Talk:Shirley Temple/Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• PS. Oh! and about the below assertion by the IP regarding "
  !votes" of the people who add their meaningful input (and yes, even non sequitur input can be meaningful). In this particular case, there clearly and truly was "no consensus" to move this page to Shirley Temple Black. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX
   )  20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The problem is that subsequent move request are sometimes opened immediately with the rationale that the last discussion closed as no consensus thus are available to be rehashed with the exact same reasoning immediately. Also, a later move request also would cite a no consensus closure as a reason to rehash the exact same reasoning at a later (not immmediately later) date. I've seen that happen (both immediately after closure, and some time after). When pointing out that there actually was a consensus to not do the move, the nominator would simply point to the closure statement of "no consensus", resulting in some disagreements by various editors on whether there was a consensus or not, whether there should be a speedy close or not, etc. The immediate renomination is irksome, as clearly though

WP:CCC, it can't happen immediately, unless every is capricious; the delayed case results in potentially misleading the audience as to the actual state of affairs in the last discussion. 65.94.47.63 (talk

) 06:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Perhaps people could also do with a refresher of

WP:OR#Routine calculations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, I think this vandal was part of the problem. While some editors were clearly acting in good faith (like Anupmehra), I suspected before my posts above that the IP hopper who kept changing it to 11th February early on was not (particularly since their edits continually changed the article back referring to Shirley Temple in the present tense, removed the entire death section while keeping the date of death in and other clearly unwelcome stuff). But I

WP:AGFed

that they were and so wrote my comment above accordingly. However they continued to add nonsense including stuff like the death being in 2015 or February 9th before the article was semi protected so it's became blatantly clearly they are a vandal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=シャーリー・テンプル&diff=52210671&oldid=16967740
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To editor

It is of my opinion that the infobox as is is far too unweildy. While it is a marked improvement from the previous two-infobox setup (person and officeholder), having the thing stretch down well into the biography section can also be a turn-off for prospective readers. Even the collapsed introbox on

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Stick to sources! Paine

  08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably due to the intracacies of the infobox template code, the Collapsed infobox section begin and end templates behave in a less than expected manner. Perhaps the bare minimum information would be acceptable to right the wrong of the lengthy ibox in the article? For example, as I've recently edited.  

Stick to sources! Paine

  18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shirley Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shirley Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150307233242/http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Shirley-Temple.html to http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Shirley-Temple.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306013248/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/commonwealth/speakerView.php?speakerID=1316 to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/commonwealth/speakerView.php?speakerID=1316

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reading through this article, something struck me as off about the idea that "that the Vatican dispatched Father Silvio Massante to investigate whether she was indeed a child." Why would "The Vatican" (an ambiguous term in itself, by the way) be interested in investigating rumors related to Shirley Temple? I don't have a full copy of her 1988 autobiography, but Google Books provides a snippet view (here) and just from what you can see there, it seems that this story has been somewhat exaggerated. Father Massante was simply a representative of

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

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

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

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

• The Little Princess (1939) full.ogv

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

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

• The Little Princess (1939) full.ogv

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