Talk:Gilda Radner

Martin Short

no mention of their relationship? its in a book DUH ! 174.24.17.87 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

I apologize for the error in Gilda's childhood weight. Yesterday I put 193 instead of the 93 that she provides on page 97 of her book. I'm changing it now. Also, I made the footnote for the passage on page 97 separate from the multiple "A B C D ..." footnotes for the same book. I made it separate because it includes a page number, but the "A B C D ..." footnotes don't have page numbers. Today I'm adding to the article another passage from the book, this one from pages 100-101. This one, too, gets a separate footnote so people can see the page numbers. The purpose of it is to correct the error that the article has about Bill Murray. It says few details about Radner's relationship with him were made public when it broke up in the late 1970s. It adds that Radner wrote about the relationship in her 1989 book. Not true. She only mentioned Murray in passing.SantaMonicaLibraryJana (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Illness Rewording

This doesn't sound right:

Even with Wilder's support, she suffered extreme physical and emotional pain during chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment.

Of course she suffered even though he provided support. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it. Buzzbo (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"College and eating disorder"

I have retitled this section, but I am less than happy with it. I feel the entire article could benefit from being restructured on a different outline, but I am not up to it and have no time at the moment to attempt it. This section barely mentions college, and her eating disorder was kind of a subplot throughout her life, as such symptoms often are. Bulimia nervosa, and suchlike, are symptoms, not diseases in themselves. They seem to be rampant among our young people, and in particular the creative, and entertainers, though this does not seem to be a problem of Gene Wilder's.

Back to subsections. Revert if you will, but an improvement would be preferable. Be bold! I am just running a little short of boldness, myself, at the moment. Rags (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Gilda - The 4th nuclear bomb

In this edit explaining how Radner's first name was chosen, I had included info in the note that:

Radner's mother's mother's name was Golda. The 1946 Rita Hayworth movie 'Gilda' was released a few months before Radner was born. Also, the 4th nuclear bomb ever detonated was nicknamed 'Gilda' after this same character. This 'Crossroads-Able' explosion happened on July 1, 1946, a few days after Radner was born.

The nuclear bomb info was removed within less than 2 hours by User:Binksternet, with the rationale that it was "trivia". I will recommend here that this decision be reviewed in light of this Wikipedia essay on handling trivia, especially given the fact that I had buried it inside the note, so was completely invisible within the body of the article itself.

It is apparent to me that my 'note within the note' is an example of connective trivia. And I can understand how an editor who cares little about the connected topic would prefer to remove this. But this, I would argue, is a disservice to anyone who might actually care. And perhaps more importantly, the way this info has been masked causes no 'harm' whatsoever to the article. And that one of the greatest benefits of Wikipedia is to help the reader become aware of connections where they had previously been ignorant of such connections. Gilda Radner has a connection with nuclear warfare? Yes, actually she does. And that connection happened within the first week of her life. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Your new citation[1] supports the bit about her maternal grandmother named Golda. It does not support anything about the Crossroads-Able nuclear test shot.

You are arguing to include a violation of WP:No original research, which is a hard policy on Wikipedia. The connection you discovered is your own observation, not an observation found in the published literature. There is zero chance of you inserting that connection unless you find it in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are misunderstanding WP:NOR. That is a policy which covers what should, and should not be done in mainspace. I myself do not see how that applies to a note. Let alone a note within a note. And let's say, hypothetically, that we are agreed that it does apply...

Let's take a closer look at the statements in question:

"Also, the 4th nuclear bomb ever detonated was nicknamed 'Gilda' after this same character."

"This 'Crossroads-Able' explosion happened on July 1, 1946, a few days after Radner was born."

Neither statement constitutes original research. They are both easily verifiable statements of fact.

The strongest argument anyone might be able to make that it is in fact a violation of WP:NOR would be to assert that these two statements combined was an example of Synthesis. Yet upon closer examination, one can readily determine that no such synthesis has been attempted, nor offered. There is no 'therefore...' conclusion that has been presented. Both statements stand alone as simple, verifiable fact. There is no causality stated nor implied. Nor is there any 'retro-causality' stated nor implied.

One could likewise state:

"The sky is blue."

"The sky was blue a few days after Gilda Radner was born."

Notice here that neither statement is Original Research. Both are simple statements of fact.

The justification for deleting these last two statements is that the facts are not helpful. Whereas with the note note I had added, it is absolutely clear to me that it is helpful info. Maybe not to you. Maybe not even to most people. But helpful to someone out there. So it should not be deleted because it is "trivia". Nor should it be deleted because it is OR. Because it is not.

And again, nothing has been presented in the mainspace of the article text whatsoever. It is all wrapped within a note ...a note to a note, which is never visible to any reader unless they look into what the reference presents.

Ok, I have made my position clear. I doubt that I will be having anything more to add here. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Your argument has no leverage because you aren't citing a published source mentioning both Radner and the Crossroads-Able nuclear test. The source must bring these two facts together. If any Wikipedia editor brings the two facts together, then that editor is violating WP:NOR. Only simple arithmetic calculations can be added without having them found in published sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am adding a reply, knowing that we are beyond the point of diminishing returns here...

You are misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misapplying the WP:NOR policy. Here is Jimmy Wales explaining why the policy was created:

"The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that." - Jimmy Wales, 3 Dec 2004 2:34 a.m. (post)

WP:NOR essay 'What SYNTH is not':

"SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources."

WP:NOR essay 'These are not original research':

"Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." (emphasis added.)

I have even less to add here now. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

These linked essays are opinions written by various Wikipedians. The essay Wikipedia:Handling_trivia is particularly misguided, and poorly written. The line in the sand is WP:No original research, a hard policy. The Wales comment doesn't apply to you adding two facts together to imply a novel connection, which is WP:SYNTH. You are asserting that Radner has a connection to nuclear warfare, which is complete fucking nonsense. There's no way you'll get this stuff into Wikipedia while I'm alive. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I am glad that we've gotten to the root issue here.

"There's no way you'll get this stuff into Wikipedia while I'm alive." - You

You hold the attitude that you WP:Own this article.
I am now certain that I have absolutely nothing more to add here. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)