Talk:Dorothy Parker

removed reference to Harlan Ellison review

Since this is an article about Parker, I think the extended bit about how she boosted Ellison's career with a favorable review should go in an article about Ellison.11 Arlington --(talk) 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding to Parker's Bio

I really don't think anyone should add bio info to this article unless you've read Marion Meade's bio. Because bad info keeps cropping up. -- k72ndst 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens, can't you recognize an improved article when you see it? I fixed quite a few errors as well as sorting out the chronology. What "bad info" are you referring to?Zompist 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Her mother died when she was four, not five (July 20, 1898). Parker's mother and stepmother weren't Catholics. She didn't "move" to New York, she always lived in Manhattan; Dottie was born at her parents' summer house on the Jersey Shore, she wasn't a native to N.J. Parker also didn't sell her first poem to Vogue, it was to Vanity Fair. See my site for this: dorothyparker.com. And do not trust the Keats bio, it is riddled with errors. Meade's bio is the definitive one. Sorry to go on and on about Parker, see my user page to see why I do... -- k72ndst 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

These things were already in the article before I looked at it (indeed, most of them had been there for months), except for the Vogue bit which had already been corrected, and the moving bit, which was my mistake. Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes, but at least progress tends to be made. IMDB has Dorothy Parker acting in a 1962 German spy movie, which seems unlikely, but their correction process is horrendous. Zompist 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dottie in Hollywood

If anyone is interested, I can kick in more about Mrs. Parker in Hollywood. She did spend about 30 years on and off there. And was nominated for two Oscars. It seems that the entry here pretty much glosses over her time in LA. That's a shame, since she did help found the Writers Guild. -- k72ndst 11:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Friend of Dorothy

Are you sure about "Friend of Dorothy". I thought that was a Wizard of Oz / Judy Garland reference -- User:GWO

So it seems to be : http://www.glinn.com/news/gaygloss.htm -- User:GWO

It is even so. Actually, Mrs. Parker was rather homophobic, owing to her unhappy second marriage to a bisexual. Eh, I like her anyway. - user:Montrealais

---

I've read an anthology of Mrs. Parker's book reviews under the name "Constant Reader"; the "thrown with great force" line is from a review of a memoir by Margot Asquith and should read "This is not a book to be. . . ."

Hm. This being a wiki and all, I'll just mosey on back over there and do that for youse, but I'm leaving this comment here so people will know why. --Calieber 18:02, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

fod not oz or parker

friend of dorothy dates to the 1880s and is not about judy garland. but i can't find an online reference.

Dot Parker?

Does anyone know a source for this? I've read a lot about Mrs. Parker without running across this form of the name. (She was called Dottie sometimes, however.) RivGuySC 05:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have signed letters she wrote to her sister. She signed them all DOT. k72ndst 11:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Big Blonde" analyses

I just removed two out-of-place analyses of "Big Blonde", one of them as follows:

Dorothy Parker's short story, "Big Blonde" was a classic of that time and showed many aspects of the society. The story especially shows how women of the time were trying to find their place and desperately searching for the "perfect" life.

A less broad analysis might be in order: that the story examined only one niche in which aging women of the time found themselves, and if anything the Big Blonde and her female cohorts have given up on a search for the perfect life, the Big Blonde herself happily embracing suicide as an alternative to her grating lifestyle. —68.62.17.196 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be noted that the story "Big Blonde" is in fact autobiographical. Just adding my 2 cents. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

'Wisecrack', 'one-night stand'

For reference— I checked my copy of the OED (2nd ed.); neither of these words is attributed to Parker or mentions her, unfortunately. 'One-night stand' dates back to 1896 with a theatrical reference; the first cite for 'wisecrack' is from a 1915 San Francisco periodical. Zompist 08:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong work. Love Wikipedians who actually do their research! Onlyemarie 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But maybe Parker was the first to use 'one-night stand' in the non-theatrical context. Valetude (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Quotes

Dorothy was a no-nonsense critic. She once said of a novel that failed to inspire her: "This is not a book to cast aside lightly, it should be hurled with great force." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.241.130 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised."

I'm not a native english speaker, could anyone explain what makes this funny?

Laid is another term for... uh... copulation. So she's saying the girls are promiscuous. -Joseph Blue

Also, it's funny because it's a pun based on a surprise ending...the conventional ending (based on the standard "laid" definition) would be something like: "...they would stretch for three football fields." Dorothy introduces a comic twist based on the slang definition of "laid", appealing to culturally relevant subconsciously held beliefs about what Yale girls might actually be doing at the prom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.148.174 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the Memorable Quotes section. I may add some more if they come to mind.SmokeyTheCat 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We already have a set of sourced quotes in Wikiquote. While Parker is best known today for her witticisms we shouldn't fill this article with them. -Will Beback · † · 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would object to some quotes here. They give a flavour to the subject. Other entries in Wiki have selected quotes. But I won't revert. SmokeyTheCat 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I agree with Will Beback -- the article about Oscar Levant, for instance, is filled with his witticisms. Ditto Alex. Woollcott. What I was objecting to was a whole list of them without a single reference for any of them. Also, the non-encyclopediac "when her dog dumped".... If you have some references for these quotes, put them back in, using somewhat more formal language, and I will sustain their use in this article. Hayford Peirce 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want sources, the versions in Wikiquote have sources. I don't object to having as many as five quotes. Beyond that is redundant with Wikiquote. -Will Beback · † · 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why two or three of her *better* quotes would be out of place -- she really *was* a very witty person.... Hayford Peirce 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is becoming overwhelmed with trivia. Adding a few of her famous quips and quotes won't make it better. What will make this article better, is going deeper into her life outside the Algonquin Hotel: more about her 20+ screenplays, the 33 short stories she penned, her political activism, the causes she believed in. Right now the article is just a gloss on Dorothy Parker's life, and more energy is spent on adding pop culture references and fighting over pointless stuff, when what the article really could stand is more facts and history. That's my 2 cents. --K72ndst 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have added just three quotes. All quite witty I think. Delete them if you must.SmokeyTheCat 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has claimed that one of these is mis-attributed. That's not my recollection. I will revise the subject and come back on this one ...SmokeyTheCat 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A good number of Parker's quotes are mis-attributed. It was common practice back then for gossip columnists to invent and/or hear a wise-crack and attribute its authorship to a celebrity. Dorothy Parker copped more than her share of these. She was witty, occasionally acerbic, but rarely bitchy, and never foul-mouthed. The David Niven anecdote (see below) has all the ear-marks of an attribution. 121.44.140.162 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Mentions of Dorothy Parker in popular songs should be included under influences in popular culture (like the Prince song). She has been included in pop songs going all the way back to Cole Porter. So to the person who keeps deleting these reference to her, please stop doing this. If you would take the few minutes to listen to these songs -- before editing the article -- you would see these are valid for inclusion. --K72ndst 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's me, and believe me, I have absolutely no intention of listening to a Prince song, now or ever. Speaking of which, the article said (before I deleted it):

On Prince's rock, pop and funk opus "Sign O' The Times", released in 1987, the song "The Ballad Of Dorothy Parker" characterizes Dorothy as a flirtatious, seductive waitress, described as being "dishwater blonde, tall and fine" and receiving "a lot of tips."

I challenge you to demonstrate that this has anything to do with this Dorothy Parker, that it isn't just a coincidence that Prince chose that name. What could a "flirtations, seductive waitress", described as ... yadda yadda yadda ... possibly have to do with Parker? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been recorded (and to my astonishment when I read it) that the use of the name in Prince's song was entirely coincidental and did not refer to the real DP - but I can't find the ref. Possibly in Michaelangelo Matos but I've lent my copy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree; though this seems to happen a lot on Wikipedia (Howard Hughes, which could also stand to be trimmed), it's being weeded out except where the reference is actually appropriate or adds something to the article. I didn't listen to the song, but I did look up the lyrics and the name seems to be unrelated (unless it's some very elegant analogy that I just don't see).Justfred 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a metaphor -- don't you see this?

This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context.

The sub-heading is Parker's influence "in popular culture" and that is what this refers to. Just because you don't like (a) the music; (b) the analogy; does not mean that (c) you chop it out. What the songwriter is doing is taking her essence and transferring it -- a metaphor. This is a clever usage of a common figure of speech. --K72ndst 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Dorothy Parker a "figure of speech"?

And a metaphor for what?

Sounds like grasping at straws to me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker a waitress? A metaphor for a waitress? A figure of speech? The lady has been dead for 30 years now. No one under 60 has ever heard of her. A Prince song about a "Dorothy Parker" cannot possibly be construed to be about her. Hayford Peirce 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are both showing your age. First, Parker has been dead almost 40 years. Second, she is still in print, and has never gone out of print, and a new edition of her work just came out in April. In addition, the Dorothy Parker Society (dorothyparker.com) is made up of 20 to 30-year olds (see the photos on the site), so your opinion that nobody knows who Parker is, or reads her, is invalid. Using Parker as a metaphor for a witty, attractive, image of feminity is the point here. To be more precise, a metaphor is a figure of speech. The subject is Parker. I think you are being very narrow in your view of how a person's influence on pop culture is felt. --K72ndst 14:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm 26 and I've heard about her and been reading about her since I was in my early teens =) --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 14:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read her work, and read several books about her. Nothing in the song (except perhaps for "wit") appears to have any relation to her. The references to the song I found on the internet(s) agree that there appears to be no relation. If anything, I would think it's Prince (or whatever he's calling himself these days) trying to appear intellectual and clever, and failing. Short of asking Prince himself, since you (K72ndst) appear to know a lot about Ms. Parker, perhaps you could explain the metaphor?Justfred 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes; and since the subject was broached above, regarding how broad or narrow our focus on popular culture should be here, the problem endemic to this so-called "encyclopedia" is one of the accumulation of too much crap which is unrelated, or tenuously related at best to the subject at hand, not a dearth of material. It's what's referred to 'round heah' as "cruft" (a term I refuse to use as it's entered the lexicon of Wiki-speak, an indicator that one has drunk the Kool-Aid). Too many articles here have too much flotsam and jetsam that's there just because someone fancied a connection. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The real Dorothy Parker was definitely an inspiration for Prince's song. His song talks about how witty the waitress was ("I needed someone with a quicker wit than mine. Dorothy was fast"). Also note, Dorothy Parker died on Prince's birthday in 1967. He was well read and paid close attention to things like this. Dmsr89 (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't make much sense to me not to mention Prince in the "In popular culture" section. His song is clearly a reference even if he was not fully read up on who she was. It's still a reference in popular culture and people will come here to learn about the connection. If we have a source that Prince only knew her name and that's it, let's put that up 186.77.141.40 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Dorothy Parker Society

I added the external link to the Dorothy Parker Society (dorothyparker.com) and it keeps being deleted. An anonymous user keeps telling me that there cannot be a link since it isn't official. However, I would like your opinion. I run the site and wrote the book A Journey into Dorothy Parker's New York. This is a literary society. We pay royalties to the estate (the NAACP). The site has numerous Parker photos, stories, audio files, and news. What is your two cents? I would like to have this link returned. There are numerous great Wikipedians that watch the Dorothy Parker article, I would invite you to look at dorothyparker.com and decide. Thanks. --K72ndst 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why links have to be "official" or what that means. The link seems useful to me. Zompist 09:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote for KEEP the link, unless it is libelous. Chivista 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over the link more carefully and I think it's 100% legit. If you can't have a link to a Dorothy Parker Society in an article about Dorothy Parker, what can you have? I don't care whether it's "official" or not, and I would like to have that fully explained it if seems to make a difference to someone else. Also, I gotta say that I don't much care for anonymous editors whose editing primarily seems to be removing stuff that they disagree with. There's another guy (anonymous, too) who apparent runs a pay-for-site involving old radio shows who's been going on a rampage trying to delete all the links to free, public-domain radio shows. He's stopped doing it in some of the articles, because he's been threatened with being blocked, but he definitely has an agenda of his own for his activities. In the Dorothy Parker case, I dunno, but I think this link should definitely be left alone. If necessary, I'll ask the Admin. involved in the other case to come and take a look here. Hayford Peirce 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's not official it's apparently authorized. I think it should stay. -Will Beback · † · 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okie, let's give it another 24 hours for any more discussion, and then, unless there are compelling reasons not to, one of us can reinstate it. Hayford Peirce 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that the link had been removed from the infobox as nonexistent; investigating, I saw that the problem was that it's not a "www," just a plain "https." However, this DPS site was also linked down below under External Links--but as an archive. So I replaced the Wayback version with the live version down in External. I did not add it back to the infobox, since this is not really Parker's own site but a third-party site. Jcejhay (talk)

Now, sixteen years later, the website dorothyparker.com isn't working -- though of course this may only be temporary. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be working now 186.77.141.40 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Song

Would it be worth adding a line that says:

• The song 'The ballad of Dorothy Parker' on the album 'Sign O the Times' by Prince (1987) has nothing to do with this person.

Otherwise helpful editors will keep adding it. -Will Beback · † · 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah; it's irrelevant to the subject of the article. Just keep swatting away those flies ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker Drank Here Productions

I agree with the Wiki person who added this to the article. Having TV producer Amy Sherman-Palladino name her production company Dorothy Parker Drank Here Productions is a worthy addition to the References in Popular Culture section of this article. It may not be the most significant part of Parker’s legacy, but it is valuable. For seven years (plus more in syndication), the closing credits of The Gilmore Girls featured the name Dorothy Parker Drank Here Productions, which, in turn, sent untold numbers of viewers to the Web to search for just who the heck Dorothy Parker was. Millions of viewers were exposed to this over the years. Many may have come to this very article. Others may pick up Parker books. The fact that the show’s creator Amy Sherman-Palladino also had Rory Gilmore be a Parker fan, and read her work on TV and have her poster on her wall, also helped Parker’s legacy. --K72ndst 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) And the logo features a picture of a lady who has her back turned and is sitting and holding a cigarrette behind her back and is holding a martini glass. and next to the lady when the smoke grows DOROTHY PARKER DRANK HERE and P R O D U C T I O N S surrounded by two lines appear.

You say "*Amy Sherman-Palladino created and produced her WB/CW series Gilmore Girls through her company, named Dorothy Parker Drank Here Productions."

So it doesn't sound so unnecessary promotional, why not pay homage to Dorothy by simply saying "The television series Gilmore Girls was produced by Dorothy Parker Drank Here Productions"? --CliffC 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What you said. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, have done this. --CliffC 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise. Thank you for letting this stand, I thought it was important to point out within an article about a writer that a main character quoted and read from often. Nate 04:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Influences

Everyone in the Author infobox I list under "influences" is stated in Marion Meade's biography Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This? and for "influenced" these are writers who have said over the years that Parker was a major influence. K72ndst 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Algonquin Round Table proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, please vote!

Description

The focus of the project would be articles relating to the Algonquin Round Table, including its members and their literary works.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Otto4711 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Chris 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Wow, a project of depth, thought and lasting impact! Most cool, I'm in! Chris 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I'm moving this information out of the article. I'm trying to get this article up to GA or FA status and a trivia section is a bar to that goal. I've integrated a good chunk of it into the article already but this remainder doesn't fit anywhere.

• Parker's famous line, "What fresh hell is this?", has been quoted in several movies and TV shows. In the 1989 film The War of the Roses, Kathleen Turner's character says it. It was also used by Kelsey Grammer in an episode of Frasier and by Patrick Swayze in To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar. That quote also became the title of a rock album by Art Bergmann. The quote was again used in John Hillcoate's 2005 film The Proposition. The film is set in the Australian outback of the 1880s; well before Parker would have actually said it.

• Alan Moore imagines a shooting and writing spree with the writer in the song "Me & Dorothy Parker" which has been recorded by the Flash Girls on their album Maurice & I.

• Parker's name was used on a compendium of literary extracts about tattoos, Dorothy Parker's Elbow - Tattoos on Writers, Writers on Tattoos by Kim Addonizio and Cheryl Dumesnil, so named because she had a small star inked on the inside of her arm.

• She is featured in the song "Dorothy Parker's Hair" by the Australian band Mental as Anything.

• The television series Gilmore Girls was produced by Dorothy Parker Drank Here Productions, Amy Sherman-Palladino's production company .

• The New York branch of Madame Tussauds wax museum has a wax figure of Parker on display.

• Punk band The Mr T Experience recorded Parker's "Somebody's Song" poem on their 1996 album Love Is Dead.

• Tintin used the line "Laughter and hope and a sock in the eye" from her poem Inventory in his song "Kiss Me".

• The songs "Afternoon" and "Ballade at Thirty-Five" from No Promises, by Carla Bruni were adapted from the poems by Parker.

References

Thanks for all that! As for this..."Parker's famous line, "What fresh hell is this?", has been quoted in several movies and TV shows" - add that it was said by the character Malory Archer on the TV show "Archer". FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Good article review

I had hoped to review this at FAC, and I apologize that I didn't get the chance to help out in time. This is obvious good article quality so I'm happy to give this a speedy pass!

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The nitpicky type stuff at FAC doesn't concern me. This was overall a clean, brisk read.

2. Factually accurate?: Well-cited. I don't have access to the books used as reference, but I assume of course that the information is faithfully passed along.

3. Broad in coverage?: Actually, I do find myself hungry for more as I read this article. Maybe some of these things are known but I'm curious: how did she react to being on the blacklist? She bequeathed her estate to Martin Luther King, but had she met him before? I think it might be good to have maybe a paragraph in this article that lays out the importance of the Algonquin Round Table. Are there any bite-sized examples of her wit? Some quotes of her writing, even pull quotes perhaps, could really help the reader get an idea of what sort of wit she had.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Yes

6. Images?: Yes

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — JayHenry 04:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I have re-added these. Please don't delete them without discussion as it was agreed above that would be a useful contribution to the article.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

After being expelled from Randolph Hearst's castle for fornication Dorothy Parker wrote in the visitors book (in reference to his mistress);

Upon my honour
I saw the Madonna,
Standing in a niche,
Above the door,
Of a wellknown whore,
And a first class sonofabitch, page 274 Bring on the Empty Horses, David Niven

founding member of Screen Actor's Guild

why is there no mention of her founding the Screen Actor's Guild with Lillian Hellman?

Immaculate Conception or Virgin Birth of Jesus

The article states that Parker was asked to leave her school for calling the dogma of the immaculate conception "spontaneous combustion." This seems to be referenced although I don't have access to the cited book. However, it doesn't really make sense. Immaculate conception refers to Mary being without sin (every other person since the fall has original sin according to Catholic docrine), I'm not sure how "spontaneous combustion" is a good metaphor for this. It would be an amusing metaphor for the dogma of the Virgin Birth of Jesus though. The two are often confused by non-catholics. I could be wrong about this, Parker may well have said it, but i think the source needs to be double checked. Grcaldwell (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears real; see this 1956 interview in The Paris Review [1]. It might be good to add this as a reference to the article, since it's quite easily viewable and an offline book isn't. — e. ripley\^talk 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice interview! Yep, seems she said it. I'll add a reference. Grcaldwell (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also "Parker survived three marriages (two to the same man) and several suicide attempts" is an amusing but unencyclopedic zeugma. Is a marriage something that one would not be expected to survive? It may be Parkerian in style (perhaps she said something similar, I wouldn't know). but it's not good style for here. Grcaldwell (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Dorothy Parker photo

That is not the correct photo of Dorothy Parker. I know the LOC has it labeled as Parker, but that is a pianist from the early 20th Century, not the author. It is a common mistake that happens all the time with this same image. This photo is pre-1917 when Dorothy was still Dorothy Rothschild. Also, just compare the nose and eyes to the book covers. -- --K72ndst (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates at Vanity Fair

The current edit says that DP's career at Vanity Fair took off in 1921, but she was terminated in 1920 after she was already popular. This seems false, but if it's true could it be clarified by someone who knows the qualifications that would make sense of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.231.90 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Business is Business

Business is Business was a 1925 silent movie, not a play, as has been recorded here: "In 1924, Parker collaborated with fellow Algonquinite George S. Kaufman on a one-act play, Business is Business." The book Dorothy Parker: A Bio-Bibliography by Randall Calhoun has a list of her screenplay and play credits. K72ndst (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rothschild

"..and her father was of German Jewish descent (but not related to the Rothschild banking dynasty" How could he not be related? The Rothschild name was adopted by the banking dynasty for the Red Banner (or Shield) that marked the shop of Amschel Mayer Bauer in the Judenstrass173.176.120.156 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dorothy Parker. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dorothyparker.com/news/2009/08/plaque-unveiled-at-parker-teenage-home.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603194709/https://www.cs.rice.edu:80/~ssiyer/minstrels/index_poet_P.html to http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/index_poet_P.html#Parker
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822081009/https://www.citypaper.com:80/bob/story.asp?id=10576 to http://www.citypaper.com/bob/story.asp?id=10576

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorothy Parker. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506140823/http://www.folusa.org/outreach/landmarks-year/1996.php to http://www.folusa.org/outreach/landmarks-year/1996.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Polly Adler's bordello

Parker was claimed to be a patron of Polly Adler's bordello or brothel in New York.

Does this indicate lesbian practices, or the use of gigolos? Valetude (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Confusing quote on Milne review

I was very confused by a sentence talking about how acerbic Parker's reviews were, and then an awkwardly inserted quote on A A Milne. I couldn't understand what her quote actually means, but it's strongly implied that she was acerbic toward Milne, which doesn't seem correct. Thujone33 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Thujone33 21 October 2017

Clarify, please

In her will, she bequeathed her estate to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Following King's death, her estate was passed on to the NAACP. Her executor, Lillian Hellman, bitterly but unsuccessfully contested this disposition.

What was Hellman's agenda? Valetude (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education

"Her mother died in West End in July 1898..." Where is West End?

Highly suspicious and dated claim with an unreliable source

Only three Portable series—Parker's, William Shakespeare's, and The Bible—have remained in continuous print.

Seriously? The citation is just to the publisher's notes of the Portable Dorothy which dates to 1976 in the citations.The publisher is not a reliable source for such a bold claim. There are numerous portable series books that are being sold today and have been sold for some time.Contentcreator (talk)

• It's (supposedly) the publisher commenting on their own series. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Can that not be made clear? Also, it lacks relevance. Are we supposed to add other absurd publisher notes to author pages like "This book proves 9/11 was an inside job"?Contentcreator (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

American poet

Parker has half-Jewish by birth, but she did not appear to identify culturally as Jewish, and it seems inappropriate to classify her in the Lead as a Jewish writer. There does not appear to be documentation in the article to support the idea that she was perceived as a Jewish writer in her day, unlike the later authors Saul Bellow and Philip Roth, for instance.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Dorothy Parker

The photo associated with the Dorothy Parker wikipedia page is not a photo of Dorothy Parker. Comparison with any other photo of Parker makes it clear this is a different person, as not only is the face vastly different, but this photo was clearly taken at the turn of the century based on the hair and clothing, when Parker would have been a child. 2601:602:8801:C4E3:5DFB:1656:8E37:4803 (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8801:C4E3:5DFB:1656:8E37:4803 (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who compares the face (especially chin, jaw & lips) in the current top photo with any of the other photos of her (for example, this one but any Google image search of her name will illustrate this) must surely see the huge discrepancy with all of the other photos of DP. Also, as the commenter above mentioned, the outfit and photographic style are anachronistic for DP. I think we're better off going with the latter photo mentioned above. It's good enough for Penguin publishing [2], after all. In the meantime, I've contacted the Library of Congress about the obviously non-DP photo.--Philologia 14:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Mother's death

Parker was born Dorothy Rothschild in 1893 to Jacob Henry Rothschild and his wife Eliza Annie (née Marston) (1851–1913)

But then...

Her mother died in West End in July 1898

They can't both be right. Valetude (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates for books and articles, as well as tables for organising short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Parker hated her father, whom she accused of physical abuse"

The use of the word "accused" seems a little weaselly to me -- I'd argue that the stronger sentence would be "Parker hated her father, who physically abused her," or, if we want to be less definitive about it, "Parker hated her father, who she said physically abused her"

The use of words like "claimed" and "accused," in the absence of explanations in other parts of the article, seems to me intended to cast doubt on the veracity of her own statements about her own life. I see no reason not to take these statements at face value.

I'm not sure what the relevant Wikipedia policies are here, but it seems to me that there is evidence from authoritative sources that Parker was physically abused by her father, and (to my knowledge) no evidence from sources that contend otherwise

As a disclaimer -- I was not able to access the source that was used for this section, so it is possible that the material therein does actually support this language. But even if this is the case, I think that the article should explain why Parker's telling is presented as an accusation rather than as a true account of her life

-Waidawut (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Dorothy Parker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple uncited passages, use of unreliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by the complaint about "unreliable sources". I notice a reference to "Encyclopedia Titanica", which appears to be a user-generated wiki; but what else? Not saying there aren't any, but rather than spending time wondering what Z1720 might have in mind, it would help if they straightforwardly listed what they have in mind.

There certainly is at least one problem with references: a host of references to "Meade" and page number ("Meade 12", "Meade 329", etc) -- does each refer to what's currently in reference 4, i.e.

Meade, Marion (1987). Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This?. New York: Penguin Books. p. 5. ISBN 0-14-011616-8.

or to what's currently in reference 10, i.e.

Meade, M. (1987). Dorothy Parker: what fresh hell is this? New York: Villard Books.

? If the Penguin were indeed available from the Internet Archive, I'd take a look; but it isn't: "Book available to patrons with print disabilities"; however, not to me. But even without borrowing it, one can see the copyright page, which shows that no publication by Penguin in 1987 occurred: The book was published by Villard in '87 and by Penguin in '89. I wouldn't be surprised if the Penguin were a simple reproduction of the Villard (and therefore has the same pagination); but I wouldn't be surprised if it were not (and therefore did not). Somebody with access to a copy of this or that edition of Meade's book is going to have to do the tiresome job of checking, and very likely altering the page numbers so that they are correct for that edition. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Got your ping above. Some other examples of unreliable refs, using this version of the article:

• Refs 43, 87 is to IMDB, which WP:IMDB says not to use.
• Ref 61: In 2020, RSN deemed the Jewish Virtual Library unreliable in this RfC. I don't know about this source so I do not have an opinion.
• The External links section has some sources listed, and I wonder if a look through WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar will yield additional sources.

While going though the article, I noticed that there are lots of small additions that do not make the article cohesive. I have a feeling that many contributors have added things to the article over the years but no one has gone through to make sure the prose is organised and of a good quality. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Z1720, it's hard to know whether to put the current state of this article down to editorial laziness or editorial incompetence. Also, there's quite a bit of silliness in this article, notably an attempt to tabulate all (or just the best-known among?) her individual poems ("List of poems"), complete with bibliographical details of their early appearances: a wildly inappropriate goal and one that reached a grand total of two poems and has remained that way since. (For a sense of scale: She's just one among dozens of poets sampled by John Hollander in his 2003 book American Wits; at a quick and perhaps faulty count, this book has 22 of her poems.) I'd be inclined to zap the table (even though a greatly augmented table could be worthwhile, if only somebody would (i) dedicate many hours to it, and then (ii) upload it to some other website). I'd also want to delete some of the trivia/coat-tails section. I hope that I've already made this article slightly less horrid (e.g. by removing IMDb references). But only slightly: it needs a lot more work, and I wouldn't be able to devote that kind of time/effort to it until November. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

One option is to delist this now, and then bring this back to GAN in November/December when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that somebody other than me would be interested in improving this thing during summer? -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that it isn't, no. Not unless/until the subject matter is somehow propelled to the talk shows (if only Ron DeSantis would suggest that Parker's writings risk corrupting innocent Floridian minors...). Or if Parker were found to have been an invention/pseudonym of JRR Tolkien. ¶ The discussion of whether a 2007 version of this article should be "featured" was oddly rancorous; but K72ndst argued against promotion citing at least one defect that I think now, sixteen years later, is a major hurdle to GA status for the article we have now. That is, Parker's notability -- in the normal sense (not the Wikipedia sense) of the word -- is that of a writer; yet the article says little about her writing. At this point I'm ignorant of Parker scholarship, but a quick look in Worldcat shows four books: Kinney, Dorothy Parker (conveniently at archive.org, and already cited once); Pettit, The critical waltz; Pettit, A gendered collision; Melzer, The rhetoric of rage. An efficacious fixer-upper of this article surely ought to be familiar with two or more of these. And then there'll also be papers about her writing. ¶ This really isn't a job for me, even in/from November. Even if I had the needed time, the fate of this nomination of an article on a related subject suggests a disqualifying incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Z1720, the longer I look at this, the less promising it seems. The organization is poor; though to be fair to its main creator (unfortunately now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry), no simple solution to this problem is at all obvious. As is extremely common in WP articles, a reference may follow a pair of sentences in a paragraph, leaving it unclear whether the reference is for the content of both sentences or only for the latter one; sampling these, I find that a reference might fail to back up the latter part of the latter sentence: the job of checking the references I haven't looked at, moving them where necessary, and splattering "citation needed" templates would be arduous, and even if completed the whole thing would have to be rearranged and augmented (and, of course, referenced). This article is not particularly bad, but it's not good, or close to "Good". ¶ Incidentally, although at the top of this reassessment we read "GAN review not found", the (desultory) review may be found in the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hoary, I note you've been working on this article; do you think it now meets/could meet the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I'm sure that it does not. I had believed that Parker was at least moderately well known and her work rather popular, so I've been surprised as well as disappointed not to see other editors doing something to improve this article. As for me, I've only made minor changes (in part because I've had no access to any book or similar about Parker), and I've had to stop these. I won't be able to restart until November. A thoroughgoing revision is needed and, if I could do it at all, I can't imagine finishing it until summer next year (!) at the earliest. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wild Colonials

I've just now deleted:

The Wild Colonials song, "Vicious Circle" from Life As We Know It EP (2007) is about Dorothy Parker. The chorus lyrics are, "I know how Dorothy Parker felt with someone in her way."

The eleven-word clause quoted above isn't obviously of interest (though I'll concede that different things interest different people). Since 2022, Life as We Know It (EP) has been a mere redirect to Wild Colonials since 2022. But even when it existed, it said nothing about Parker. All that the article Wild Colonials says of the EP is:

The band's fourth album was intended to be released as four separate EPs under the umbrella name Life As We Know It (UMe/Universal). To date only EP 1/4 has been released.

No, there's no mention of Parker. And Wild Colonials is an article with no references whatever. If the mention of Parker in the song is significant in some way, then nobody has been bothered to explain how. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Julia (1977 movie)

she and her husband are "real-life" characters and friends of Lillian Hellman in Julia50.43.163.127 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)