Talk:Al Jolson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

King Kong

Just for the record, Al Jolson never sings the theme. He does however, sing as New York is first shown to the audience. ViceroyInterus 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Should that be listed under "filmography"? He's not actually in the movie. Adam Bishop 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• It should be there his vocie appears in the film.

exaggeration?

It's a good article but we need to be careful of exaggeration. For example, ragtime was already all the rage even in Britain before Jolson had any influence, and I'm sure that it must have been in America

I think "he was credited with single-handedly etc etc" is non-encyclopedic expression Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that using "almost" and "helped" puts this more as a recognized fact, instead of pure exaggeration: "Almost single-handedly, Jolson helped to introduce African-American musical innovations like jazz, ragtime, and the blues to white audiences... " And the term "introduce" is important, since even Scott Joplin's music (among my favorites,) took a lot of help to get it introduced into the world. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Jewish Non-Support of Coolidge

I'm not sure of the relevancy or sourcing of the "most Jews in the arts didn't support Coolidge" remark. It's probably true, but I wonder if it is a proper comment to make. What do you think? Any thoughts on this --Mantanmoreland 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it is not encyclopedic or proven, even if probably true. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism?

Blackface is today viewed by many as racially insensitive." My concern is that "viewed by many" as opposed to 'virtually all' seems to dull the inherent racism of blackface. I suggest a change, and would like to hear the thoughts of others. 75.47.152.82 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Viewed by many" is accurate. "Virtually all," as well as "inherent racism," is your politically correct opinion. This article is a fluff piece, obviously written by a fan. Jolson had his faults, which are not mentioned, such as his monstrous ego, but blackface was not one of them. Blackface is a theatre artform. Though considered unacceptable by people who don't know better, it was not used to denegrate African-Americans. In fact, blackface was often used, especially by Jolson, to convey pathos. "Mammy," Jolson's signature song, was dramatic and serious. Even comedic use of blackface was just another stage caricature. Jews, farmers, rich people, the British, the French, children, women (drag), Indians -- in fact, everyone -- were targets, and in an age when people could laugh at themselves -- unlike today, when being touchy is fashionable -- such caricatures were appreciated for their mimic skill. Only those who are ignorant of historical context or those who wish to show off their superior sensibilities are offended by this artform, which may be obsolete but is, on its own merits, a significant part of the entertainment canon. — J M Rice 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, a sense of "historical context" tells you that "blackface" comes from the tradition of the minstrel show. Isn't it accurate to say that minstrel shows perpetuated a convenient and cruel racial stereotype and, thus, were "inherently racist"? That doesn't mean minstrel shows weren't skilled entertainment or art, but they were what they were; there is no reason not to admit that out of fear of being labelled overly sensitive or "politically correct." Jeffmatt 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An issue of interest is how many black performers actually used blackface makeup to make themselves appear darker. While doing research for a paper, I came across that detail more than once in more than one place.68.36.127.193 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bert Williams was one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Williams#Death. A genius for his time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hogan Ernest Hogan sang 'coon' songs. People should really take a look at how things were back then. There was segregation and things were not as they were today. Chinese men would be played by white men with buck teeth and silly accents. To be pedantic, blaxpliotation movies make fun out of black people in the same was as blackface mistrels. The rap industry, with gold teeth, clothes and slang are just as racist as a Johnny Rebel song. If anything, a rapper using the 'N' word, is counter productive and solidifies in a racist mind what they already belived.

Thing is, Al Jolson wasn't making fun of black people he was only singing black music as black people sang it and blackface was a medium at the time. He was 'in character' he wanted to perform as a black man, not as a white man. In those days Eminiem and Vanilla Ice would have put on blackface to make rap acceptable.

Who knows, in 50 years performing in drag may be considered deeply offensive and the same discussions forming about it. That some women drag it up sometimes would be difficult to understand. That some performers tried to mimic women, would be looked in the same light as a white guy putting on a black face. And lets face it, when you talk of Jazz, a black man always spring to mind. So performers gave them what they wanted, a black guy singing Jazz. User:DarkMithras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that there is here confusion here between intentional and unintentional racism; that is to say, an act need not be intentionally racist in order to be classified as racist. Take, for example, a 3-year-old caucasian child uttering the slur: "That's a chink, mommy," upon seeing a Korean person--that child most likely is not be aware that the word "chink" is almost universally considered a slur, yet the child's act should still be considered racist. Regardless of whether or not Al Jolson consciously intended to demean black americans, his acts were demeaning acts. Indeed, that black americans felt obligated to darken themselves in order to perform blackface indicates that the entire practice itself was based upon powerful ideals of what colors people should look like ("black" not "brown"; "white" not "pink") and how those people of those colors should act--ideals that were most-likely so powerful that even those sympathetic were unaware of their being blind. The above argument, which seems to be about whether or not Jolson was a racist is in fact an argument about whether or not Jolson was an intentional racist (which, I would argue--considering his upbringing--he was not). That he was an unintentional racist seems irrefutable (which is not to say that I don't expect someone to yet try and refute it). 68.49.252.53 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to refute, since your creative term "unintentional racism" is an oxymoron. "Racism" must be intentional. It can't be unintentional or accidental - it must be deliberate. The basic definitions shared by all dictionaries are:

"1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcher1 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Racism must be intentional"? Huh? Somebody needs to take a social studies course. The majority of racism (and bigotry in general) is deeply ingrained and not necessarily intentional at all, and the blackface tradition is an undeniable part of that. Look into research on microaggressions, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.89.70 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the arguments for or against the racism of blackface, the following "sources" cited in order to substantiate the quote are fallacious; in none of the "sources" are a person's ethnicity or gender emblemmatic of mainstream attitudes regarding ethnic or gender stereotypes (which is the main argument against contemporary accusations of racism in blackface), so the quote remains unsubstantiated. I have removed it. The quote and "sources" are as follows: "[9] Nor is it considered offensive today if blacks, Asians, or Latinos act in traditionally white roles[10][11][12][13] or even when actors of one sex impersonate those of another.[14][15] Kemet

what exactly do we mean here when latinos and blacks play white rolls--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some might think that acting a role as Santa Clause, for example, would be a "traditionally white role." And the topic relates to U.S. movies only." Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Removed Spam Link

I've removed a link to the "Great Song Stylists Site" (http://great-song-stylists-uk.com/) which is just a spam link - completely unrelated to anything to do with Al Jolson. Perhaps it was once a real site who's owner let the domain registration lapse? Pinglis 08:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Fair use rationale for Image:Tokyo hospital.jpg

Image:Tokyo hospital.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for Image:With Cantor and Durante 1935.jpg

Image:With Cantor and Durante 1935.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for Image:With Chaplin.jpg

Image:With Chaplin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:With Parks.jpg

Image:With Parks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson Sings Again2.jpg

Image:Jolson Sings Again2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson Wonder Bar2.jpg

Image:Jolson Wonder Bar2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson as mexican.jpg

Image:Jolson as mexican.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson blackface clip.jpg

Image:Jolson blackface clip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson Sings Again2.jpg

Image:Jolson Sings Again2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson Wonder Bar2.jpg

Image:Jolson Wonder Bar2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jolson blackface clip.jpg

Image:Jolson blackface clip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

It looks like the article is filling up with non-free images, although there are a fair number of free images of Jolson (a few of which are already on Commons). Remember that "fair use" images should be used only sparingly and only when there is no reasonable free alternative. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction revision

Using guidelines suggested by Wikipedia, I made a number of revisions to the introduction:

• used a maximum of four paragraphs;
• removed any external links as the material in the intro should be expanded with proper citations within the article body;
• kept a "neutral" point of view when describing a person;
• covered as many highlights of the person's career as needed to introduce the person and thereby lead the reader to seek out more information within the article itself.

Any improvement on the intro is welcomed and I also think the body of the article needs some reorganization and cleaning up. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Archive

Archive of image-related messages [Archive - Images] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcher1 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wonder Bar.jpg

The image Image:Wonder Bar.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Marriage edit re: Erle Galbraith

So there's no confusion about the edit comment relating to the last changes, my toungue-in-cheek note referred to the phrase, "... the two quickly began a relationship with each other." The change I made was removing the words "each other." Hence the comment, "who else?"

American or Russian-American?

The majority of sources for well-known Americans born outside the country who immigrated when still a child are "XXX-born American." I can list numerous famous people and encyclopedic or other references to support this. Whether it's a moot point depends on each person but the common usage is "American." It's also the basis of the "melting pot" philosophy to remove labels, not add them. Hence, until others can offer some proof that a young child or infant, born in Russia for example, is not a Russian-born American, I propose restoring to common terminology. If anyone wants cites per above, just ask. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The point was that Russian American links to an explanatory article about the various waves of immigration from Russia. According to that article the term applies to both Americans with Russian ancestry as well as immigrants. It doesn't make any distinction about age of the immigrant.

But if you can't see the value of the link, then "Russian-born" should be completely removed, per WP:MOSBIO, which clearly states that only citizenship (at the time of becoming famous if the subject repatriated) should be mentioned in the lead section. Birth and/or ethnicity go in an early life section. So either being born in Russia is significant, in which case the subject fits the criteria for Russian American and that's what should be used, or it shouldn't be mentioned at all in the lead. Yworo (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The section of the WP:MOSBIO you're using for lead paragraph descriptions is:

"Nationality – In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable."

However, there was no mention that giving a person's place of birth was not correct for the lead. In fact, the example later in the discussion has an acceptable first line:

"Isaac Asimov (January 2?, 1920? – April 6, 1992), . . . was a Russian-born American author and professor of biochemistry,. . . " (he emigrated at age 3)

Can you back up your claim that giving someone's birth place is not acceptable in the lead? BTW, you can incorporate your link preference in the lead with a piped link, such as Russian-born. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth place is generally used to imply something about ethnicity, which is specifically discouraged (point 2 under nationality). In fact, the claim on the Asimov article is in error, because Russia did not exist when he was born - he was born in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Border changes occur frequently and these "xxx-born" ethnic labels get edit-warred over frequently. It's best to leave them out. In this article, border changes have made it likely that Lithuanians and Russians will edit war over it, as the town of his birth was technically in Lithuania, then part of the Russian Empire. These things are not simple to state and that's why they belong in the birth or early life section only. A proper description of then vs. now, nationality vs. ethnicity doesn't belong in the lead. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring hasn't been a problem since the country name at birth is what is correct. As for the name itself, saying "Russia" instead of using all five names is OK, just as it's normal to say "America" instead of "United States of America." Personally, it seems fine to have a person's birthplace country given in the lead, since without it many lead-only readers will assume that "American" means they were probably born in America. For them, a short phrase like "Russian-born" can make a world of difference. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But according to the definition of Russian American, it's the correct term for the job. Preferring "Russian-born American" when "Russian American" means "an American whose ancestors were born in Russia" is simply senseless. You've given no valid reason not to use it, except WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yworo (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

This is obviously one of those situations you hear about where citing Wikipedia is dangerous. First of all, the definition in that article is uncited, so anyone could have written it. Besides it's doubtful accuracy, it has two notices just above it questioning its neutrality and unknown sources through lack of cites. In any case, if we were to respect that definition, the only people in this country without hyphenated nationalities would be our native Indians. I'm not sure I would like that, nor would a lot of Americans. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: It's still not clear where the rule you stated came from, that "only citizenship is supposed to be in lead," and that giving one's country of birth is thereby not acceptable. Since we know that the lead is the only thing that many readers look at, and you've removed his place of birth based on the rule, its source is necessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It specifically states to use the nationality held by the person when they became famous. This excludes previous nationalities (if that's what the birthplace is intended to imply) and ethnicity (specifically excluded). The birthplace in the lead can only be meant to state or imply one of these two things: the first is excluded by specifying that the nationality states should be the one held when they became famous. You yourself use other Wikipedia articles as examples: many more can be pointed to that do not mention the country of birth. Yworo (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with your conclusion that an American who immigrated from Russia as a young child must be called a "Russian-American" in the lead if his place of birth is included. That makes no sense. I've given you the Asimov example from WP:MOSBIO but you disregard it. So I'll restore to the original terminology (i.e. Asimov) but to keep this out of a POV-issue I'll include a verifiable citation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So you know there's no POV issue here, you can see the Yury Verlinsky article which I started and wrote most of, where he is described as a Russian-American. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you need more examples why it shouldn't be present at all, it's easy enough to cite Russian American. Yworo (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That article, and term you are adding, lacks verifiability and proper citations, plus it has been disputed. Until those article tags have been dealt with and removed, that article is not useful support for biographical definitions. As for your reverts to your personal terminology preference based on that article, but adding cites, that alone is not reason to override another cite using alternate terminology. So I'm restoring to original based on a valid citation and on examples given in WP:MOSBIO re: Isaac Asimov. The alternative is to post for 3rd party resolution, which you can do. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored that I cited a reference for the use of the term with respect to the subject. You are now edit warring for the sake of edit warring. There's a legitimate difference of opinion here, and you've not backed up your opinion that xxx-American is only used in certain cases. The correct action here is not to dispute it, but to remove it entirely which is the intent of WP:MOSBIO being quite specific about only listing the subject citizenship. MOSBIO is the correct solution and you are editing against its spirit, wikilawyering that it doesn't specifically exclude what you want to include. However, I argue that birthplace does not belong in the lead, and if it does, it should be done with the hyphenated terms you seem to abhor for no really valid reason you can express. Yworo (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisited

Now it's saying "Al Jolson (May 28, 1886 – October 23, 1950) was a Lithuanian singer, comedian and actor." How ridiculous. He was born in Lithuania, yes, but as far as the world is concerned, he was an American entertainer because he lived there from the age of 5. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Birth Of A Nation Reference

Well, whoever wrote this decided that Birth Of A Nation is "glorifying" the KKK and White Supremacy. Wrong. It was actually more of a satire on prejudice against African Americans, and D.W Griffith actually released another film a few years later entitled Intolerance to demonstrate against the effects of racial prejudice... so this is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.182.72 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a published source to verify that? Apparently few reviewers knew it was a satire, so more details would help revise the text. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of color

"black" should be capitalized as "Black" when referring to racial identification, it shows respect.69.235.18.21 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be discussed in Black people article, which covers this.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:With Warner.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:With Warner.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:With Warner.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jolson-Keeler-News.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jolson-Keeler-News.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jolson-Keeler-News.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

Srednik (or Sredniki), dominant polish version then, some 40 km west auf Kaunas, right bank of Neman river, then Kovno Governorate. No doubt. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the 3rd time in a row you are adding a cite tag to a sentence that has the source, along with a link. If you click on it you'll get the source. You'll also notice that the sentence you keep moving to the end was also in the beginning paragraph of the source. Can you please explain? BTW, you added some good improvements and corrections to Kazan. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What was "in the beginning paragraph of the source" is of absolutely no consequence for an WP article. The "Jewish" sentence makes his ethnicity much to prominent an issue in comparison to his artistic achievements - and my version places it still in the lead (which IMHO is overly long).

The "world's greatest entertainer" needs to be attributed or removed. And he certainly wasn't considered that for the duration of his entire career.

I actually never added a cite tag (so much for WP:AGF and all that stuff) but a whom-tag, which merely seeks clarification about who made such an estimation. That's a proper request and the information (under WP:NPOV) needs to be in the article.

PS. As for the edit summary: Consensus? What consensus?

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add something like "according to PBS," which is already cited in the lead, go ahead. But your implication that he needed to be considered the "world's greatest entertainer " for the "duration of his 40-year career," before the PBS source can be quoted, seems a bit unreasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally I am against putting ethnicity in the lead, whether that ethnicity is Jewish or some other ethnicity. But in this case the subject was noted for it in reliable sources, so it belongs here. Technically, nothing in the lead requires citation if it is included and sourced later in the article. However, direct quotations always need to be cited, so there should be another footnote directly after the "world's greatest" quote. Yworo (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. implied consensus: if an element of an article is long-standing it can be presumed to be there by consensus of the collective current editors of the article; and if an attempt by a single editor to change it is reverted by more than one other current editor and not also supported by any current editor, this implies a current consensus against the newcomer.) Yworo (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Al's date of birth has long been in dispute. However, I was under the impression that it was settled when his draft card was uncovered, and it showed his birthdate as May 1886 -- omitting the date. Unfortunately I can't access the site where the draft card is accessible. However, once I do, I think might want to make reference to that. I do know that he listed his name on this draft card as "albert jolson."--Mantanmoreland 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A possible reason for differences in birth year: Russia did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1918. — Bobopaedia 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That would have had no bearing on the year in Al Jolson's case, only the day and possibly the month. If it was 26 May 1886 under the Julian calendar, that would correspond to 7 June 1886 in the Gregorian calendar. But if it had already been converted to Gregorian, then his original Julian birthdate would have been 14 May 1886. Does anyone know which of these scenarios was the case? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jolson never knew his date of birth, as registration was not compulsory in Russia. According to Michael Freedland, he guessed 1886, and then chose May 26th because he liked the idea of a spring birthday. 86.183.206.77 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If his year of birth is in question, shouldn't his age be in question as well? Dcwaterboy (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Blackface

I have read all the arguments regarding this article's NPOV, or lack thereof, and while I think the article drives home an important point - that Al Jolson's work, much like, say, Uncle Tom's Cabin, was progressive for its time but is now seen as offensive - it also seems completely intellectually dishonest to block any attempts at including modern perceptions of blackface, a type of entertainment of which Jolson is the most well-known practitioner.

Just as an example, here is a list of all New York Times articles that mention Al Jolson: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/j/al_jolson/index.html

The vast majority of the articles which deal primarily with Jolson include at least some mention of the modern perception of Jolson's blackface routine.

"[Al Jolson is s]imultaneously one of the most significant and most embarrassing show business figures of the 20th century," and "what once seemed progressive — a way of introducing African-American music to a wider public — now seems anything but." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/movies/homevideo/18kehr.html

"...any honest attempt to rehabilitate Jolson's reputation cannot avoid the race issue. In Jolson's time, blackface was an accepted theatrical convention, with practitioners in both races. To contemporary sensibilities, however, the tradition is bound to embarrass or offend, and most Jolson impersonators shun it." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/theater/theater-can-t-keep-him-down-jolson-pops-up-again.html

"Unlike his peers, Mr. Baldwin opts for historical exactitude over the merely sentimental, bringing back an image of Al Jolson that has come to symbolize, for many, the less quaint aspects of the era." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/22/arts/music-an-incorrect-artifact-with-aging-fans.html

"Indeed, what Jolson intended may be interesting to the scholar or psychologist, but what his use of burnt cork represented to the mass public is a larger issue. Blackface evokes memories of the most unpleasant side of racial relations, and of an age in which white entertainers used the makeup to ridicule black Americans while brazenly borrowing from the rich black musical traditions that were rarely allowed direct expression in mainstream society." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/22/arts/22GIOI.html?pagewanted=all

I've reached my limit for free NYT articles, so that's all I can find for now, but this is clearly enough to justify inclusion in this entry. Of course, most of these articles also go into great detail about the aspects of blackface which seem to have been "lost in translation" from that era into this one, but the fact remains that Jolson's routine, and those who mimic it, are now seen to be derogatory towards black people. Again, to block any mention of this would be an extreme example of intellectual dishonesty. I wanted to clear up the issue here before making any changes to the article so as to prevent an edit war.

Oh, and rap music has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not blackface is perceived to be offensive; furthermore, such claims have no business being on this talk page. 216.20.152.85 (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Section is biased, it zealously justifies blackface minstrel shows

The reference to blackface promoting buffoonery stereotypes is being burried as clauses in sentences arguing forcefully that it was a convention, part of a larger use of costumes and ethnicity, and that it even imbued white performers with a sense of the black man's "cool" and "virility." Moreover, someone is undoing any attempt to include public criticism, such as Frederick Douglass'. Then the justification for blackface is followed by his Jewishness, a guess that he had "incentive" to fight racism supported only by a reference to the KKK, and the fact that he had black friends. This all comes off as incredibly defensive. He popularized blackface. If references are included that justifies the shows, references must be included that critiqued them.

You have not stated that anything in the article is incorrect. But your comment that the "reference to blackface promoting buffoonery stereotypes is being burried" is speculative and argumentative. If you have facts or quotes, give them. Don't assume that other's not doing so are thereby intentionally "burying" them. There's a link to blackface for those needing to understand blackface from the perspective of the 19th century.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems balanced to me now that there is are a couple of historical critiques to go along with the paragraphs of references supporting blackface not being offensive. Both perspectives are important in an article concerning the performer who most popularized and is most associated with blackface performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.90.25 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Black rap "music" is a thousand times more offensive and no one from the left is up in arms over that. Christopedia (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That statement is clearly your "opinion" and not a fact. Not liking something does not make it offensive, it means you don't like it. Blackface on the other hand is offensive. If you don't think it is, put some black shoe polish on your face, paint a big white ring around your mouth, go into a crowded mall and start singing Mammy. I'll venture a guess that you'll get your ass kicked. If you got into a mall blasting a rap song, you'll likely irritate a bunch of people but I doubt you'll receive a beating. Mocking a particular racial group's facial features and coloring is offensive. I don't know why that is difficult to grasp but there you are. I can't believe a functioning person who seemingly has a high enough IQ to log operate a computer would even try to compare rap to blackface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.173.203 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorization as a Freemason

WP:Categorization of people#General considerations instructs us to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable" - While Jolson was a Freemason, his membership in the fraternity is secondary (or even trivial) to what made him notable. The category should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Too belletristic?

An editor wrote this in the body in the body of the article, I'm moving it here:

{(This section needs a less belletristic and more critical analysis of blackface as a performance tradition that demeaned and devalued the African-Americans that it portrayed. References to Eric Lott's Love and Theft would be very helpful here to provide a more balanced perspective of both blackface and Jolson.)

I don't know if this is true or not, partly because I don't know what "belletristic" means, but it seems a fine word that might bear looking up and using in conversation. Whatever it is, the editor makes it sound like something we definitely do not want to be, so if we are being belletristic, we should stop it, and not just in this article. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hotel suite at the St. Francis Hotel?

Does anyone know which suite number Jolson was in when he died? According to cemeteryguide.com it was room 1221. They said this is the same suite Roscoe Arbuckle was in with Virginia Rappe during the infamous 1921 party. http://www.cemeteryguide.com/jolson.html Can anyone collaborate on the room number? The article for the hotel says "In 1921, the St. Francis was the scene of Hollywood's first great scandal. The silent film comedian Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle, whose fame at the time rivaled that of Charlie Chaplin, and a number of friends were guests in rooms 1219, 1220 and 1221." Are these connecting suites? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Jolson's TV Deal With CBS

Referenced in "Jolson" by Michael Freedland. Published by Stein and Day in 1972.

goddamnit somebody fix this racist ass page already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.155.107 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Jolson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jolson.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013165655/http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/web-storage/Stars/Stars%20dedicated%20by%20date.pdf to http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/web-storage/Stars/Stars%20dedicated%20by%20date.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tags removed

I have just removed two tags on the article:

1. Citations need improving.

   The article generally seems quite well supported with citations. If there are specific sections or passages that need improvement, these should be tagged rather than labeling the entire article.

2. NPOV.

   There was a discussion about NPOV almost three years ago, but this was in the form of very general complaints that there should be more negative coverage, without a single specific issue or reference to supporting material that would indicate what this coverage should look like or on what it should be based, and (on the other hand) very general support for the article as it stands, also without specific issues mentioned.

   It appears to be a dead issue, as there has been no active discussion of this issue for more than 2-1/2 years.

   If someone wants to raise this again AND give specific issues that need addressing, preferably supported with some documentation, the tag could be replaced, of course. Clean Copy^talk 14:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1. 1. NPOV

User:Clean Copy has removed NPOV tag for the article, but there has been removal of negative coverage afterwards, including cited portions with extensive supporting material. If the tag is removed, it is important for all editors to work to promote a neutral and balance point of view.

Toothpaste trivia

I have removed the following as seeming too trivial and not directly related: Jolson's blackface caricature became the initial logo of Darlie, previously Darkie, a toothpaste which (with a modified logo) remains popular in many Asian countries and is referred to as "Black Man Toothpaste" in China.

If someone really wants to restore it, go for it, I suppose. Clean Copy^talk 18:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Neutral POV?

Usually if there's a controversial subject, you include both defenses and criticisms. Thsi article, bizarrely, includes only justifications and defenses of blackface. Must've been written by someone who really liked Al Jolson and didn't care much for other points of view. 68.123.154.74 (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article needs a heading that highlights the lack of a neutral POV. There is a blatant lack of criticism of Al Jolson, who is certainly not a figure undeserving of it. I feel like even if conversations within this very talk page can be taken into consideration (which admittedly, is usually not done on Wikipedia), there are pressing accusations to this man being a racist or at the very least wholly representing some racial injustices in the past, and sentiments that exist to this day. I'm not even sure why the "relations with african americans" section exists if it is clearly a response to certain criticisms that are expressly omitted from the article itself. 70.192.64.138 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Riddled with rationalizations, hyperbole, and one-sided points of view, this article is clearly a biased attempt to clean up Mr. Jolson's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.8.110 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a horrible puffpice i agree. Nothing wrong with describing views that I personally think are biased and reprehensible. They need to be there. But the article itself must not be promoting them and silencing the majority, that feel that this is racist. The majority of establushed sources i mean--Auroradane (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Puff piece"... I dunno. I mean, the guy was a singer. Usually when we have criticism, its of political figures or people advocating some philosophy or like that... generally, for entertainers its more like "he did this, then he did that"... which I guess is usually "positive" in that it tends to highlight accomplishments... I don't think we really tear into Paul McCartney or Bruce Springsteen or Bing Crosby and so forth, more likely just describe what they did... If Jolson was a racist and was using blackface on purpose to denigrate African-Americans because of that, that might be different. Was he? Let's see some quotes and other sources so forth to that effect rather than returning here every now and then to make a driveby criticism. WP:SOFIXIT. Herostratus (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It if not reasonable to write an article about a man known for using blackface without criticism of blackface mentioned. No one is saying to condemn it, but it is not a neutral article, without it. Even with it it would not be, as there are subtle hints of loaded words all over the place. If that's the word in English. We add critical thoughs when there is literature to back it up don't we? And he didn't have to expressly set out to hurt people for blackface to be bigoted. I'm not saying to write, that it IS, just include it. Auroradane (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Even without the blackface controversy, this article is a puff piece. The entire intro is over the top and loaded with superfluous compliments, as if written by a relative or promoter. The "Legacy and Influence" section is ridiculous. Susan.dicey.k (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is the "Legacy and Influence" section ridiculous? He WAS immensely influential. We might not like the blackface stuff (no one today does, quite rightly) but that's how it was then; judge him by the standards of his time, not ours. Yes we see it as racist but apart from the fact that they didn't in the 1920s, it still doesn't mean he wasn't influential. I grew up in the 1960s and even then he was considered a major star by my parents' generation. I can only assume you were born in the last 35 years or so.86.161.115.170 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes there must be some racist stuff we can find for this article to make it less POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.225.145 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It is unscholarly to the point of historical revisionism to judge what was a common performance practice in a particular historical period by contemporary mores and attitudes of political correctness. The use of blackface is a very complex subject -- many black performers used blackface as well. Judge Jolson's methods by the standards of HIS time, not ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)