Talk:Gina Gershon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:43, 24 March 2005 (UTC)

Conan O'Brian/nickname for genitals

Please stop adding a trivia section discussing this incident on the Conan O'Brian show. Though I'm sure it's quite fascinating that she appeared on this show and mentioned the nickname for her vagina is "Sharon," we have no way of knowing if she was serious or joking, nor is it encyclopedic information of a nature that befits inclusion in this article. Knowing this factoid does not shed us any light on who she is or what she does. Pacian 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to address Pacian's concerns regarding the inclusion of the, for lack of a better title, the "Sharon Statement" (Gina Gershon's nicknaming her genitalia "Sharon").

Gershon does have a certain stereotype (some might argue "reputation", but for purposes of our discussion let us use the term "stereotype") associated with her about being a sexually promiscuous or hypersexual person.

The name "Sharon" is phoenetically very similar to the word "sharing", the intransitive verb to allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses or to use or enjoy something jointly or in turns. It would be consistent with the actions of a sexual promiscuous/hypersexual person to 'share' ones genitialia or access thereto with others.

If we take both of these points as a given, then it would have to be concluded that Gershon refering to her genitalia as "Sharon" would be relevant to a biographical article, at least a trivial mention (perhaps this point could be contexually explained with greater detail by adding the above points to the passage).

I grant you that if a celebrity did not have a sexual/hypersexual stereotype, then adding a nickname of their genitalia to their article would be of minimal relevance (i.e., it would be biographically insignifigant to publish Ruth Bader Ginsberg's nickname for her genitalia). But that would not be the case here.

Another aspect of your objection was in regards to the point about "serious or joking". Applying a nickname to ones genitialia is a matter probably not rooted in officiality, in other words it would be difficult to determine whether it is serious or a joke. Moreover, it is possible that an occasion of a joking reference could start an ongoing serious sobriquet (similar to the incident in southwestern South Dakota in 1885, where a tin miner jokingly told Charles Rushmore, an attorney from New York, that the name of a certain mountain was "Mount Rushmore". Not that I am equating one of America's most important national memorials with Gina Gershon's Genitalia - but, I digress.)

I notice that the article is somewhat small, larger than a stub, but still on the small side. Since that the article is smaller, a trivia passage does take up a greater percentage of the article than it would in a larger article. If the article were larger, then the trivia section would not appear to be as prominent as it is. I grant you that strictly as a function of article size, an argument in favor of leaving the trivia section out can be understood.

You seem to be knowledgeable about Gershon, and have taken an active interest in the editing of her article. I leave it to you (and other Wikipedians) to make the call regarding the inclusion of the "Sharon Statement". But I request that you take into consideration the points that I have raised before arriving at a conclusion.

P.S. Yes, I know that the "Sharon Statement" really refers to the manifesto of the Young Americans for Freedom. It is just a title of convenience for our discussion (and a little humorous too.)

P.P.S. Additional info: The episode of Late Night with Conan O'Brien on which the incident occured was interupted in the eastern time zone of the United States to conclude a rain-delayed Major League Baseball playoff game.

P.P.P.S. The original Trivia passage:

"Gershon, while guest appearing on Late Night with Conan O'Brien on October 3, 1998, was involved in a discussion with O'Brien, then co-host Andy Richter and other guests about nicknames for their genitalia. Gershon disclosed the nickname she uses for hers: Sharon."

A lovely and superfluous gathering of straw man arguments. To address them in brevity:

• If Gershon was making a joke, then every joke she has made ever in the public would be of equal note for inclusion.
• If she was not making a joke, her reputation as "hyper-sexual" is speculative at best. It would be far more relevant to include a statement alluding to THAT fact, and a statement of that nature would require citation or reference. Frankly I have never read of her being a hyper-sexual person in her real life, only a person who often plays highly sexual characters.
• Presuming you could factually assert that Gershon is burdened with the persona in question, her making one flip and brief comment as to the nickname she has given her vagina on one television show still doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the article. Perhaps if she had gone around talking about in various publications, more than once, it would matter. Madonna has a reputation for being ribald and bawdy. She once said on Letterman that she pees on her feet in the shower to prevent foot fungus. I saw it with my own eyes. Does that mean it is worthy of note in her encyclopedia article? No. Not even slightly. Pacian 06:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

69.39.172.6 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE has WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much time on their hands.

And someone doesn't know how to sign their comments properly... or to avoid all-caps. There's absolutely no reason not to include the fact that she was on the show and when asked, answered in such and such a fashion. It's a fun-sized bit of trivia, and trivia sections are fine here. So it's OK. (I suspect the people who are against this are particularly uptight about their sexuality, but that's just a guess. In any case it's they who provide the straw-man arguments against standard trivia practice.) 4.159.53.247 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

Should the recent Vanity Fair article be referenced here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.154.165 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography Portal banner

I am uncertain of the protocol here, but the Biography Portal banner at the top of this talk page needs updating. Certainly this article is more than a stub, and there are now multiple pictures in it. —Al E. ^(talk) 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tripping the Rift

nevermind-CFPeterson (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)