Talk:Don Shirley

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Jazz Low‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Dspianobw.jpg

Image:Dspianobw.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DonShirposterLg.jpg

Image:DonShirposterLg.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

We need to be very careful and respectful when it comes to this subject and other aspects of privacy. At this moment the article says, "It is speculated that Shirley might have been homosexual, however he never "came out" during his lifetime" and it is sourced to Time magazine. But I wonder why this sentence is included at all.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would it not be included? I’m quite stunned to see the sentence has been removed. How are readers to make sense of this article in light of the recent film, Green Book, which, as its Wikipedia article makes clear, addresses homosexuality? The omission is quite bizarre, to be honest. I may soon remedy this strange situation. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Read the sentence again. The last time I read the article it had one and only source, Time magazine, asserting there was "speculation" that he "might" have been homosexual but that he never "came out" during his lifetime. Speculation. Might have. This is what passes for journalism today. Pathetic. Wikipedia deals in facts, not rumors and gossip. You may be "stunned" that someone would remove the assertion. You may find it "bizarre" and "strange". I don't because Wikipedia has told us in the documentation to be especially careful about this subject and to use multiple sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia to "out" people. It is improper and against the rules to report speculation and gossip about this subject—or any subject. This strikes me as responsible rather than strange or bizarre. I wish Time magazine had the same standards. The film, which I have seen, remains a piece of fiction "inspired by a true story". We ought not to get our history, news, or facts from the movies. Hollywood is in the entertainment business. The land of make believe. We don't know what parts of the movie actually occurred. It is "based on" facts, the movie itself is not a retelling of facts. This sounds like an obvious point, but it's easy to believe movies are conveying the truth when in fact they are simply stories made up for our entertainment.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the glaringly obvious, but when a major Oscar-winning film based on a subject presents that subject as homosexual, that subject’s article needs to attempt some sort of clarification, however brief or directed. The brief removed sentence seemed well suited to the task, though perhaps with additional sourcing. This isn’t rocket science or one of the more esoteric subjects in the history of sexuality, to say the least. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not present him as homosexual. It portrayed one apparently homosexual encounter. I say "apparently" because we never see any sexual activity, or indeed any contact at all between the two men. They were seen sitting close to one another, and all we had was the second-hand reported testimony of an attendant that he'd found them together. We don't know if whatever he saw was accurate or mistaken. We don't know whether he was bigoted and prepared to make up stories about African Americans. The subject was never discussed again in the movie, except that Tony said he'd been around clubs long enough to know that things sometimes get complicated. None of this adds up to a depiction of a homosexual man, in my book. Even if he had been fooling around with the other guy, it could just have been out of deep loneliness and desperation after the way he'd been treated by the general community in the South. One gay encounter is not proof that either party was gay. Vegetarians sometimes eat meat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other mentions of it now, so it probably should be referred to with appropriate disclaimers. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mittolovski ??

There is no such Russian family name. Who is Mr. Mittolovski? It should be Миттоловский in Russian. There is nothing about this name in Google. Hunu (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mittolovski seems fictional. The closest match would be Arseny Gladkovskiy, who taught at the Leningrad Conservatory's vocational school in 1936-1941 [1]. --95.27.143.140 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an 'European education' stint invented by his recording label. [2] -2A00:1FA0:4284:FE06:0:64:C153:E301 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His Biography after 1968

The last section of his biography is titled 1954-2013, but there are no details, events or facts after 1968, except for his death in 2013. That's a span of 45 years. Did he retire? When? If there was no formal retirement there should still be something in the article about his disappearance from music. Does anybody know? Ileanadu (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a reliable source to use ad a citation, but it contains post 1968 information, including his putting out a record in 1972 with his group.

https://www.biography.com/people/don-shirley Ileanadu (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]