Jump to content

Talk:Googie Withers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Googie"

[edit]

Someone has objected to including "Googie" in her full name in the introduction on the basis that it was a "nickname". While the name started off as such it also became her "usual name" - and not just her "professional name" - same as for "Spike Milligan" and various other people. Therefore it is correct according to the MOS to include it in her full name as it became her name instead of only a nickname. Anglicanus (talk)

You are misreading WP:MOSBIO. The lede starts off with the subject's full legal name, which was 'Georgette Lizette Withers' throughout her life. At no stage in her life was she ever called 'Georgette Lizette "Googie" Withers'; that is a concoction made up of her actual name with a childhood nickname which she also used for professional purposes. She was either known as 'Georgette Lizette Withers' (formally) or 'Googie Withers' (informally), not some mishmash of the two. To help readers the article therefore should give the two names separately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a person's full legal name is usually included in the lede - BUT if the person was USUALLY KNOWN by another first name then this is also included with the full name in "..." marks before the surname. Your personal opinion about this being ugly is irrelevant. Therefore the lede has been restored to the correct MOS form. Anglicanus (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to jump in on this, but what is the difference here compared to Spike Milligan? He's got his nickname in the lead; to me it looks like the same scenario. JonChappleTalk 16:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is exactly the same principle. A nickname that has become a person's usual first name is not the same as a pseudonym or a stage name. The relevant style policy is as follows:
"It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore, a lead that reads Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) ..." is preferable to one that states John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards."
See also Bill Clinton for another example of a MOS correct lede. Anglicanus (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interrupting a name to add a nickname is bad writing wherever it is found. It is not merely ugly in appearance, it is actually misleading. The full name of the subject was not, as our article now incorrectly says it is, 'Georgette Lizette "Googie" Withers'. Her full official name was Georgette Lizette Withers; her informal name was Googie Withers. To mix and match the two produces something that is neither fish nor fowl and is utterly useless to readers: how are they supposed to distinguish one from the other? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead does not point out she's deceased. Isn't that against MOS? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal opinions on this matter you are simply mistaken on the relevant style policy. Therefore please cease your disruptive editing. Anglicanus (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "was"... JonChappleTalk 06:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer, Googie Withers wasn't just her "informal name", it was her professional name and the name by which she was known to millions of people around the world. That's why it's used for the title of this article -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be much of a dialogue to saying "you are wrong and give it a rest". I do not propose to give it a rest because the article is wrong. "Georgette Lizette 'Googie' Withers" is not anyone's name nor has it ever been. Steve, I think you may be playing with words a bit there; I'm not in disagreement with you. The point is that the subject's full legal name was at all times of her life 'Georgette Lizette Withers', in full, without interruption, hesitation or deviation. She was known to millions as 'Googie Withers' but that was never officially and legally her name. There is a difference between the title of the article (WP:COMMONNAME applies) and the lede, which starts with the full, official legal name of the subject. The point I am making and which no-one has been able to dispute is that "Georgette Lizette 'Googie' Withers" isn't anything. Nobody ever, ever called her "Georgette Lizette 'Googie' Withers". Ever ever. The article states that they did. It's wrong. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just disputing your claim that "Googie Withers" was just her informal name. Including a nickname in a full name is common practice and is used in quite a few articles in the Wikipedia. Are you going to track them all down and edit them like you did for Spike Milligan? BTW, how do you know that nobody ever, ever called Googie "Georgette Lizette 'Googie' Withers"? I'd be interested to hear your verification for that wild claim :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may indeed be some other articles which open with the formula '(First name) (middle names) "(nickname)" (surname)' but it is always ugly writing and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to fields wider than deletion debates. I tend to leave alone non-British, especially American, articles where usage of names is different but there really is no excuse in a British context for it. Meanwhile, you ask for evidence of absence which poses a well-known philosophical problem which as a philosopher of science I would turn round to say that my hypothesis is easily falsifiable. Did anyone ever say, e.g., "What do you want for your dinner, Georgette Lizette 'Googie' Withers?" Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can use special pleading and other irrelevant arguments as much as you like, but the simple fact is that it is the established style on Wikipedia to include a person's USUAL NAME (when it's not part of their full legal name) in " ... " marks after their first names and before their surname. How many times does this have to be pointed out to you?! I even pointed you to the relevant information on this matter in the MOS but you still continued to ignore it because you personally think it looks "ugly". Maybe it does look ugly but articles are still edited according to established MOS principles. Anglicanus (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid you have misunderstood. It is not a case of mere personal dislike as discussion on the talk page of the Manual of Style indicates. The specific issue is not something that the MOS directly addresses. It gives an example of the same format but that is an American subject and American usages are different. Meanwhile, will you accept that the article at present is incorrect? There is and was no person called "Georgette Lizette 'Googie' Withers". You can have either Georgette Lizette Withers (as she was known when witnessing legal documents) or Googie Withers (as she was generally known) but you can't mix the two up and call it a name. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I have "misunderstood" anything regarding this matter. And the article isn't "incorrect" at all. This has nothing at all to do with "American subjects" or "useage". This is the established MOS format for setting out the names of all people who are usually known by a first name which is not part of their birth or legal name. Just because you don't like it this way there is no excuse for you continuing to insist on changing it. Anglicanus (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I point out, with all the humility at my command, that nothing in the above paragraph constitutes an actual argument for your preferred formulation? The reasons why the article is incorrect at the moment have been given above and it may be more helpful to address them instead of merely asserting the contrary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is NOT "incorrect" at all and I have already explained the reasons for this to you over and over again but you prefer to ignore them just because you don't like them. What is incorrect is your understanding of the established style policy which is used on on thousands upon thousands of articles with the same kind of issue. If you think the established style is wrong then find somewhere to argue your case. All you ever seem to do, however, is to make assertions based on nothing except your personal opinions and then think that if you repeat these assertions often enought that it somehow magically alters things. This has become extremely tiresome. Anglicanus (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Indian?

[edit]

Googie was born in India (in the part that is now Pakistan), of mixed British/Dutch parentage, but was there any Indian blood in her ancestry to warrant her being described as Anglo-Indian? -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that Wikipedia includes people of purely European descent who were born in India under the banner of Anglo-Indian. That's not what I understood it to mean but I'll go along with the Wikipedia definition thus rendering the original question moot -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Googie Withers. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her childhood nickname was Little Dove, not Little Pigeon!

[edit]

Ms Withers' nanny's term of endearment for her young charge was 'chota ghugi' which means 'little dove' in Punjabi. It was Anglicised into 'googie'. Punjabi was, and remains, one of the three main traditional languages spoken in Karachi. It's highly likely that the Withers family's nanny was of Punjabi ethnicity as Punjabis have a long established history in Karachi and the surrounding state. MadgeWildwood (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Googie_Withers&oldid=1209740615"