 at a press party for him in New York. My source is the Midwest Today investigation of Kilgallen. The magazine's web site is

Midwest Today magazine

The magazine's source is someone who was at the press party: George Hopkins. Other people who are alive today were there, too: Tony Bennett, Vic Damone and Kitty Kallen. Lee Israel didn't ask Johnnie Ray about the 1952 event because she didn't know about it.Nyannrunning (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A few issues with this are brought to mind. The first is an unsupported claim that Israel's biography contains falsehoods and thus isn't reliable. The Midwest Today article which I found cites Israel's book for some material in its story. The vast number of references you added in the Kilgallen article were from Israel's book. So the question becomes, "Is Israel's book a valid source or is it not?" By Wikipedia standards, yes, it is valid and reliable. Another issue concerns the user-editing capable tv.com. Since tv.com is user edited, it's validity as a source to answer controversial questions is equal to IMDB, which isn't considered valid by Wikipedia. While tv.com may be a jumping-off point to research further if someone was indeed on a show, it isn't a source that cn be cited to prove someone wasn't on a given show in a given year or date. I'm not entirely sure it's clear why Johnnie Ray's recollection of when he and Kilgallen met is questionable. Most people can recall at least the year they met someone who would play an important and significant person in their lives: cognitive psychology is all about understanding about memory cues that allow a person 20 year old recall. It's not likely to be valid that Ray started a long affair with Kilgallen after meeting her in 1952, since he was busy getting married and setting himself up as proper at that time (although I admit that's just my observation). The last point is that Midwest Today actually did use Israel's book in formulating part of its article on her death, and cites it specifically at one point. However, you can't use the Midwest Today article at the website above to support anything regarding a 1952 press party, Johnnie Ray's presence at it (or any other of the persons you mention above), George Hopkins recollections of it, or that Kilgallen met Ray there. The reason is that it doesn't mention any of this in any way, shape or form. The article makes two mentions of Johnnie Ray: "As her husband's attention wandered, Dorothy had begun a long-term and torrid affair with singer Johnnie Ray, 14 years her junior. Ray was a troubled man with a hearing impairment from childhood, and they were each other's enablers. Dorothy was head over heels in love with Johnnie and flew anywhere to meet him. No year, place or time, except the previous paragraph which mentions a 1959 FBI memo. The other mention is in regard to whether he believed Kilgallen was murdered: Johnnie Ray was more convinced. He said, "Beyond question...I believe Dorothy was murdered, but I can't prove it." Finally, two other biographies support the general time frame for their affair: The Jonny Whiteside book Cry: The Johnnie Ray Story (New York: Barricade.

ISBN 1569800138.) and the Barrett Reynolds piece, "Johnnie Ray: Why I Cry for the Legend Who Should Have Been", from the Halcyon Weekly Press. The 1952 version of when and how Kilgallen and Ray met just isn't supported anywhere. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 08:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you check the Whiteside book, you will notice that he depended on the Israel book for the allegation that Kilgallen and Ray first met in a television studio. Reynolds doesn't cite a source. TV.com may be user-edited, but so many people edit the What's My Line? pages that an error about who was the mystery guest on each episode is not likely to slip through. You can check all episodes for January, February and March of 1956 and you will find that someone other than Johnnie Ray was a mystery guest on each one. If you check the Imdb.com page for Johnnie Ray, you will find him listed for two episodes: August 22, 1954 and June 9, 1957. Those dates are not mistakes. Both episodes have been rerun by the Game Show Network in recent years. I have them, and I can cue up any given moment of them.

The 8/22/1954 kinescope has Steve Allen holding up the new issue of Good Housekeeping to the camera, and he says it contains a piece by Kilgallen. The September 1954 issue does indeed contain her account of her recent pregnancy and childbirth. The 6/9/1957 kinescope has a topical segment before Johnnie Ray walks onstage. The guest is Joseph Kittinger whose name was in many newspapers recently just like someone says on the air. It is understandable that Ray would mix up 1956 with 1957 twenty years later, but saying "the early part of" a year is odd.

The Midwest Today article you cite is the online version, which is different from the hard copy that was available to subscribers in the summer of 2007. It includes George Hopkins' memories of the 1952 press party for Ray, and they hardly seem like a mistake. The outrageous comment that Hopkins recalls Tallulah Bankhead shouting to Dorothy Kilgallen, humiliating her, is very similar to rejoinders Bankhead has been reported as using on other occasions when someone asked her if a male actor was homosexual. One Bankhead book has her using the rejoinder (in which she implies that she herself has a penis) when someone asked her about Tab Hunter, her co-star in the 1964 Broadway play The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore. I am not planning on using the quote, which even today can offend people, in Johnnie Ray's article. I just hope I can cite another source about when and where Kilgallen and Ray met.

Yes, it is just your observation that Ray was not likely to start an affair with Kilgallen in 1952. What about 1953? 1954? Why do they have to start sleeping with each other immediately after they meet? The job she had for Hearst newspapers required her to get scoops on as many new, young stars as she could. It would have been strange for her not to meet Johnnie Ray when he became an overnight star in 1952. On the August 22, 1954 kinescope, which has been repeated for and Tivo - ed by thousands of people, Ray and Kilgallen do not address each other in any way even though there is interplay between Ray and all four other people he shares the stage with. That leaves open the possibility that they were concerned about what others might think about their knowledge of each other. It is true that the couple became openly affectionate at New York parties and nightclubs, but if you read the best source on this (Israel), you will note that the affection started when they attended the premiere of the movie

If the Midwest Today article online isn't the same as is in the hard copy, then why did you put in the link for it? That implies it's the source. All of this analyzing the level of interaction between Ray and Kilgallen on tapes of the shows where they appeared or whether tv.com or imdb (both of which copy from each other and other sources) or trying to decipher if she met him in context of interviewing new stars or what you think is sensible deduction is not reliable. The number of people editing a page actually increases the chance of error, not guards against errors slipping through. Now it sounds like you're lobbying for 1957 instead of 1952. But overall, you're lobbying against anything I put in and anything based on what Israel wrote, which, as I said, is a source you've used in articles. Since Israel interviewed Ray himself, the only plausible thing to do with this is follow the source which is based on the interview of Ray himself. I'm not going to bite on trying to individually address conjecture and detective work on analysis of old tv broadcasts, trying to construe meaning. It isn't a reliable way to develop solid sourcing. Ray was closest to this, if he said in 1976 that he met Kilgallen 20 years ago, then the article needs to say that Ray had a relationship with her after meeting her, according to Ray, around 1956. What are we supposed to use, three sources or what you think you can ferret from watching those shows? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we use two sources: kinescopes of What's My Line? dated August 22, 1954 and June 9, 1957. It's that simple. On the 1954 one there is interplay between Ray and everyone except Kilgallen, who appears subdued compared to 1957, when she appears delighted to see him and they talk to each other. Lee Israel did not watch either kinescope in the 1970s when a 16 millimeter projector was necessary to view them. That has no bearing on other claims she makes in the book, which have nothing to do with what happened on the airwaves. Many claims have been cited in Kilgallen's Wikipedia article, such as a claim that Arlene Francis didn't like Kilgallen's gossip column. You won't hear Arlene say that on television.

Claims about Kilgallen's newspaper career have nothing to do with a TV game show. But the game show disproves Johnnie Ray's unreliable statement that he made an appearance on said show "in the early part of 1956." He didn't. All episodes from that period are available in the Tivo machines owned by thousands of people, and lists of the participants are online. This is hardly "conjecture." That certain people appeared on a given date is not "conjecture." It's a proven fact. It's that simple. It's also a fact that Hearst officials wanted Kilgallen to interview every new hot singing star who played New York. That was part of her job. Not only does the Israel book back that up, but so does a book on the Hearsts that is on the list of footnotes for Kilgallen's Wikipedia article.

The URL link I provided for Midwest Today was for the magazine in general, not the online article on Kilgallen. The page for the magazine in general says how you can buy the hard copy. Like many paper magazines, it has a price, and you only get some of it for free online. Nyannrunning (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The copies of those shows are not valid for what you want to source. At this point, I don't even know what you are trying to prove. You cannot use these two shows to establish when a relationship or friendship or anything else interpersonal began between these two people, not based on how you perceive Kilgallen to act toward Ray in one vs. the other. Tivo isn't even part of the equation, what does Tivo establish? It's not citable. What would you say? "I watched both of these shows and I can tell that they were having an affair on the second one just by watching it." Exactly what year are you trying to say they met? At first you insisted it was 1952. Now you are trying to establish, based on your personal interpretation of two appearances on a tv show, that the difference between the interactions prove they knew each other in 1957. That is conjecture and that is original research at best. At worst, it's POV, based on what you think it meant. How does that disprove what Ray said? And why are you insistent on disallowing the man's own recollection about something that happened to himself in an interview? As I said, you used the Israel book as a source for several things on Wikipedia. Why now is it "bad"? Just because you suddenly don't agree with something doesn't disqualify the source. Because two people appeared on a show doesn't mean they developed anything. You can't use original research to disprove something the article's subject said to an interviewer for a book. And Dooyar, the source has to be checkable, without having to register a membership somewhere or purchase a magazine. I suppose it's time to ask that the mediation be re-opened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even an argument and why is this an issue now? It strikes me odd that this article is full of uncited material yet this one bit, a bit that is actually sourced, is the subject of great debate and intense research. Aside from the fact that there are already three different sources for this statement, I don't see why it should be changed now. In fact, I don't see anything valid in the reasoning behind wanting to change the content. If one has to interpret information to validate content, that particular content shouldn't be included to begin with. The info about Kilgallen is not even paramount to the article anyway. Did the affair have an incredible impact on Ray's life? Did it somehow change the course of his life? Aside from the fact that Kilgallen was a celebrity, why was this event in Ray's life so notable? I'm sure he had affairs before so why is this one so important and worth all this drama? If we need to re-open the mediation case, so be it. It's actually getting quite tiresome to have to deal with certain articles every few months for various reasons that never make sense. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the affair began "in the early part of 1956," that would make it last nine-and-a-half years until Kilgallen died. The Israel book describes the couple interacting with each other in Las Vegas in October 1965, the month before she died. Israel includes Johnnie Ray's recollection of the Vegas episode. In her microfilmed columns from that month Kilgallen said she was visiting Vegas. A documentary on

We know Ray's relationship with Kilgallen had a major impact on his career -- an important distinction that people who out dead celebrities in Wikipedia often miss. Kilgallen ran many items about Ray starting on January 30, 1952, which was before he ever played New York. She never said she had met him, but then she never said she had met lots of entertainers whom she praised. The point is, her column was very influential in the music business, and the books you have cited say that she helped his career in 1952, 1953 and many subsequent years. The narrator on E! said that. As late as 1965 she forewarned her readers about Ray's upcoming Las Vegas gig. So questioning the very presence of Kilgallen in a Johnnie Ray article is very POV.

And I never said I was going to add to the article my interpretations of Ray's body language or Kilgallen's body language as they appear on the What's My Line? kinescopes. What I want to add is the fact that these two people shook hands in front of television cameras on August 22, 1954. They didn't say anything to each other, but they shook hands, which qualifies as meeting. What's My Line? fans are familiar with the handshakes. I also can cite a 1955 book on Johnnie Ray that has a photo of Arlene Francis, Kilgallen and Ray posing inside the TV studio after the show ended. Their clothing matches what they are wearing on the kinescope.

The word "handshakes" doesn't belong in the article, but it should clarify that Ray's "early part of 1956" is just one version of when they met. I am not "disallowing the man's own recollection;" I'm just hoping to add another take on it. When Ray shared his memory with Israel in 1976, Kilgallen's three children, her parents and her sister were alive, living in New York City and liable to read any new book about her even if they didn't contribute to it. Ray knew he had had an affair with a married mother of three children, and he was also a serious substance abuser by 1976. Please go ahead and submit this to mediation.Nyannrunning (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, me saying that the relationship with Kilgallen not being paramount is not POV. Having a relationship with Kilgallen is not what makes Johnnie Ray notable, thus the article would not be lacking if that were not mentioned. He is notable for his career, not his personal relationships that, according to the present and past content, had zero effect on his career and notability. Second of all, if you want to complain about content, I suggest you contact the editor who wrote the bulk of this article (and also added the sources that you disagree with), User:Dooyar. All Wildhartlivie and I have ever done to this article is made attempts to keep the unsourced/unneeded content to a bare minimum. If you want mediation, you got it. Since this is our SECOND trip to mediation regarding content, anyone who commits to it and then decides to go MIA is out of luck. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm up on the situation here -- the question is how Ray met Kilgallen? - Revolving Bugbear 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is supposedly the issue. The way they met and the exact year. Pinkadelica (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, sort of. The question really comes down to this. In 1976, Lee Israel interviewed Johnnie Ray for a book she was writing about Dorothy Kilgallen. When asked, Ray said he met her twenty years ago. That is what was written in the article and was cited from three different sources. The Israel book was one of the sources introduced by Dooyar at the Kilgallen article, and has since been used in more than one article. I'm not sure I understand why the book is a reliable source for that article, but it isn't for this one. It's either a valid source or it isn't. One cannot say a source is correct for what one wants it to be, and wrong when one wants it to be wrong. Now the editor would rather shuck that source and synthesize a year that they met by analyzing the way the two acted toward each other on a tv game show, supported by the recollection of someone else who observed that the two were both at a press party in 1952, none of which has meaning in this context. This is an old issue regarding

WP:VERIFY is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I fail to understand why Ray's recollection isn't good enough. We have no way to know what Ray meant in the context of meeting Kilgallen - if he meant for the first time or if his definition of meeting her was in regard to it being more than a nodding hello. In any case, his direct recollection is verifiable by the source and should be sufficient for this article. This is another exercise in futility. The real issue is that I was the one who wrote the section. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And Nyannrunning, do you have a reliable source which positively states otherwise -- i.e., not your own observations on a television show (original research), not a publicly editable site (not reliable, and yes, I realize this is a wiki), but an actual source which says that they met? - Revolving Bugbear 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my source is the hard copy of this magazine that has a more complete version of the magazine's online article on Kilgallen.

See hard copy for an alternate version of this article. Contact the magazine at its Iowa office.

Based on that source, I was hoping that the sentence in Ray's Wiki article could read as follows. What do Revolving Bugbear, Pinkadelica and Wildhartlivie think of this?

Ray also had a relationship with columnist Dorothy Kilgallen that began "in the early part of 1956," according to an interview he gave after her death, when they met during his mystery guest appearance on the TV quiz show What's My Line? on which she was a regular panelist. When Midwest Today magazine prepared an article on Kilgallen, it was noted that Ray never appeared on the program during the early part of any year, and a friend of Ray's recalled him meeting Kilgallen at a press party for the singer in 1952, two years before their first televised meeting. She provided strong support for Ray during his 1959 solicitation trial.

There. Not too long or complicated, is it? Then we have another issue from later in the article that is indisputable. It says Ray had cirrhosis of the liver when he was 50. In fact, he was 36. The book by Lee Israel makes that clear, noting that Kilgallen was alive at the time and she visited him at Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. The Whiteside book agrees, noting that some of Ray's friends joined Kilgallen during their visit to Montefiore. By the time Ray turned 50, Kilgallen was long dead.Nyannrunning (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the Midwest Today article includes a notation that Ray didn't appear on What's My Line? during the early part of any year. Why would it say that? That is actually an argument you made earlier on this page and then offered your interpretation of interaction between Kilgallen and Ray on two broadcasts of the show to support your contention. Once again, this is an attempt at synthesis. I suggest that unless a copy of the relevant pages in the magazine is made available for us to see this in print, that it's not verifiable. I certainly challenge that the article says that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say Ray didn't appear on the show during the early part of any year. It says he did the show twice: August 22, 1954 and June 9, 1957. It provides those dates to illustrate that there are contradictory accounts of when and how the couple met. And that's the way it will remain because all witnesses are dead except possibly for comedian George Hopkins. He was interviewed by Midwest Today about the 1952 press party. (Hopkins claimed that Vic Damone, Tony Bennett and Kitty Callen were at the party, but it is not likely that anyone will query them about it for publication while they are still with us. All three are not young.)

You're opening a can of worms because in the past there has been a sore spot about whether Wikipedia contributors can get interlibrary loans of books and magazines that they can't read online. There is an issue about whether a library can get a Braille version or a large - print version from another library, or, more likely, your library has to be the one that owns such a thing. The Internet does not contain everything about Johnnie Ray. Not only do booksellers keep 95 percent of their contents offline so that people will pay for them, but publishers of certain magazines do the same, such as Vanity Fair, and, unfortunately, Midwest Today.

Before we start entertaining thoughts of scanning hard copy at Fed Ed Kinko's page by page (prorated by the minute) and Emailing everyone attachments, I'd like to appeal to "Bugbear" for his take on my proposed addition to the article. "Revolving Bugbear" is the only person who has tried to chime in here while Wildhartlivie, Pinkadelica and myself have dominated the Discussion. Four would be much better than three. Revolving Bugbear, here it is again for you. What do you think?

Ray also had a relationship with columnist Dorothy Kilgallen that began "in the early part of 1956," according to an interview he gave after her death, when they met during his mystery guest appearance on the TV quiz show What's My Line? on which she was a regular panelist. When Midwest Today magazine prepared an article on Kilgallen, it was noted that Ray never appeared on the program during the early part of any year, and a friend of Ray's recalled him meeting Kilgallen at a press party for the singer in 1952, two years before their first televised meeting. She provided strong support for Ray during his 1959 solicitation trial.

Nyannrunning (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you can't use the Midwest Today article to source "it was noted that Ray never appeared on the program during the early part of any year" even if the article says what you claim. Because by your words, it doesn't say that. That is interpreting what it could mean to support what you want to say. That is synthesis. That is original research. That is nothing new. And that is why I challenge the use of this article from the magazine itself until I see a copy. Do not dismiss me and do not talk down to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse me. This is not the House Un-American Activities Committee. I have said, but you have forgotten, that the dates Johnnie Ray appeared on

Scroll down to the citations for What's My Line?

and this one

Scroll down to the letter "W" here.

He did the show in August of one year and June of another. The person who interviewed him about Kilgallen in 1976 did not have GSN available to her, nor could she watch a DVD or even a videocassette. Please don't complain that you can't obtain a hard copy of the summer 2007 issue of Midwest Today. The Email address [email protected] is listed on this web site for the magazine.

Contact Midwest Today for hard copy, which is different from the web site.

You have to make similar efforts to read the Johnnie Ray biography by Jonny Whiteside or most other books. People who own them need money. All you get online are reviews of them. If you are disabled, tell that to your interlibrary loan person. Tell someone at Midwest Today and they will explain how you can pay for Braille or a large - print edition. Nyannrunning (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed new paragraph does not read well at all. Why state one fact only to contradict it? State when they met and leave it at that. Since the complete Midwest Today article is not readily available for any of us to verify, I do not trust what it supposedly says or doesn't say. We've played this game before only to have someone get the text and find out that information was being twisted. Again, if the source doesn't say it outright, the source should not be included and the content shouldn't be changed. Also, as stated before, both tv.com & IMDb.com are USER DRIVEN. Anyone can add information on those sites about airdates hence, neither site is reliable by Wikipedia standards. Using that as a backup source isn't going to fly.

On another note, I find it quite odd that User:Nyanrunning is making a curt remark about Wikipediaians having a supposed "sore spot" about interlibrary loans. Who even brought that subject up on this talk page? Another user made the same remark (albeit in a more uncivil manner) to Wildhartlivie not too long ago. I find that parallel quite interesting considering the situations are unrelated. Nevertheless, I don't think going to a library or paying for an old magazine makes someone more informed especially when that information is being twisted around. Paying a fee to see what most people read for free or buying old magazine means only two things, you have a lot of time on your hands to hang out at the library and a disposable income. Big whoop. However, since this is getting down to verifiability, I'll gladly buy that particular copy of Midwest Today and I will happily copy it and send it to Wildhartlivie. Heck, I might even spring for her to have her very own copy. It might take a week or two, but I do believe that is the fair thing to do. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard copies of magazines and books entertain lots of people, not just those with a lot of time on their hands and/or a disposable income. Your calling tv.com and Imdb.com "user driven" is naive and inaccurate of you. You are lumping together the literally thousands of TV shows that constitute the web sites, and you're lumping together something that expired after one live broadcast in the 1940s with a classic that lasted 17 years. The latter was What's My Line?, and it prompts hundreds of people to dissect it. Reruns are on every day on GSN. So many people participate on the TV.com and Imdb.com blogs that you get dozens, sometimes hundreds of users agreeing on the airdates.

Also, there is a book, yes an actual book with an ISBN number, penned by the show's producer that lists some of the dates, including Johnnie Ray's first appearance: August 22, 1954. It doesn't list his second episode because the author only had the time and money (in the 1970s before personal computers) to include a person's first appearance. The author is Gil Fates, and it is referenced in two Wikipedia articles with the name of the publisher, the ISBN number and the whole nine yards. Employees of

What's My Line? reruns have something that sitcoms don't have: topicality. On many episodes the panelists reference current events and new magazines. They are not lying about what is current and what is old. On one of Johnnie Ray's two episodes, Steve Allen holds up to the camera the new Good Housekeeping, the cover of which shows that it was the September 1954 issue. Bingo -- it matches the air date listed in the Fates book, which is August 22, 1954. (Magazines come out before the date that's on the cover.)

Your suggestion that people cannot reach consensus about the air dates of a topical game show that aired live is bizarre. I Love Lucy never referenced any topical events or actual press articles on the air (the newspapers and magazines that ran Ricky Ricardo's picture were fake). Does that cast doubt on the date when CBS viewers first saw Lucy wrestle with the Italian grape stomper ? You are suggesting that TV.com could have gotten the date wrong even though Wikipedia is also user driven to a certain extent. There are contributors who support certain versions of articles that contain sources that the contributors never check out -- it has to do with the wealth and sabbaticals from jobs that one needs to check them out or something like that?!? Bizarre. Unless a fourth contributor like "Revolving Bugbear" can chime in here and comment on my proposed change, then please call in the mediator. Thank you.

Oh, and if you dispute the Johnnie Ray article's claim that he suffered from cirrhosis at age 50, then you are contradicting the very two bibles that you are using everywhere else. The Israel and Whiteside books both place the cirrhosis episode in 1963, when Ray was 36. Kilgallen knew about it and visited him in the hospital. He was not hospitalized for an extended period again until 1990 when he was dying. Nyannrunning (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are rambling on and on and honestly, no one is going to bother to read another Dooyar diatribe. IMDB and tv.com are not reliable sources per Wikipedia because they are user driven, just as Wikipedia isn't allowed as a source in schools and universities because it is user driven. There's no point in arguing that. Take it up with the people at

WP:RS. At this point, I have to wonder why you're getting so bent out shape. You need to take a step back and read the last paragraph you wrote, because it makes no sense. Pinkadelica will be getting a hard copy of Midwest Today and for that matter, tomorrow I will be calling the magazine and requesting information from Sara Jordan. No one has disputed that Johnnie Ray appeared on those episodes of What's My Line. However, I am disputing that the Midwest Today article has content that will support your proposed statement of "it was noted that Ray never appeared on the program during the early part of any year." Nothing you have offered functions to support that. You don't seem to understand what is being said, so I will repeat it. Ray may well have been on those two episodes, but you have no material from anywhere that says "Ray did not appear on a show in any other year." No one is suggesting that he did appear, but we are contesting that your written sources say he didn't. And just so you understand, Revolving Bugbear IS the mediator. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I already knew "Revolving Bugbear" is a mediator. You will notice that this person is not responding to your hogwash any more than he/she is responding to my facts. You scared him/her away. Please stop frightening people. Nyannrunning (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just reported you for being uncivil towards Wildhartlive. Your comments are unwarranted and unfounded. If I were you, I'd stop posting for awhile before you give too much of your true identity away. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not talk down to me. If Wildhartlivie can say that so can I. My real name is none of your business. Should you start tracking my personal data I will notify the FBI, and the agency can do a traceroute on you.

You might have noticed that you and Wildhartlivie are acting like you constitute a large majority in this dispute. In fact, two out of three is not a very large majority. Have you considered the possibility that the two of you have frightened away others who considered chiming in? Nyannrunning (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop the silliness here? Seriously, guys.

First, nobody scared anybody off. I was visiting my brother for the weekend.

Second, Battle of the Sources is a tired and tiring perennial argument on Wikipedia. And honestly, I don't really see any need to have it. This is why Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced -- we're in the business of providing information, not Truth.

It seems to me that there is one source (Ray himself, through the biography) that claims he met her in 1956 and another source (the Midwest Today article, channeling its own findings) that claims that he met her at a different time. Choosing which one of these is correct is clearly not in line with Wikipedia policy. Yes, you are invoking policy and all that, and each of these positions can be backed up by selectively quoting policy. But if you keep in mind the whole of policy and guidelines, attempts to settle this "one way or the other" is Really Rather Silly.

It is possible that Ray's own recollection of the meeting was flawed. It is possible that he misspoke or intentionally misled. It is possible that he recalled it correctly but it was repeated incorrectly by the interviewer. It is also possible that the interview is correct and that the Midwest Today article is based on flawed sources. (Spend some time in law or finance and you will see how easily and completely wrong sources and records can be, even those which appear and by all rights should be rock solid.) Until we invent one of

Rather than trying to decide which of the sources we can rely on, what should be at issue here is what we can take from each source.

These dates are obviously disputed, and both sides seem to have some credibility. That being the case, they need to be presented as disputed in the article. Now, from a casual reading of the text (I know next to nothing about the subject), it would seem that this is not all that important to the article, so it doesn't need to be discussed at greath length. But we can easily glean the following, uncontroversially, from the sources:

1. Ray and Kilgallen had an affair at some point after they met.
2. Ray claimed to have met Kilgallen in 1956.
3. After Kilgallen's death, a Midwest Today piece about her asserted that they met at least as early as 1954.

Can we all agree that, based on the sources in discussion (the biography and the MT article), the three above statements, exactly as they are stated above, are objectively verifiable? - Revolving Bugbear 17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are capable of being verified, but until I see the Midwest Today article, I have huge reservations regarding what it says vs. what is supposedly says. Those reservations are based on my past experience from similar past events that disproved what was being purported as what the source actually said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in receipt of an email from Larry Jordan, editor of Midwest Today, who is sending me a hard copy of the magazine in question. He also stated in the email that the online version of the article is quite similar to the print version ("only other thing that was in the print edition was a footnote about Marilyn Monroe") and that it "make(s) no mention of any 1952 press party" and "no mention of when Ray appeared on the show." Given this, I suggest that the use of the Midwest Today piece await the delivery of the magazine. I will be happy to then scan and send copies of the article itself to whomever wants it. I know that source wars are tiring, but this is the reason for the issue of sources regarding this article.Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason we're disputing this content change is because we're gone through this before. Wildhartlivie forwarded me the email from Larry Jordan and the man flat out states that the article that is available online is the same (save for a footnote) as the hard copy. According to Nyannrunning, the hard copy of the article and the online version of the article greatly differ and include information that simply isn't there. The editor of the magazine denied that and even stated that "[Nyannrunning]'s characterization of our print edition is completely erroneous." As I said, we've gone through this before which is why I offered to buy the hard print article online to verify its contents. Evidently, that wasn't good enough and was met with uncivil comments and complaints. Information is either there or it's not. I don't believe it's ok to infer information or simply make things up and attempt to pass that off sourced information. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then at the moment the third bit can't be verified. The first two can. The policy matter is pretty clear-cut here. So: a) Does anyone have any objections to 1 and 2 going in as they are, b) Does everyone agree that 3 should stay out until it can be verified, and c) Does everyone agree that 3 should be considered if something that verifies it can be produced? Like I said, these should all be easy questions, from a policy point of view. - Revolving Bugbear 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) a) It would be fine for the line to read something to the effect of Ray also had a relationship with columnist Dorothy Kilgallen, whom he recalled meeting in 1956. That is supported by the references. b) The nod to Midwest Today needs to stay out until the magazine can be examined in print copy, and also if it proves unsupported. c) Anything that can be verified by all involved can then be considered, although I still want to reiterate that citing appearances on What's My Line? doesn't particularly define "meeting" as perhaps Ray recalls. The Midwest Today editor referred to videotaped interviews conducted with Ray years ago and may be used in the future for further stories. However, I'm not entirely sure why anything further than Ray's recollection really matters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool with me. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that since there has been no response regarding the revelations from the correspondence from Midwest Today for almost 10 days, and possibly the response here, that Nyannrunning has no further interest in the latest dispute? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he could have disappeared for a while for a legitimate reason, but it is of course safe and reasonable to let the issue drop until/unless he returns and responds. - Revolving Bugbear 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"His last hit was "Just Walkin' in the Rain", in 1956. He did, however, hit again" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.94 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the issue above. You could have fixed it yourself. I also found the new URL (in about 20 seconds) for the reference you unhelpfully deleted from the article -- Foetusized (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is actual evidence of an affair with Killgallen? "Somebody wrote it in a book or magazine article or web page" is not evidence, kiddies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.94 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's referenced to a reliable source. We don't do investigative journalism here, we only include what's already been published. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of Stan Freberg's parody, "Try". Ray was supposedly outraged, until he realized the satire was getting him attention he otherwise would not have had. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

Your opinion, or traceable to a referenced source, I fondly muse ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall there being something about this in the liner notes of a Stan Freberg CD I own. I'll have to track it down. I see that the same claim is marked citation needed in the Freberg article -- Foetusized (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In about 1950, shortly after he made his hit record "Whiskey and Gin", Johnny Ray performed nightly in clubs in the Cleveland/Akron, Ohio area, including the 'Yankee Inn' in Akron. I was a regular at these sessions and knew him personally - he even performed free at my Christmas 'Open House' party. There was no indication he was 'gay'. rather he usually had a girfriend, Maxine, with him. He was often introduced in his performance sessioms as "Mr. Emotion", with a bartender or someone clued in saying "Make that Mr. Commotion"; referring to his stage antics such as reaching inside his piano during a song and tearing out a handful of piano parts; all previously stashed there, but the audience thought he was actually destructing the piano. As a college music major, and traditional jazz and ballad pianist myself, I rate him as a top piano player, at his best playing and singing the old ballad 'standards'. His rendition of "That Old Black Magic' always brought the house down. His vocal styling was excellent and unique - on beat, expertly phrased and delivered clearly; he could have sung opera. I doubt if he would have been pleased being labeled a forerunner of 'Rock and Roll'; such having degenerated into today's raspy voices accompanied by untalented guitarists and drum bangers. Johnny Ray was a 'stand-alone' era in jazz.

Great story. Thanks for sharing it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr Ray used to perform at the Steel Pier in Atlantic City in the 50's and my mom work there during those years. She was only 15-16 yrs old but Mr Ray like her and had his manager go and get her and have her meet him for dinner at some near by restuarant during the whole time he was there. At that time he was i think still married acccording to my mom. But was told she was jail bate and this wouldnt work out after a few weeks or month or so but i know my mom said he was in like with her alot and wanted more in that relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.169.184 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)