Talk:Geraldine Doyle

Picture?

Is that picture Geraldine Doyle? The details say it was from Ft. Worth, Texas and there is no mention of Doyle being in Ft. Worth. It may be misleading to have that photo if it can't be tied to her. --DHeyward (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a 2-year-old comment. Is it still or was it ever valid and if not can it moved to the bottom or simply removed entirely? -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Horribly unsourced article

There is no authoritive citation for just about anything in this article. EVERY link in the references is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilla1126 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The above comment does not appear to be true, since I have clicked on several of the links in the references and seem to be able to follow them without a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone adding a deletion notice...

Someone adding a deletion notice, but providing no discussion material regarding deletion. This strikes me as an irrelevant addition, since the subject is purportedly the subject of a very famous piece of artwork, and the person who suggests deletion has given nothing other than the suggestion of wanting to remove the article.

I would say that before this recommendation should be given credence, that the suggester also provide a defense of the suggestion to delete and completely remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To get to the discussion, click on the bold "this article's entry" part of the notice, or just click here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing the history of the page and this talk page prior to the addition of the recommendation to delete it, and after reviewing the Wikipedia recommendations on deletion of articles at [1] , it seems that the person who nominated this article provided very little in regard to why they would choose to nominate this article, especially considering the fact that it has been present on Wikipedia since 2005. The recent death of the Geraldine Doyle seems to be the only motivating factor in this article being noticed and then recommended for deletion. Since the Wikipedia "Guide to deletion" suggests several alternatives, and since having this recommendation active currently makes the page appear less credible, my recommendation is to use the suggested alternatives that Wikipedia has in place, rather than having the extreme action of the delete recommendation in place. 68.97.117.233 (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, the AfD is perfectly legitimate, to be honest. And the message at the top clearly states; "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". And from the looks of things, it's going to be a keeper either way. In fact, I voted "keep" myself :) If and when it passes the deletion discussion, it should be in a much stronger place, too. Pretty-much anyone can nominate anything for deletion and the article goes on to fall or stand on its merits. That's just how the process works here - Alison ^❤ 10:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that anyone should be able to nominate, but Wikipedia has quite a few alternatives and suggestions for how someone should approach deleting an article. It doesn't appear this suggested process was followed at all. In addition, the timing of this suggestion for deletion seems very contrived since the article has been on Wikipedia for 5 years, and only when the person died did someone decide that it ought to be deleted.

Also, considering the timing, it would probably be better to simply wait a few days until the news of her passing is less prominent. Since no one is saying the article is actually inaccurate, it won't serve to misinform people for the article to be left alone. Having the big deletion notice splashed across the top makes the article appear less credible, when it fact the recommender is really suggesting that the article is misplaced, which could have been accomplished by recommending a merge or asking for feedback on notability. In my opinion, the deletion recommendation is poorly timed and is actually requesting a different purpose. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern Maturity Magazine

This article says, "she came across the original photograph in a 1940's back issue of Modern Maturity magazine"; however, if you follow the link, it says Modern Maturity magazine was established in 1958, so there is an error somewhere. Also, there is no reference for this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.86.218 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that discrepancy as well. In reviewing the various news accounts (previous to the recent 2010 stories), it appears that it was an issue of Modern Maturity from 1984 that had featured these old images from the 1940's. It is also possible that Modern Maturity went by a different name at some point before 1958 and they were using the more well-known name instead of its previous name. Either way, it does stand out as an anomaly, but it does seem clear that the year that she became aware of her image being used was 1984. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Heavy-handed editors

Over the years since Wikipedia started, I have periodically contributed edits and additions. Recently, I noticed Geraldine Doyle in the news and thought I would come to Wikipedia for more information. When I arrived here, I noticed that it was nominated for deletion by someone whose entire rationale was summed up in only 1 small sentence. The Wikipedia guidelines recommend dicussion prior to recommending a deletion and even provide alternatives to deleting an article. Yet instead of following this, an editor felt that 1 sentence was enough to justify deleting a 5-year old article.

Now I come back to review how the article is doing and another editor has used only 1 word, socks, in their justification of semi-protecting the article. After going to look up what this meant, I don't see where this was warranted or needed really.

Wikipedia typically strikes me as very authoritative and professionally done and maybe this is typical and I'm just not aware of the culture, but it would be nice if people are going to do major things that they try to provide a defense or reason that is more than just a passing glance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Motivation

Article says Doyle "found work" after graduating high school. True enough, of course, but the newspaper piece cited in footnote 1 quotes her daughter saying Doyle "felt she wanted to do something for the war effort." As it stands, I think this article implies that Doyle's motivation for going to work was more pecuniary than patriotic It would be nice if the relevant sentence were changed to read "In 1942, after graduating from high school in Ann Arbor, Doyle felt she wanted to do something for the war effort, so she . . . ."

I'd change the text myself but it's locked#### —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.255.225 (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How is this a feminism article?

Nothing in the article is related to feminism.

We don't know what Ms. Doyle thought about feminism.

Rosie the Riveter was about the war effort.

How is this an article about feminism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.46.205 (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about feminism in several ways. Of course, many people cite World War II as seminal to the feminist movement in the U.S. exactly because of at least temporarily broadened work and career opportunities for women here. Moreover, this article is about feminism in the same way that the cross is about Christianity. The cross was simply a means of capital punishment during the period of the Roman Empire. It came to symbolize Christianity many years later, as the people beginning to identify themselves as "Christian" chose to use the cross as a symbol of their beliefs. Likewise, the image of Rosie the Riveter with the "We can do it!" caption has come to be important to many feminists because they chose to adopt it as a symbol for themselves. I think it should remain classified as a feminism article (among other designations for this article as well) because people interested in studying feminism might legitimately be interested in this subject matter.

Machine discrepancy in original "inspirational" photograph

Every article I've read about her says that she was operating a metal press or punching machine, but the machine she is operating looks nothing like one I've ever seen. My closest guess would be a knee mill with the X axis controlled by a front wheel instead of the usual side wheel configuration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.156 (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Mis-identification of Press Photo

I have added information about mis-identification of the 1942 wire service photo widely thought to be the inspiration for J Howard Miller's poster. I first came across the mis-identification issue in late 2015 on the National Park Services / Rosie the Riveter National Park site. This led me to review the family's evidence (they have a website) search for further evidence (an online search found the photo in four March 1942 newspapers: Oakland, CA, Twin Falls, ID, Milwaukee, WSI and Abany NY-- all captioned Naomi Parker) and delve further into the Hoff Doyle story, which I had until that point fully accepted as researched fact. Although I have been accused of conflict-of-interest here (ahem, I'm in Michigan) it does seem very important to me as a casual Rosie "scholar" who has read the Colman and Honey books just for fun, that the record be corrected.

At issue is the 1942 press photo of a worker at a lathe which is commonly identified as Doyle, and credited as the inspiration for the "We Can Do It!" poster. The photo is not of Geraldine Hoff Doyle, but rather of California war worker Naomi Parker (evidence cited in my article edits). I also made similar edits to the "We Can Do It!" page.

Since the public interest in putting a "real" face and name to the iconic character of Rosie the Riveter remains crazy-high, as evidenced by interest in Doyle's passing in 2010, as well as that of Rockwell's sitter, Mary Doyle Keefe in 2015, it seems important to correct this. Although the connection between the photo and the poster is merely conjectural, it has taken hold of the public imagination and resulted in a flood of (now clearly inaccurate) news articles over the years.

Although the connection between the photo and the poster has not been proven, and the connection between Doyle and the photograph is actually erroneous, 6 years after Doyle's death fresh news articles from reputable sources continue to appear (as recently as yesterday!), incorrectly linking her to the wire service photo of Parker and promoting her as the "possible model" or "inspiration for" if not flat-out "sitter for" the famous poster. The erroneous identification of Doyle as the subject of the photo has reported as fact on NPR, the LA TImes, The UK Guardian, Washington Post… and continues to propagate. It seems important to correct an error which has already gotten out of hand. Doyle must be dizzy from the way she continues to be waved around as "the Real Rosie the Riveter," and it seems if anyone should be dizzy from waving, it should be Parker, who is apparently still alive to share her recollections.

In delving further into how the misidentification took hold, I can find no reported source for a connection between Doyle and the photo other than Doyle's self-identification.

Any connection between the photo and the poster is another subject crying out for research and scholarship, but as to the identity of the worker in the photo, case closed, so let's set the record straight where we can. With members of this generation lost every day, and young girls daily looking up Rosie the Riveter and We Can Do It to write reports, it's important to get the story right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2Ypsi (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Geraldine Doyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/12/30/132484640/michigan-woman-who-inspired-wwii-rosie-poster-has-died
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/30/5738254-geraldine-doyle-inspiration-for-rosie-the-riveter-dies-at-86
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pennycolman.com/my-books/rosie-the-riveter-image/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)