text:
Talk:John Henry (folklore)

2006
The article is not correct. In all the versions of the song that I have come across John Henry is challenged by a steam drill boring holes presumably for blasting rock in tunnels and cuttings (note the reference to the mountain caving in). The steel is the drill rod or 'drill steel'and the shaker he speaks to is an assistant who turns the steel a little bit between each hammer blow. I can think of nothing more exhausting than hammering a drill steel at shoulder height for more than a few minutes at a time. Boring with a modern compressed air hammer drill was hard enough for me. Knocking track spikes in as described in the article is a light job that does not need a folk hero.

mikeL

 * All versions I have encountered depict the version descirbed in the article. Find sources for this version you speak of, and we can add it to the article. --b. Touch 15:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ask almost any folk singer who was active during the last 100 years (Seeger, Dylan, Felix, Carters, Leadbelly or whoever) Or see:- www.heritagepreservation.org/PROGRAMS/SOS/4KIDS/4kids2000/wvhenry.htm www.ibiblio.org/john_henry/,  www.wvepostcards.com/john-henry/  www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/wv2.htm  www.newhouse.com/archive/story1c012402.html  ...etc.

It looks as if the other version developed later possibly for publicity or propaganda reasons.

P.S. how can anyone know it was a heart attack ?

mikeL

P.P.S. I never thought he was a black man till wikipedia said so. I think he was a human being like everyone else of all races.

P.P.P.S. Someone wrote about 'driving' blasting holes. You don't drive holes you drill them or, more commonly in this context, you bore them. 82.47.176.254 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)mikeL (who can also be boring)

 * Well it's 2023 now and as so many people damanded white stayed of americas history to be removed, so should the John Henery statue. What is white is right!
 * remove the John henery statue!!! 2601:641:582:C30:A133:F965:A057:5298 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the sloppy formating in the external links section. In doing so, I eliminated the following links: www.wvepostcards.com/john-henry/ and www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/wv2.htm. The later link is dead and I couldn't find anything in the former that justified its inclusion. That line that says "... BUT see ' discussion'" needs to be changed to reflect the story varients in the article, rather than self-reference Wikipedia. ~CS 21:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted recent edits which added information about a band called "The John Henry Band." They appeared to be vanity additions. Their webpage indicates that they are unsigned and recruiting members, which indicates to me that they are not notable enough for inclution here. If anyone can provide information otherwise, I'd be happy to re-insert at least some of the information. ~CS 23:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

rejection of work ethic
It seems odd to me to say that John Henry himself rejected the 19th century work ethic. Isn't it the story that rejects the work ethic, not the character? --Allen 15:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No response, so I'll be bold. --Allen 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Goings-on with women
I've removed the following paragraph, added today by an anonomous user:
 * "Whilst most of the songs written about John Henry have a similar melody, and often similar lyrics, many have focused not on the story of the fight with the steam drill but on John Henry's tumultuous goings-on with numerous women of varying repute, and the (admittedly one-sided) brawls they would get him into."

I'm not certain if this is true, or vandalism. If it is true, it would be usefull to be more specific, citing particular renditions of the song that deviate from the normal story. Certainly, any songs about John Henry's "goings-on with numerous women" are not the norm. ~CS 19:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Disney Film
I would question the use of the phrase "thoughtful and beautiful" to describe the Disney version. I think the mention of the various awards the film won are adequate assertion of the film's quality.

Myth v Reality
John Henry is not a mythical folklore hero, he was a real person. I saw posted the question "P.S. how can anyone know it was a heart attack ?" Because if you check the web you can find scan images of the actual death certificate finding the cause of death a massive heart attack. The only thing they don't have actual proof of is as to whether or not he actually raced a steam powered drill; I believe he did. here's a site that has much information - http://www.ibiblio.org/john_henry/index.html John Henry

Wheather John Henry was a real person or a mythical amalgamation of the issues of the time period has been a point of contention between scholars for some time, with no final determination possible. Many of these theories are good leads -- your link is a facinating one -- but I'd use caution when regarding any source that claims that claim actual proof. ~CS 23:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that [Alan Lomax] stated that it was his opinion that this song originated among African-American railroad workers not as a ballad, but rather as a humerous tale of a man's sexual prowess, and later was adopted by whites who saw John Henry not as a comical figure, but rather as a heroic one.--messor 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Leeds
While it is true that no proof exists for the Leeds connection, that is equally true for the Talcott story, so it is not MORE craven for Leeds to capitalize on it. (Also, Garst is a Mississippi native living in Athens, Georgia and has no particular vested interest in promoting tourism in Leeds.) Presumably better references could emerge from the planned symposium next week. --Dystopos 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Leeds vs. Talcott
While it is true that Talcott, W. Va.’s “proof” and right to the promotion of the John Henry legend is no more or no less substantial than that of Leeds, AL; Talcott does have 10 plus years prior claim on the J. Henry tourist money maker. One might speculate as to why Leeds could not be more original than having to “rip off” someone else’s claim, valid or not. Particularly when the Leeds claim is just as questionable. But then again, it has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well I guess Talcott should just feel flattered and so should any other local folklore promoter in case Leeds decides to flatter them.--vett69 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Please stop adding the accusation that Leeds is ripping off tourists to this article. The article is already clear that claims of a historical John Henry are wide and often dubious -- there is not need to single out Leeds. This kind of content does not meet Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policies, and editors will continue to remove this line because of this. You may also want to not Wikipedia's Three-revert_rule which you violated yesterday. If you want, you can discuss how to impropve this section of the article here. Thanks, ~CS 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It should be clear that Leeds did not set out to flatter or to rip off Talcott's "tourist money maker". They are proposing to include an educational exhibit on John Henry within their planned historical museum based on claims made by an independent researcher who has no ties to Leeds or its tourism industry. --Dystopos 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They are also planning a "John Henry Days" festival and possible statue similair to Talcott; there have been discussions of a possible movie or docudrama.--vett69 18:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Take This Hammer
This is best regarded as a different song where the singer is part of a work gang (presumably a prision chain gang) dreaming of escape to freedom or to death..hence 'take this hammer, carry it to the captain, tell  him i'm gone'. John Hirt includes the name John Henry in his version but this is not usual.

Other related recordings:-

'John Hardy'  Carter family, 1928    similar name and tune but about a shooting.

'Gonna Die with my Hammer in My Hand' Williamson brothers and Curry 1927

'Spike Driving Man' Missippii Joe Hirt  1952

82.47.176.254 08:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL

"Take This Hammer" refers to "making big ones into little ones", typical chain gang hard labor, making crushed rock for railroad beds (the gravel that railroad ties sit on). A related song, Swannanoa Tunnel is likely to be a drilling song. Pustelnik (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mules and Men
Seems there should be something here about Zora Neale Hurston's report of the folktale in her ~1935 book Mules and Men. Anyone know of other early records of the story. Her's would be significant as it gives an early African-american version of the song. Also, the song's lyrics are public domain and might be discussed directly (various versions and what not). -MrFizyx 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Disney Film Question
In the article it says that Disney was uneasy about releasing the film becasue of the nearly all white production team. I'm looking for more details about this and not having any luck. Can someone point me in the right direction?

Addition
I just added Pete Seeger to the list of singers who've recorded the John Henry folksong - it seemed odd that Bruce Springstein's cover of the Seeger version was listed while Seeger's own version wasn't!

Rosie O'Donnel?
Quite possible that this is just a coincidence and there really is a "big man" by the name of Rosie O'Donnell. More likely, methinks, someone put that in there as a wisecrack and it ought to be rubbed out. Consider that my recommendation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.255.14 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Johnhenry1996.jpg
Image:Johnhenry1996.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Include Doc Watson?
I was surprised to see that Doc Watson wasn't listed with the musicians. He recorded his version (titled John Henry) many times. He also mentioned him in other songs, having one related song, titled "Walk on Boy". (Contributor: Olaf Janssens)

Include Gary Kasparov???
In the "See Also" heading of the article there is a link to chess Grand Master Gary Kasparov. Does anyone know of the link between John Henry and Gary Kasparov? Kasparov played chess against computers so there is a man vs. machine dynamic at play. However, the link seems strenuous at best. Thoughts about removal? VirginiaProp 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the wikilink. If someone wants to make that connection it should be explained with some context (and should be cited to avoid original research). --Dystopos 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Big Men"?
The list of "Other Big Men" includes many men of high legend who none the less were not noted to be "big." More or less this same list is present on many of the referenced pages. Is there a "Big Men Project" or something? Should these lists be otherwise titled? Or should they be pruned down to just the "big" men? Jackrepenning (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved some paragraphs around
So that it made more of a logical progression from topic to topic in the "history" section. Also delted the section that referenced the Terminator TV show because that shit was irrelevant as fuck. 72.65.238.202 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you using such hard words, and why is a TV show less relavant then a song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.245.2 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Song Section
I was thinking the song section might need a face lift. The 'one giant paragraph' is a little hard on the reading eye and doesn't seem to flow well. Perhaps a list or table and move some of the information around to other places or smaller paragraphs? Operator873 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First mention in print?
When and where exactly is John Henry first mentioned in print? It is strange that such pivotal (for a folklore hero) information is absent. -- C opper K ettle  07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bascom, Louise Rand. "Ballads and Songs of Western North Carolina." Journal of American Folklore 22. Apr-Jun (1909): 238-50. Two lines of "John Henry" appear on pp 249-50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.139.144 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Background
I realize that this was just restored, but I removed it and am bringing it here for discussion. I do not know why this was removed in the first place, but my reasoning is that it is unreferenced and original research. All of the following may be true and accurate, but without references, it is simply an editor's opinions. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Like other "Big Men" such as Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill, John Henry also served as a mythical representation of a group within the melting pot of the 19th-century working class. In the most popular version of the story, Henry is born into the world big and strong weighing 33 pounds. He grows to become the greatest "steel-driver" in the mid-century push to erect the railroads across the mountains to the West. When the owner of the railroad buys a steam-powered hammer to do the work of his mostly black driving crew, to save his job and the jobs of his men, John Henry challenges the owner to a contest: himself alone versus the steam hammer. John Henry beats the machine, but exhausted, collapses and dies. In modern depictions John Henry is often portrayed as hammering down rail spikes, but older versions depict him as being born with a hammer in his hand; driving blasting holes into rock, part of the process of excavating railroad tunnels and cuttings. In almost all versions of the story, John Henry is a black man and serves as a folk hero for all American working-class people, representing their marginalization during changes entering the modern age in America. While the character may or may not have been based on a real person, Henry became an important symbol of the working class. His story is usually seen as an archetypal illustration of the futility of fighting the technological progress that was evident in the 19th century upset of traditional physical labor roles. Some labor advocates interpret the legend as illustrating that even the most skilled workers of time-honored practices are marginalized when companies are more interested in efficiency and production than in their employees' health and well-being. Although John Henry proved himself more powerful than the steam-drill, he worked himself to death and was replaced by the machine anyway. Thus the legend of John Henry has been a staple of American labor and mythology for well over one hundred years.

 * It was removed by a vandal on 6 November 2009, and the initial corrector of said vandalism simply erased the profanity the vandal had put in its place, without actually undoing the deletion. I'm putting this back in with a tag - as it stands now, the article contains no description of what the story actually is or what John Henry does. Ergative rlt (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Song
It seems to me that there should be a separate article for the song of the same name. It's just as notable, and there's an entire other history behind the song itself. There could be a lyrical article on Wikisource of the most notable version, probably Lead Belly's, if it's in the PD. Of course, information would be left on this article, but it seems better to create another article about the song than to just have the pittance of information found here. BootleggerWill (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Historicity
The opening paragraph of this article gives me the impression that this person is a well-defined historical individual. However, the rest of the article is less clear on this point, talking of a "mythical representation", citing different versions of the "story", and leaving me overall slightly confused about his historicity. I would like to see this crucial point made clearer in the lead section. Is he real, myth, or an uknown/confused mixture of both? 86.179.112.237 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Page rewrite -- reverted
Was there any particular purpose to rewriting the page? Part of a project? Didn't conform to some arcane wikism laid out by a committee of bizarre usernames years ago without reference to the propriety of such guidelines in regard to any given subject? Got bored?

Can we at least have the part about the rubber ducky race back? It's fun, it's a real thing, and it's related to the legend a lot more closely than the inevitable list of big men in folklore someone's going to come along and add later. Pretty please? 92.13.246.24 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I just reverted the whole thing. The loss of the narrative was particularly un-nerving; I was about to complain about this here, when I noticed that the old article had this. This is rather central to the myth! To have an article about it without actually mentioning it is .. freaky bizarre.  I would like to see the whole thing expanded: John Henry is, among other things, a story about the dangers of hubris in resisting the advent of modern technology: you can't fight a machine and win: this is the standard elementary-school interpretation; this article should elaborate. More vital than ever, since machines (viz computers) are taking over the world, and one must be careful not to enter into John-Henry competitions against machines (whether chess-playing or jeopardy-playing). Surely this stuff is citable and not "dubious-discuss", its in children's textbooks, after all! linas (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing at Wikipedia is not about taking out everything that isn't referenced. Section tags can be added, citation needed notes can be placed. Article creation works as a collaborative process. Span (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but as a factual matter, you're mistaken. I sat on it for a while and thought about what you said, but you're just way off base.

 * Whatever you may think editing at Wikipedia is about, the verifiability policy requires that all contested material be removed until cited. That's just a fact. Section tags and the like may be added, but when material is disputed, it has to come down until cited. It's OK if you don't agree with the policy, but it's not OK for you to make up your own, or to just add large chunks of uncited material and original research that doesn't appear to have any basis in fact.

 * Furthermore, your admonition to "go gently" when editing is in total opposition to actual Wikipedia policy, which is to edit boldly.

 * If you could explain to me why you think all of the rules don't apply to this page, or if you could point me to some actual, for-real, written-down-and-agreed-to rules that you think justify your position, we could probably come to some sort of agreement. Until then, unverified information is coming back down.

 * — Bdb484 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * By asking that you go gently, I was thinking of WP:EDIT: "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice." and WP:BASICS "Most discussions are ultimately settled by "consensus" ...A large number of users donate time, knowledge, skills, and effort to help the project and other users. Users should act towards other users in a generally helpful manner even if disagreeing with their views or tone. This often means listening and trying to find common ground, avoiding inflaming disputes or polarizing discussions, and working from unselfish project principles. A generally calm, productive, collegial style is looked for." Span (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I feel like you're overlooking the fact that the demands you're making have already been met: Users have been coming to the talk page for quite some time with questions and disputes about material throughout the page, and they have generally been met with silence. The Folklore section is particularly problematic, as it has been tagged as needing sources for more than year, and no one has seen fit to add any.

 * This discussion that you and I are having is one that I've been through more times than I can count (you are just one of a large community of editors who object to the way I edit), so let me make a prediction on how it plays out. (1) Some IP editor repeatedly reverts my changes. (2) He is banned for edit warring and adding uncited material. (3) The ban discourages registered users from restoring the disputed material, as well. (4) Very shortly afterward, some ambitious editor decides to deal with the problem more productively than you or me, by doing the legwork required to find citations. (5) The page ends up with more information and better citations.

 * It's counter-intuitive, but but I can assure you that deleting large chunks of uncited text almost inevitably leads to a more thorough, better-sourced treatment of the topic. I'd encourage you to abide by the verifiability rule and let it prove its worth.

 * — Bdb484 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I cannot as a matter of principle take your assurances at face value without citation. Your actions have been questioned and you continue to cleave to your own sense of purpose rather than engage in any debate on the value of said actions. I really must insist on factual evidence to support the claims you make about your approach, or that you back down and engage in genuine discussion with other wikipedians, primarily by raising the matter of this page with any or all of the wikiprojects listed at the top of this talk page.

 * Furthermore, your comments in the following section of this talk page appear to breach guidelines on original research. John Henry's historicity is clearly disputed, and this page is in any case clearly labelled (folklore). His existence or nonexistence is a side issue at best to this page, which deals with the folklore aspect, and necessarily deals with the cultural impact of that body of folklore, much of which you have removed as unsourced material rather than seek existing sources to add to the article.

 * Again, I must insist you step back from editing this page and deliberately open it to debate and consensus rewrite at the relevant wikiprojects. Thankyou for your time.92.13.232.152 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry. I don't read rants from sockpuppets. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Bdb484, even though you have got substantial opposition to your edits on this page and have "a large community of editors who object to the way [you] edit" you continue to mass revert text. If, as you say, you have been through this discussion more times than you can count, isn't it, perhaps, time to back up and reflect on your practice? You seem to be suggesting you are "trying to find common ground, avoiding inflaming disputes or polarizing discussion" as WP:BASICS recommends. WP:PRESERVE says we should fix or flag problems if we can, removal being a last option. It seems like you are making a point. It seems like you are saying (above) that if anyone reverts your edits they'll get blocked, everyone else gets put off and 'you win'. If someone adds new sources in order to restore text, 'you win'. This is the way it always 'plays out'. I can't say that this is my idea of a collaborative editing community. Span (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I hope you'll forgive me if I decline to let you divert attention from the fact that you are continuing to restore contentious, uncited material that has been tagged and brought to the talk page repeatedly. Although attributing fake quotes to me might make you feel as though your argument is stronger, it doesn't explain why -- after all your conditions for removing uncited material have been met -- you persist with this behavior.

 * I'm not interested in "winning" anything here. I'm interested in seeing the material cited. If that means I win something, I hope you'll forgive me for not clearing a place on the mantel.:— Bdb484 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, what material have I restored exactly? My last edit was Aug 1st. I have no interest in an edit war. Span (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I apologize for my careless wording; it appears I was lumping you in with those who have been making reversions. What I should have made clear is that it sounds as though you are advocating for the inclusion of material that is contested and uncited, and that has been so tagged for some time, and that has been brought to the talk page for discussion, only to be ignored.

 * If that's an inaccurate characterization, please correct me. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Verification
Hi all. It's come to my attention that there were questions about my edits. In case anyone who knows enough to come to a talk page doesn't already know the verifiability policy, it's available here: WP:V. The policy requires that disputed material that has not been verified with a reliable source must come down, and that it must not be restored until a reliable source has been provided in the form of an inline citation.

In accordance with this policy, please do not restore any of the deleted information, all of which I am disputing, except to the extent that you've added citations.

— Bdb484 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I think you are confusing the idea of John Henry as folklore, with the idea of John Henry as a real person. The possibility that someone once existed, who vaguely resembles the John Henry of folklore, is immaterial to the importance of John Henry to American history. It seems appropriate to delete the section on history, no matter how well referenced it is, right?  linas (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't agree. The fact that this is folklore does not mean that John Henry was not an actual person. If he was, then his story is relevant to the folklore.

 * — Bdb484 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 * The article, as it currently stands, does not even say what the the John Henry folk-lore is. It does not discuss the importance of the folklore to American politics, history, society or culture. Instead, is has some drivel about a supposed "real person". Cut out the drivel, add something real!! linas (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't object to adding something real. However, whatever added should include citations to verify that it is real.

 * If there is notable folklore, there will be reliable sources documenting it. If that folklore is important to American politics, history, society or culture, there will be reliable sources documenting it. As it stands, it appears that the only notable aspect of this (measured by the availability of reliable sources) is the debate over the identity of the legend's source. You may think it's drivel, but until you start publishing reliable sources commenting on the issue, that opinion is not entirely relevant. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This will be my only comment on this page, but I would like to add my voice that Bdb484's recent edits have been, overall, detrimental to the page. That John Henry is important to American folk culture is the kind of common knowledge claim that he seems to want a citation for. That the song has been covered by dozens of Delta blues artists, especially in the early 20th century, is the kind of claim he seems to want a citation for. That John Henry is used in newspaper op-eds, conversations on the street, or anywhere else needs a citation. Examples: John Henry is an American folk hero, notable for having raced against a steam powered hammer and won, only to die in victory with his hammer in his hand. --Listen to Leadbelly! Or an Alan Lomax collection. Or: He has been the subject of numerous songs, stories, plays, and novels. If that sentence needs a citation, then Wikipedia better take down the (literally) almost every single article that doesn't belong to a tv show or sports season. My apologies if I am not adding anything new to the conversation.

Vincent Moon (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 * If John Henry is as important as you say he is, there shouldn't be much of a problem finding a reliable source to back up that assertion. In fact, if you think the information should be on the page, you probably could have done a lot more for the page by taking the time to find that source and include it, rather than coming to the talk page to gripe about the edits but refuse to engage in a constructive conversation. — Bdb484 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey BDB484, the fact remains that people come to this article for treatment on the subject. I was/am one of them. If you aren't going to "take the time" to find your own sources and contribute in a constructive way (lmao while, I might add, lamenting that others could have "done a lot more for the page"), then I ask you to at least exhibit some class in the manner you "dispute" the relevancy/accuracy of the article's content I.E. add "citation needed" at the end of every objectional paragraph rather than every sentence OR exhibit some conviction and delete the fucking content entirely. The way it stands now makes it unreadable, and also reflects poorly on your motives/good taste. Btw, John Henry did die with a hammer in his hand. :)

 * I definitely appreciate your willingness to come to the conversation and demonstrate your lack of awareness of the process leading us to the situation we have today. Thank you also for verifying that John Henry died with a hammer in his hand. If trolling were a reliable source, we could add a citation. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Sweet F-word! It really drives home the point! — Bdb484 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My point(s) remain. Perhaps that's why you did not address them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.88.36 (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points do not remain, as they never existed. You have been ill-informed of the background of this debate, which is why you don't understand how the page got to the point it's at now. Read up and check the edit history, and I'm sure we can have a more productive discussion. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

serves? Are we the boss of him? I don't think so.
John Henry is a black man and serves as a folk hero for all American working-class people

Is "serves" the right word? I think it has a condescending tone.

I suggest John Henry is a black man, a folk hero of American working-class people

The "all" is questionable since you could find ignorant people who have never heard of John Henry.

It might be interesting to compare with other working-class heros like Stakhanov.

September 2011 changes
Two changes:

1) the second line in the introductory paragraph does not need to cited per WP: YOU DON'T NEED TO CITE THAT THE SKY IS BLUE. 2) Despite the well-meaning edits of some contributors, I have removed the distracting plethora of "citation needed" requests from the folklore section, for two reasons: a) as Wikipedia has proclaimed in numerous places, the first and formeost purpose of any article is to be read and b)there are protocols for dealing with problematic sections; and those protocols should be followed so as to not vandalize the aesthetic of the existing (albeit hitherto unverified) material. I have included those protocols below. (XX) I think that more of this article needs similar treatment, but I don't have the time to make those changes at this moment. thanks.

(XX) "Wikipedia has several templates for tagging material that need verification: inline templates for particular lines, section templates, and article templates. See Wikipedia:Template messages. Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable. As a rule, if there are more than 2 or 3 inline tags they should be removed and replaced with a section tag; if there are more than 2 section tags they should be removed and replaced with a single 'Multiple Problems' tag. If there are more then two or three sections tagged, those tags should be removed, and the entire article should be tagged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALI GOAT (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with your assessment. The page is in its current state because we have a passionate editor or two who insist on leaving uncited material up, despite numerous, longstanding questions about its verifiability, notability, etc.

 * As we still haven't gotten any help from them in citing the offending passages, I'm going to revert the page to a point where both the readability and the verifiability concerns were addressed. I'm hopeful that anyone adding more material afterward will include sources. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have more-or-less rewritten this article (diff here), reinstating and sourcing much of the content that was deleted. As I stated at ANI, if more time had been spent verifying the questionable content rather than deleting it, some of the unfortunate edit-warring and aggravation could have been avoided. — Scientizzle 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome work. Thanks for taking the time to put all that together. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much; what I see now is very much as I would expect. FWIW, It was IBM's Jeopardy-playing Watson (computer) that evoked thoughts of this article -- the lore is as relevant as ever. linas (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference in pop-culture
There is a reference in the tv series sarah connor chronicles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(Terminator)

--77.181.143.245 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

John William Henry
I motion that this section should either be renamed "Nelson" or removed and replaced with a couple sentences in another section. 64.134.183.112 (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reversions by User:Bdb484
User:Bdb484 is constantly reverting additions inappropriately. Primary sources are acceptable when the "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source" criterion is met from WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Clear, explicit references to John Henry in songs, television shows, movies, or even comic books clearly meet this criterion. Any educated person can very these sources with reference to the sources, and many acceptable contributions to this page are being eliminated by a single person. User:Bdb484 should not be constantly making these reversions. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC))

Cheers Reference
There is a reference to John Henry in Cheers (Season 7, Episode 1, 'How to Recede in Business', 1988, from 14:30 to 15:00). Simon Kidd (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

 * For me, it's a bit too trivial for the article. In any case, reference to a source would be needed. Willondon (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ChatGPT
This seems an appropriate test case and so I tried asking ChatGPT"Q. Please write an account of John Henry, the steel-driving man, in the style of a Wikipedia article

A. John Henry was an African American folk hero and steel-driving man who is said to have worked as a "steel-driver" in the late 19th century. According to legend, he was born into slavery and gained his freedom following the American Civil War. He became renowned for his exceptional strength and the ability to drive steel into rock faster than a steam-powered hammer.

The story of John Henry is widely considered to be a symbol of African American ingenuity and endurance, and his exploits have been the subject of numerous songs, stories, and works of art. Although the exact details of his life are uncertain, it is widely believed that he worked on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, helping to build the Big Bend Tunnel in West Virginia.

In the most popular version of the story, John Henry challenged a steam-powered hammer to a race to see which could drive steel the fastest. John Henry won the race, but died of exhaustion immediately afterwards. The story is often interpreted as a commentary on the displacement of manual labor by industrialization.

Regardless of its historical accuracy, the story of John Henry has become an enduring part of American folklore, celebrated as a symbol of American determination and strength. In the 20th and 21st centuries, numerous artists, including musicians, writers, and filmmakers, have drawn inspiration from the legend of John Henry. Today, his story continues to be celebrated as a testament to the spirit of the American working class.

While the true story of John Henry may never be fully known, his legend endures as a powerful symbol of African American ingenuity and resilience, and as a testament to the strength and determination of the American working class."

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"John Henry (folklore" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Henry_(folklore&redirect=no John Henry (folklore] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Henry (folklore)


text:
Talk:Blonde stereotype

Change in Image: Reason?
I noticed that the image of Paris Hilton at the top of this page was changed by a user who has been repeatedly banned for making disruptive edits to images on various articles. Frankly, I feel a little uneasy about pointing her out specifically, but it appears there has been an image of her on this article for a very long time, so I won't try to debate the reasoning for that. But given the current status of the user who changed the image, I feel we should probably consider whether the change in image was necessary or is beneficial to this article. Personally, I feel that the current image depicts Hilton more professionally, but since this article is about blonde stereotypes, I think we should revert back to the old image. I believe the old image more accurately portrays Paris Hilton's portrayal of blonde stereotypes, but my editing experience on here is limited, so I'd rather not make such a major change unless I'm 100% sure it would indeed be helpful. Pingrobb (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Characteristics
What are more characteristics of a dumb blonde?
 * I think being dumb and blonde are the two defining characteristics, any others would be irrelevant. --fvw *  22:16, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

An example of a popular joke about dumb blondes: Do you know how dies cerebral cells of blonde girls? By loneliness!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the definitive 'dumb blonde' is blonde, dumb and usually young and attractive - but not (neccesarily) sexual. A bimbo on the other hand is sexualised (and indeed may be a non-blonde)

There are virginal/non-sexualised dumb blondes:

 * Melody Valentine from Josie and the Pussycats
 * Kelly Gaines from Cheers

A bimbo on the other hand is usually sexualised:

 * Harmony Kendall from Buffy the Vampire Slayer
 * Linda from Becker (a non-blonde bimbo)

--Ross Nolan 11:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, despite the stereotype, dumb blondes can also be male or female.

Medieval Europe
The Frankish, Norman, and Gothic-descended nobility of Europe tended to be darker-haired than the peasantry--what? 207.68.245.5 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy
I don't know the Betty Cooper character, but in the film, at least, the whole point of the Buffy character was that she was dumb-blonde type, who triumphed anyway. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valley Girl
I don't think Clueless really popularized the Valley Girl stereotype. When the movie Valley Girl came out in 1983, the idea of a Valley Girl was already well-ingrained in pop culture. Frank Zappa's song was released in 1982. Neither of these would have had any success if the Valley Girl stereotype wasn't already well-established. Al 15:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, in the case of Zappa, I suspect that not many people bought his records because of their lyrics — and I'm certain that most people outside (and many within) the U.S. didn't know what was being parodied, but enjoyed it anyway. It's the sort of thing that does become known through parodies rather than in any other way. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Opinion
I'm not sure if this article is really NPOV. It seems like a matter of opinion if someone is a Bombshell or not. Pelago 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact, I don't agree with classifying Monica Bellucci as a "bombshell;" the article (and the term itself) seem to me to imply not only a certain body type but also a kind of personal style; you can see where Anna Nicole Smith for example obviously emulated the look of "bombshells" like Marilyn Monroe. It's not a look that Monica Bellucci seems to go for. Atypicaloracle (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman empire era
Please forgive my ignorance where to put this...and the proverbial but,

Blonde woman lived north of the Roman empire. There were blonde men also. Both, each, blue eyed. Romans never called their ships she or their country she. The Celts did and to this day many countries. Why would a society that praises women would call them dumb if they were light of hair. Which leads us to Dumnorix.

A Celt/Gual king, crying out as Roman swords pierced him. "I am a Free man in a Free state". (not that I advocate kings but at the time it was better under Dummy than Ceasar.

At the time there were other Gaulsih chieftains conspiring with Ceasar's troops. Dumnorix died fighting against the Romans even though the odds were so stacked against him, maybe leaving the people to say don't be a dum(norix)my submit. But I haven't met a blond who would.

The above remark was added 01:15, 5 May 2006 and originates from IP-address 65.8.31.23

In defence of Dumnorix, Dumnorix was not natural blond according to the museum image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoeticReturn (talk • contribs) 11:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Usagi Tsukino
Usagi Tsukino is definitely not "intelligent and appropriately serious in demeanor". It makes me wonder if whoever wrote that actually saw the show or read the comics. She is nice, caring person but she is also a superficial, over-romantic, fun-loving, whiny and scatter-brained child, immature even for a girl in her lower teens. She readily admits it herself. Perhaps whoever wrote this was thinking of Sailor Venus who is also blonde and fits the description much better. Usagi Tsukino actually fits the dumb blonde cliché much better than the description above.

Brunettes/redheads who are naturally blonde
I don't quite understand the new heading ".../blondes who are..." Does that not remove the 'interest' from the issue?

 * Cameron Diaz natural blond? Recently seen pictures in which the bleaching is gone and a very natural deep black haircolor shows instead. But blue-eyed, which made the former artificial blond so much more look like real.
 * Don't think Miss Middler is natural blond. Seen a picture with black hair and it looked very much like real. She's got to much temperament for a 'temperate'. No Northern-Europide could sing for instance that 'Cuba-song', (what's it's exact title?) in a way, she does, unless eventually a natural orange-blond (which she might be). James Blond 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But she most likely isn't. Found this:; picture nr. 10 looks most natural of them all. Like that there's room enough for all those wigs, shown in most of the other pictures. All by all she's a Jewish person, who has been flaunting a lot with other persons feathers. But she can sing all right (unlike other blackhaired wigwearer Madonna). James Blond 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Title
I prefer the French title: "Stereotypes of blondes". More NPoV too, don't you all think so? - Gilliam 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Could this whole dumb-blond thing perhaps be a matter of projection? Projecting the fear for own dumbness on others, of whom one thinks, they might be more intelligent? Something like finding peace of mind, by playing it thus, that those others are dumb as well.

 * Besides, there is a lot, that justifies the thesis, that lightblonds are not dumb, when they turn out not to understand and/or know enough about this industrialised world, because it has been made the (more and more dramatic) way it is, by others, who wouldn't have done this, if they were not more or less dumb themselves. James Blond 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural Blondes section
Is this section needed? These women, that I know of, aren't really considered "dumb blondes" or at least not all of them. Shouldn't it be edited to either not be there or something like "natural blondes that fit the stereotype" or something? Black Kat 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Karen Smith
The character "Karen Smith" is included under "dumb blonde antitheses," as someone who defies the blonde stereotype and is intelligent or serious in demeanor. There are two problems with this: 1) The fictional Karen Smith is indeed dumb, although she is smart enough to recognize and regret her dumbness. 2) Her link leads to a real-life Karen Smith, a hockey player. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.245.109 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Blonde hair and Ancient Greeks
The author(s) of the article mention(s) that the Ancient Greeks were fascinated by the blonde hair of northern barbarians. While this may be partly true, many heroes of the homeric tales had blonde (xanthos) hair: it was not at all something alien to them.

 * No, that's true, it most definitely was not alien to them. Blonde hair was present in Greek society in general, both because of Nordic integration, as well as Greek exploration and travel to Nordic lands. The best example would probably be Helen of Troy, who famously had blonde hair, and that blonde hair was likely a primary aspect about her that Greeks found so very attractive.216.185.250.92 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, indeed, part of the prehistoric ancestors of the Greeks (the part which also brought the language in) came from Eastern Europe. Phenotypically, the ancient Greeks were therefore mixed, especially in the Mycenaean period probably, where blond hair was typical of nobility. But, as with the Romans, this blond component of the population eventually merged in with the Mediterranean-type majority and modern Greeks and Italians now look mostly Southern European. This brings me to a different speculation. Medieval and Renaissance-era Italians, who were overwhelmingly dark-haired, tended to look down on the Germanic-speaking Northern Europeans as barbarians and goths (whence ultimately gothic with its morbid, medieval associations), and thus, in the eyes of Italians, blond hair was associated with primitivity and lack of fine culture. It's easy to see that in Italy, a stereotype of unintelligent blonds could easily arise. (Conversely, legends formed in Central Europe around Venetians, mysterious ore- or gold-seeking foreigners from southern lands, or eventually mountain spirits, dwarfs or trolls, with magical powers, similar to the stereotype of the wizard with a pointed hat with moons and stars on it, which is sometimes speculated to be inspired by contact with medieval Muslim astrologers, alchemists and other scholars, especially in Al-Andalus.) Just a spontaneous idea, though, but maybe somebody would like to look for evidence for this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I can't find any mention of ancient Greeks in the article. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, you know, this is a wiki. Articles have a tendency to change. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

China Dolls
Is this the Caucasian version of the China Doll stereotype, out of curiosity--69.234.207.238 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)?

Miss South Carolina (2007) answers incident?
Anyone wanna mention that incident in the article?

I think that this might have something to do with the "dumb slut" stereotype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.168.209 (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I proposed for the merge of Blonde jokes to Dumb blonde. To my opinion, they are too closely related to be in separate articles after all. Also, the section regarding the cultural impact of the blonde jokes, which is the only thing that is keeping the Blonde jokes article from deletion, is similar in content, if not almost identical, to the one in this article. Udonknome (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - these articles cover almost identical subjects. Blonde jokes essentially just contains examples of the dumb blonde stereotype - little more than an Examplefarm. It should either be merged into this article or deleted outright. Terraxos (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Blonde jokes has notability on its own & these two should remain as separate articles.

Oppose - The two are perfectly viable separate. - DevOhm Talk 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I think that this section is too small and non-notable to be kept here on it's own the way it is. If someone can add more information and get this to at least a start class, mabye this article will have a leg to stand on. P.S. WP:POLL--Ipatrol (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Blond jokes are intrinsically a part of the "dumb blond" mythology, and would serve better to support this article than they would to stand on their own. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, since texts are small now and will become smaller when trimmed of overlap and unreferenced stuff. - At the same time it is a clearly defined and notable topic. Wikipedia is not paper, and a separate page is quite fine, since the texts have almost no overlap. Therefore there should be no prejudice to split them back when reliable, references content grows. Twri (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Done. Half a year poll already. `- 7 bubyon>t 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Blonde jokes entries to this article are being removed as off topic. If there is to be ONE article, it is only proper to offer perspectives for both blonde jokes and dumb blondes. Otherwise, let's split them apart again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.179.8 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sober theories of origins" section
I have a few problems with the "Sober theories of origins" section. Foremost, there is already an "Origins" section, so this section is redundant from the outset – why not just integrate the information into the Origins section? A fair amount of the info is already there. Additionally, the name of the section is weird. "Sober theories?" Are the other theories frivolous?

In terms of content, the section isn't particularly clear – it seems to be talking more about blondness itself, rather than the dumb blond stereotype. The sentence that (I guess?) makes the connection – "Therefore many wanted to believe that blond and rich women were stupid and cheap" – is pretty tenuous, uncited, and sounds like POV. Really, overall I think this section is extraneous. I'll probably delete it within a week or so if no one protests.

- DevOhm Talk 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious origin
A great deal of people who have blonde hair turn to darker blonde or brunette in puberty or later, but never the other way aroud. Thereforem, take the mean age of someone who's blond, take the mean age of someone who's not, and you wind up with blonds being younger, hence associated with youth, including innocence, and naivety.--Loodog (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In Flanders (Belgium), 55% to 68% of adults were born blond but then darkened as they became adult to usually light or medium brown tones. Germaniathane (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hypothesis
Is the stereotype of blondes as dumb maybe due to real subjective perceptions of the many women who dye their hair blond as opposed to natural blonds? Are there any studies on this?

That German Study
I heard on the radio about a study in Germany on the effect of dumb blond jokes on blonds. Indeed, blonds do perform worse on mental tasks right after they've heard a dumb blond joke. Has anyone seen a reference on this? If I were an employer, I'd ban such jokes out of a fear of lowering the performance of some employees. (I have very dark brown hair.)Bostoner (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb male blondes
Even though this stereotype is usually used on females, there are some male variations that are popping up more often now. I've seen a few blonde jokes that use male blonds instead of female blondes. Often, he will act the same way as a female but in a more masculine manner. I'm sure that there are more male variations of these blonde jokes out there.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bombshell (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Movies of Marylin Monroe in the Cinema
Marylin Monroe played the roles of dumb blond, in particular in her first movies such as "Gentlemen prefer Blonds" and "How to marry a millionnaire", for which she actually was named "Best actress" of 1953 by Photoplay magazine. Note: Obviously the role she plays (and not herself) is considred as of a Dumb Blond.
 * in Victoria Sherrow (2006) Encyclopedia of hair: a cultural history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 page: 274.

Note: I would apreciate that you assume good fate the next time before removing big chunk of content, and first start by putting tag into the text. Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference in question says "a fragile woman who relied rather on her looks rather than on intelligence - what some people refer to as "dumb blond". This definition does not exactly match what is written in wikipedia and I would say rather questionable, but whatever. However I don't see why you don't add this reference into the article, which does mention Marylin Monroe among "dumb blondes" and it is already tagged. I am doing this for you. What about other actresses? Twri (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this definition does not match exactly, maybe it may mean that we should amend the Wikipedia definition if it is really one of the way people think of as a Dumb blond. One of the problem with using the term 'Dumb' is that it only refer to stupidity. In the french Wikipedia, the name of the article is "Blonde 'stereotype" (fr:Stéréotype de la blonde) which refers to something slightly broader. Other actresses (or rather roles in cinema)? Sure. Actually, I was just wondering what was the exact impact of Cinema in the perception of this stereotype by the society. Yet, when thinking of dumb blond in cinema, the first character that come to my mind is Marylin Monroe, and it isn't indeed really about studipidy, but rather that what matters is the perception (like if some other part of my brain taking control). To finish, yes it would be good and I would thank you to make the addition, since I had previous contribution on this subject reverted. I would like to avoid playing too much the little game of editor / censor. --Nabeth (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I modified the article to address the concerns expressed in this talk section. Twri (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the dumb blonde stereotype
There is no information in the article about when this idea that blondes are dumb emerged. Did it exist before Hollywood started to propagate it?--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gerblondz
Could the concept of a blonde moment originate from the Yiddish word Gerblondz (not sure of the spelling), meaning confused?--MartinUK (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Repetition in the article
Why are things repeated over and over on the article? Is it like that so that blondes can get it or what? Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.180.246 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology?
This article desperately needs an Etymology section. Just why is an attractive woman a "bombshell"? --NetRolller 3D  20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New Here. Don't know how to edit this properly, but I'm trying to bump up this article because the opening paragraph has been vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.170.235 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bombshell merge
User:Aditya Kabir attempts to merge Bombshell (sex symbol) article into this one. I object this merge for a simple reason: according to wikipedia, a bombshell girl is not necessarily a blonde, and therefore, contrary to Aditya's edt summary "Blonde stereotype" is not "mother article" for "bombshell". The two are close but may be rather different subjects. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am open to arguments that in fact the original term was "blonde bombshell (disambiguation)", rather than "bombshell" or "bombshell girl". In this case, if properly referenced, the merge is valid. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I re-reverted Aditya Kabir's revert, not because her addition is invalid (See above; I am open to discussion), but because it was done improperly: along with restoration of Kabir's content, it deleted my additions. Next time please be more careful. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Against merging Bombshell (sex symbol) to anywhere. As I said when I first reverted him "not all women described as bombshells by the media are blonde" .   D r e a m Focus  19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that they referred to women as "bombshells" even if they weren't blonde, from the beginning, and do so now. Ample coverage found and referenced already. And I see no reason for you to have created the Blonde bombshell (disambiguation) article today. It serves no purpose. I'm nominating it for deletion.  D r e a m Focus  19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read about the purpose of disambiguation pages. There are several different things called "Blonde Bombshell". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have an evidence about "from the beginning"? If yes then please add the reference to the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hollywood's Redheaded Bombshell Hartford Courant - Aug 24, 1958 I also see Bombshell Redhead Peeved And Hubby Better Look Out Windsor Daily Star May 10, 1946.  So 66 years ago it was used for others who weren't blonde.  And since a term has been used for at least that long for non-blonde women, I think my case is made.   D r e a m Focus  22:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Colleague, this is not a pissing contest. We are working about article improvement. If you found an interesting reference, what's good for wikipedia to shove it up my nose? OK, you kicked my ass. Now how about improving the article in question? (BTW, keep in mind that I actually helped you to un-merge it (in case you are misreading edit history), so I am kinda not your opponent. I just want to be fair to the third party and show the correct way of handling edit disagreements, namely, using talk page. And so far we are winning the argument, aren't we?) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't take things personally. You wanted to talk about a merge, I stated my reason against it, you questioned whether I had any "evidence", so I found two news sources to prove it to you.   D r e a m Focus  22:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the ultimale purpose was in the second sentence of my question. If you are familiar with the works of WP:ARS, the best way to keep an article is to improve it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: for several reasons:
 * Blonde bombshell isn't exactly the same thing as the blonde stereotype
 * This could potentially lead to a number of disparate topics bloating the blonde stereotype article
 * Though I am a fan of sumptuous blondes, I've heard that sumptuous redheads and sumptuous brunettes also exists
 * p b  p  23:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment I think the problem can be fixed quite easily. Blonde Bombshell was redirecting to Bombshell (sex symbol) and hence the confusion. That's been fixed. Also selective parts of the Bombshell article can be incorporated here. I don't know about Staszek's additions. Are that still valid? This discussion, I believe, can close now. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The redidect was correct: the main meaning is "bombshell", not "blonde". I don't see a reason for a section about "blonde bombshells" here, since hair color is accidental. Google easily shows "ginger bombshell", "redhead bombshell", "brunette bombshell", etc. We are not going to bomb all hair colors with bombshells, neither this one, unless you provide a compelling reason to do so. And since you didn not address my concerns, the discussion cannot "close now". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But, looking at the fact that it's an entry in the Macmillan Dictionary (it's the only example of a bombshell referring to women in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary), and has so many books and movies dedicated to the phrase, I believe it's encyclopedic enough to have it's own sub-section (if not an article, yet). Myra Marx Ferree says discusses the stereotype of the "blonde bombshell" (Revisioning Gender, 1999), and so does Audra Price (Blogging and identity), Philip Herbst (Wimmin, wimps, and wallflowers), Annette Kuhn (The women's companion to international film), Paul Martin Lester (Images That Injure), Suzanna Danuta Walters (Material girls) and many more mainstream authorities and experts. That makes it way more significant than a "redhead bombshell" or a "brunette bombshell" (the mainstream academic experts seem to largely ignore those). Besides, with so many references to the blonde bombshell right here on the Wikipedia, it only makes sense that there's at least a sub-section on the right article. If that makes it too narrow or partial, we can have a separate article that is linked from and to both Blonde stereotype and Bombshell (sex symbol). With this much information found it's entirely possible to create a C-class article right away, conforming to every Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I believe, we need it too.
 * Just a note: I don't think improving something should not be deterred here because some discussion is unfinished, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Differences in opinion is why we discuss, but propriety of process isn't the only thing that made Wikipedia. There's a policy and a tradition around here for a very long time. But, of course, that's not the discussion here. You don't need to answer to this (will be distracting us uselessly). Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aditya, you are not paying attention about what people are saying here. YOu are not forbidden to improve articles. The objection is that you want to put "blonde bombshell" here. All other say that it belongs to Bombshell (sex symbol) page. If you have read so much, you must know that not every sexy blonde is a "bombshell", and even more, blonde stereotype is not "bombshell". "Bombshell" is a specific term, and "blonde bombshell stereotype" is even more specific in the historical frame. If you want a small summary section here, it will be fine, as long as you have a reasonably large text in Bombshell (sex symbol) page. Right now there is not much there, and therefore "see also" here is just enough. It is not a good idea to repeat the same text in many pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, pay attention. What I am saying is - we DON'T need a MERGER. What we CAN HAVE instead is a NEW ARTICLE created for the redirect link. Is this clear enough? I would have removed the merge tag myself, but looking at what has transpired, you probably would have found it improper. Also, since it is so difficult to understand, I believe I need to create an article on blonde bombshell myself, instead of just discussing. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose merge. I have created a start class article for Blonde bombshell and redirected Blond bombshell to that article. Please, close the merger discussion. If we want to discuss a merger or a deletion of the new article, this may not be the right place to do it. Also, note that I am most willing to address any problems with the new article for some time (not indefinitely, of course). Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Blonde bombshell here
As the Dumb blonde is a section of this article, so should Blonde stereotype be. No use having a separate article. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC) All this is racist. If this would be about black people, everyone will shout out that or this is racist. Why this is not? What a shame of world we are living on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.9.150 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Monroe
The chapter in this book is titled "Marilun Monroe, the Inventor of Blondeness". Now that needs some serious exploration, methinks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexz Johnson?
The first picture shown is very misleading as it is not a prime example of a Blonde stereotype and would not typically be associated with the general prejudices of being a blonde female. Her photo placement seems like self-promotion, in that, it is not a stock photograph nor is it a clear example of the associated subject matter. 65.73.44.148 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right and I've replaced the image. -- Neil N  talk to me  11:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Finland Smartest Country and Blondest
I do not know how to format the references, so could someone please do it for me and add it in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_student_performance This link says Finland is second in Reading and first in science. Isn't Finland the blondest country in the world? Lightvd 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightvd (talk • contribs)
 * Lightvd, please provide a couple of sources that actually back up your statement. What you propose is pure synthesis. -- Neil N  talk to me  05:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Finland is not the blondest country in Europe, but it is the smartest.

Blondness in Nordic Countries % :

Iceland - 64.7% Denmark - 64% Finland - 58% Sweden - 54% Norway - 48% Germaniathane (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Blonde" versus "Blond" spelling uniformity
The article has both "blonde hair" and "blond hair", both "blonde stereotype" and "blond stereotype", and both "blonde" and "blond" used as a noun (esp. in the phrase "dumb blonde"/"dumb blond", but also separately). It has "blonde jokes", "blonde bombshell", "blonde babe", and "blonde-haired individuals", but also has "blond woman", "blond men", "blond actresses", "blond girl", "blond character", "blond person", and "only 25 (5%) of the 500 CEOs were blond". I don't sense any logical pattern. This seems to simply be sloppy writing style.

As I understand it, the question of the spelling of "blonde" versus "blond" is somewhat of a mixture of national variations of English and the convention that sometimes "blond" is used to refer to men or to either men or women generically, and that "blonde" is sometimes reserved specifically to women and girls.

We should decide what our convention is for this article and apply it consistently. For what it's worth, I note that the article uses the spellings "characterization" and "feminization", and that all of the women who appear in the photographs are American celebrities (thus there are some national WP:TIES to the topic), so I suggest that the article be considered to be written in American English, such that American spelling conventions should generally apply.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 * What is that convention? Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I was hoping someone else would have a suggestion, but my current thought is to simply always use "blond" (without commenting about it in the article) except in direct quotations. I think "blond" is the most common spelling in American English, where it is frequently used for both genders, and thus it avoids WP:GENDER stereotyping problems. Here is one source that supports that view. Another possibility would be to always use "blond" as an adjective, and switch between "blond" and "blonde" according to gender when used as a noun. Here is one source that seems to support that view. But if we go in that direction, we have to decide which variant to use as a noun when the noun gender is unclear. That gets us into difficult WP:GENDER territory, which I think may be best to avoid by just always using "blond". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The English language doesn't give gender to words like the French do. Also the French words were blound and blounde.  Where all of our words came from isn't relevant here.  Webster dictionary says Blond is the proper English spelling, with blonde just a variation.  We should just use blond everywhere, no need for a silent pointless e at the end.   D r e a m Focus  18:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind "blond". But, is that the convention? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples of types
Could we get some more up-to-date examples of who fit the ice cold/bombshell/etc stereotypes? Not all of us are versed in 60s pop culture. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Blonde stereotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 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.in-mind.org/article/are-blondes-really-dumb

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blonde stereotype. 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/20131013192910/http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Blonde-vs-Brunette-Does-it-determine-how-you-get-treated-176282771.html to http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Blonde-vs-Brunette-Does-it-determine-how-you-get-treated-176282771.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Image caption
The first image caption: The stereotypes of blond people, especially blonde women, are exemplified by the public image of Paris Hilton.[1][2][3] seems very unencyclopedic. Is that just my perception or should it be changed?  Nik ol ai Ho ☎ 05:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not really into celebrity culture. What is the public image of Paris Hilton? She is a former heiress and current businesswoman, who reportedly "earns over $10 million a year from product sales". Sounds like a successful woman. Dimadick (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blonde stereotype. 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/20130412002456/http://tv.yahoo.com/news/blondes-vs-brunettes-tv-shows-betty-veronica-style-203200864.html to https://tv.yahoo.com/news/blondes-vs-brunettes-tv-shows-betty-veronica-style-203200864.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black Women and Popular Culture
— Assignment last updated by StrawberryLemonade02 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Defending Hollywood dumb stereotype peroxided acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines.
How to propriatly defend the Hollywood dumb stereotype peroxided acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines?

References:

Any suggestions of phrasings that can lead to a consensus? PoeticReturn (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 * The sources you provide (half of which are clearly not reliable) do not discuss the concept of "dumb blonde" versus peroxided actresses. To draw conclusions based on article that just talk about bottle blondes in general would violate WP:OR.  So there is no basis to make changes based on the information you provided.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about an objective summary of the research status to not have more people falling into this rabit hole:
 * "==Research status of who is dumb or not==
 * There is no apropriate reliable source discussing the subject of peroxided actresses versus the stereotype on the topic of if the actresses are dumb or not.
 * On the other hand are there no apropriate independant reliable sources of any well known celebrated natural blond Hollywood star being dumb.
 * There is also no apropriate reliable sources discussing if peroxided woman on the street in general are more dumb or not." PoeticReturn (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that you assume that you have to be born blond to be stupid, but dyed blondes should not be stupid in your opinion.
 * First, there are studies showing that natural blondes have higher IQs than other women. So your suggestion is an aggressive form of hairism. And the fact that brunettes dyed blondes and propagated the stereotype of "stupid blonde" speaks of them in a rather bad way. They need to be condemned. And yes, brunette women who can be stupid may well dye their hair blonde. Charamel (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Does that mean that there is no way of defending the dumb stereotype peroxided actresses? That would be a shame?
 * How about changing the addition to be something about peroxide bottle blonde stereotype actresses in Hollywood? With the reliable references to support?
 * Another source PoeticReturn (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about the following phrasing? Any objections?
 * "==Research status of who is dumb or not==
 * There is no apropriate reliable source discussing the subject of peroxided actresses versus the stereotype on the topic of if the actresses are dumb or not.
 * On the other hand are there no apropriate independant reliable sources of any well known celebrated natural blond Hollywood star being dumb.
 * There is also no apropriate reliable sources discussing if peroxided woman on the street in general are more dumb or not.
 * There is no apropriate reliable sources discussing any correlation between peroxiding hair and being dumb or not, or in what direction the correlation would go in, if dumb people more often peroxide or if peroxide makes people dumb." PoeticReturn (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * You misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are a tertiary source.  We don't "judge", we don't compare and contrast, we don't draw conclusions.  Ever.  That is for secondary sources.  We document what those secondary sources say, passing references to those secondary sources, and we do without injecting bias, instead taking a neutral perspecitive.  This means if two sources say there is a difference, but two sources say there isn't, we docuement both sides in an even handed way.  What we do NOT do is "defend" anyone.  So if there are not multiple sources backing up your claim (or perspective, or however you view it), it can't be included in the article.  Again, our policy on original research is really worth a look, and can explain this better, so you have a better understanding of what can and can't be done in matters like this.  If you wanted to write an article that covers this topic, it might be interesting, but it would have to be pushlished elsewhere, in a secondary source, like a newspaper, webblog, etc.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Blonde stereotypes and the relevance of alternative viewpoints
reverted me on 21:23, 13 February 2024, with the explanation that "...the article seems to have strangely become some kind of attractiveness competition rather than focusing specifically on blonde stereotypes".

I disagree. The article did not become an attractiveness competition. The key focus point of the article is the idea that blonde women are particularly attractive. The lede begins by saying that Blondes are stereotyped as more desirable, but less intelligent than brunettes. There are many blonde jokes made on these premises.

According to WP:NPOV, we must provide a balanced presentation of reliable research on a given topic. And it should come as no surprise that there has been plenty of research in to the notion that blonde women are especially attractive -- especially with a focus on testing that notion with empirical evidence. My edits introduce this content, which is relevant and reliably sourced, and consistently replicates the finding that blonde women are generally considered less attractive than women with dark hair. The authors explicitly frame this research in the context of blonde stereotypes.

Currently, the article does not present a neutral POV. It promotes the view that blonde women are considered more attractive than women with dark hair. Much research indicates that this is not the case in the Western world, and also in the Eastern world. Per NPOV, we must provide these findings to the reader.

I would also like to caution against this kind of blanket reverting. TylerBurden restored a great deal of content that I painstakingly read through and determined to fail WP:VERIFY.

They also removed my addition of content to the lede that was already established in the main body. This includes, for example, empirical research that demonstrated that blonde women are not less intelligent than brunettes, contrary to stereotypes. This content had already been in the article for years. This needed to go in to the lede, which is not only too short, it does not provide the full body of research that has accumulated around the topic of blonde stereotypes.

Although I know it can be frustrating and time consuming, in the future please precisely change content rather than blanket revert, as suggested at WP:MASSR. Thank you for your understanding. Red Book Librarian (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "empirical research that demonstrated that blonde women are not less intelligent than brunettes" Big surprise there. Human intelligence is neither connected to the hair color, nor to facial features. Such stereotypes likely say a lot about the feminine beauty ideals of various eras and regions, but not much about human intelligence.Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I reverted objective improvements, since it was all done in one go it's difficult to seperate between the WP:DUE issues and other non-disputed changes. I don't disagree with you overall about balance, but adding too much content and giving more weight to dark hair being considered more attractive creates WP:DUE issues. In general, much of the content in both this and blond probably belong in blonde versus brunette rivalry be it views presenting blondes as more attractive or dark hair as more attractive. TylerBurden (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * it seems like your main issue is with the length of the content. I am inclined to agree: I have made too lengthy of a contribution by reporting the details of each study, separately. My proposal is to simply merge this content in to two or three sentences in a single paragraph, which would read like:
 * "In the 1960s and 1970s, research showed that blonde women were over-represented in Western popular media.[1] However, research in Western countries has found that men in western countries generally find dark-haired women more attractive than those with blonde hair, and blonde women may not be over-represented in modern popular media[2][3][4]"
 * Let me know what you think about this proposal. P.S. I still haven't found a single study that actually says blonde women are considered more attractive than brunettes in the general population. Red Book Librarian (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Failures to verify
A great deal of content in this article fails to verify.

Starting with this sentence:

Some studies have shown that men, mainly those of Caucasian descent, find blonde women more attractive than brunettes, redheads, or women of other races who had darker hair, eyes, or complexion.[47][48]

Feinman et al, '78 is linked here. These authors do not anywhere say that men (Caucasian or otherwise) find blonde women more attractive than brunettes, redheads or women of other races. The word blond is written three times in the article, and it does not say in any case that blonde women are more attractive.

On page 47, Table 1, the data for hair color perception is listed. 38% of men "liked" blonde women, while 41% "liked" brunette. 21% liked women with other hair colors. The study says the opposite: most men did not prefer blonde women. Given the dated nature of this research and the fact that it wasn't even peer reviewed, I say we delete it entirely from the article.

Simpson and Douglas, '97 is, just as Feinman, another fabrication. Red Book Librarian (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Blonde stereotype


text:
Talk:Vijay Hazare

Untitled
tried to put in as much as i could find, but couldn't find info about the awards he has got so far. can someone add it if possible? Jam2k 22:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Rewrote some lines to remove inaccuracies :

 * Hazare was not the first Indian captain

 * India's second victory came in 1952/3 not in 1974

 * Many of his firsts for India are not so qualified

 * 316 was not out and 309 was out - not the other way round.

Comments :

Keep an eye on Hazare's 18740 runs and 60 hundreds which are second best to Gavaskar at the moment. Tendulkar is only 500 runs and 2 centuries short.

Tintin 21 Dec 2004

http://cricketarchive.co.uk/cgi-bin/player_oracle_reveals_results2.cgi?playernumber=748&playername=vs%20hazare&playernameexact=&displayplayername=Vijay%20S%20Hazare&team=&teamexact=&opponent=&opponentexact=&captain=&wicketkeeper=&homeawaytype=All&matchtype=All&resulttype=All&startseason=&endseason=&searchtype=InningsList&startscore=&endscore= is a link to all Hazare's first class innings.

http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/f/6/f6181.html is the only higher first class score made in a losing cause.

Left out the specifics about 79.84% as I don't know where it stands now. Glenn Turner bettered it around 1970 and there is atleast one innings from Ranji Trophy in the early 1990s that is better than Hazare's.

Comment : Vivekanand Hazare was usually known as Vivek Hazare.

Tintin 22 Dec 2004

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vijay Hazare


text:
A Tale of Two Kitties

A Tale of Two Kitties is a 1942 Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies cartoon directed by Bob Clampett, written by Warren Foster, and features music by Carl W. Stalling. The short was released on November 21, 1942, and features the debut of Tweety, originally named Orson until his second cartoon, who delivers the line that would become his catchphrase: "I tawt I taw a puddy tat!"

The short was reissued as a Blue Ribbon cartoon on July 31, 1948.

Plot
Two cats, Babbit and Catstello, are looking for food to alleviate their hunger. Babbit gets a ladder when they see a bird. Catstello is at first reluctant, but manages to go up the ladder, where he breaks the fourth wall and makes a direct jab at the movie industry's self-censorship bureau by making a reference to the middle finger ("If the Hays Office would only let me, I'd give him the 'boid,' all right!").

After several failed attempts, Babbit and Catstello construct a makeshift glider and try to swoop down and catch the bird, but the bird reports an air raid, followed by a blackout, and Catstello is shot down. The bird walks by acting as an air raid warden and demanding a "total bwackout", and just as Babbit and Catstello are about to catch him, the bird screams at the cats to turn out the lights.

Production Staff

 * Supervision: Bob Clampett
 * Story: Warren Foster
 * Animation: Rod Scribner
 * Additional Animation: Robert McKimson, Sid Sutherland, Rev Chaney, Virgil Ross
 * Character Designs: Rod Scribner

 * Layouts Artists: Michael Sasanoff, Bob Clampett
 * Backgrounds: Richard H. Thomas
 * Musical Direction: Carl Stalling
 * Producer: Leon Schlesinger

Voice Characterizations

 * Mel Blanc as Catstello, Tweety
 * Tedd Pierce as Babbit

title: A Tale of Two Kitties


text:
No. 4

No. 4 may refer to:

 * The number 4
 * No. 4, a 1966 experimental film directed by Yoko Ono
 * No. 4 (album), by the rock band Stone Temple Pilots
 * No. 4 Commando, Commando regiment in the UK Army
 * No. 4 Squadron RAAF, Royal Australian Air Force squadron
 * No. 4 Squadron RAF, Royal Air Force squadron
 * String Quartet No. 4 (disambiguation), the title of compositions by multiple composers
 * Symphony No. 4 (disambiguation), the title of compositions by multiple composers

title: No. 4


text: User talk:80.202.225.191

title: User talk:80.202.225.191


text:
Rains (band)

Rains is an American rock band from Fort Wayne, Indiana. Formed in 2000, the band was named after founder and leader Jeff Rains. The band has released two studio albums and one EP as of 2019.

History
Hailing from a small town in northern Indiana (U.S.A.), Jeff RAINS understands the meaning of hard work, struggles, and life's challenges. The talented artist is driven, serious, and committed to his beautiful young family and his musical career.

Featuring Joe Schultz on drums, Matt Hopkins on bass, and Jason Anderson on guitar, RAINS commands the stage with a powerful sound and raw emotion that draws the audience in from the first phrase. RAINS is a band for the people, and, it's about time. People need a band to get behind, and, a band to believe in; they need a band that can make them proud. Nothing trendy – something real.

Stories, the debut album from RAINS, offers a window into the heart and soul of “the American Dream.” The expressive lyrics reveal that Jeff Rains is wise beyond his years, a keen observer of life and human behavior. The first single, "Liar", was a Top 15 hit on SiriusXM Octane, with the follow-up singles “Look In My Eyes” and “Pressure” hitting #3 and #1 on SiriusXM Octane and charted in the top 30 on Active Rock Radio. The album has garnered over 20 million streams on Spotify, as well as millions of streams and views on platforms such as YouTube and iTunes.

After 8 years of constant touring with bands such as Five Finger Death Punch and Black Stone Cherry as well as numerous headlining tours, Rains decided to take some time off to focus on his daughter and his tattoo company, as well as begin the writing process for his new album.

Since starting the project at age 15 Rains has been committed to staying an independent artist throughout his career and has stuck to that philosophy with his latest release N.F.D.M.

Rains began recording his new album N.F.D.M at House Of Blues Studios in Nashville TN in March 2019 and released the first single “Ghost” on December 6, 2019. Rains is a multi-instrumentalist and visionary, whose talent is evident with each new album.

Rains will be touring in support of “Ghost” in early 2020.

Band members

 * Jeff Rains

Studio album

 * Stories (Mar 31, 2009)
 * From The Ashes (Jan 14, 2014)
 * N.F.D.M (April 19, 2019)

Singles

 * "Liar" (2010)
 * "Look In My Eyes" (2011)
 * "Pressure" (2012)
 * "Better Man" (2014)
 * "Ghost" (Dec 6 2019)
 * "The Chain (Nov 19 2021)

Music video

 * Look In My Eyes (Nov 5, 2011)

title: Rains (band)


text:
Reseda

Reseda may refer to:

In natural science

 * Reseda (plant), a plant genus also known as mignonette
 * 1081 Reseda, a minor planet that orbits the Sun; named for the Reseda plant genus

Places

 * Reseda, Los Angeles, a neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley of Southern California
 * Reseda Boulevard, a north–south street in western San Fernando Valley; passes through the Reseda neighborhood
 * Reseda (Los Angeles Metro station), a station on the Orange Line of the LACMTA rail transportation system; named for Reseda Boulevard

Colours

 * Reseda green, a shade of greyish green

title: Reseda


text:
Richland Township

Richland Township may refer to:

Arkansas

 * Richland Township, Desha County, Arkansas, in Desha County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Jefferson County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Lee County, Arkansas, in Lee County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Little River County, Arkansas, in Little River County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Madison County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Monroe County, Arkansas, in Monroe County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Newton County, Arkansas, in Newton County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Washington County, Arkansas, in Washington County, Arkansas
 * Richland Township, Yell County, Arkansas, in Yell County, Arkansas

Illinois

 * Richland Township, DeKalb County, Illinois, now Cortland Township
 * Richland Township, LaSalle County, Illinois
 * Richland Township, Marshall County, Illinois
 * Richland Township, Shelby County, Illinois

Indiana

 * Richland Township, Benton County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, DeKalb County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Fountain County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Fulton County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Grant County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Greene County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Jay County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Madison County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Miami County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Monroe County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Rush County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Steuben County, Indiana
 * Richland Township, Whitley County, Indiana

Iowa

 * Richland Township, Adair County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Carroll County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Chickasaw County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Decatur County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Delaware County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Dickinson County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Franklin County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Guthrie County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Jackson County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Jasper County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Jones County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Keokuk County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Lyon County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Mahaska County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Sac County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Story County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Tama County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Wapello County, Iowa
 * Richland Township, Warren County, Iowa, in Warren County, Iowa

Kansas

 * Richland Township, Butler County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Cowley County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Ford County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Hamilton County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Harvey County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Jewell County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Kingman County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Labette County, Kansas, in Labette County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Marshall County, Kansas, in Marshall County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Miami County, Kansas, in Miami County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Ottawa County, Kansas, in Ottawa County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Republic County, Kansas
 * Richland Township, Stafford County, Kansas, in Stafford County, Kansas

Michigan

 * Richland Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan
 * Richland Township, Missaukee County, Michigan
 * Richland Township, Montcalm County, Michigan
 * Richland Township, Ogemaw County, Michigan
 * Richland Township, Saginaw County, Michigan

Minnesota

 * Richland Township, Rice County, Minnesota

Missouri

 * Richland Township, Barton County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Douglas County, Missouri, in Douglas County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Gasconade County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Macon County, Missouri, in Macon County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Morgan County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Ozark County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Putnam County, Missouri, in Putnam County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Scott County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Stoddard County, Missouri
 * Richland Township, Vernon County, Missouri

Nebraska

 * Richland Township, Saunders County, Nebraska

North Carolina

 * Richland Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, in Beaufort County, North Carolina
 * Richland Township, Randolph County, North Carolina, in Randolph County, North Carolina

North Dakota

 * Richland Township, Burke County, North Dakota, in Burke County, North Dakota

Ohio

 * Richland Township, Allen County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Belmont County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Clinton County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Darke County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Defiance County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Fairfield County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Guernsey County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Holmes County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Logan County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Marion County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio
 * Richland Township, Wyandot County, Ohio

Pennsylvania

 * Richland Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
 * Richland Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
 * Richland Township, Cambria County, Pennsylvania
 * Richland Township, Clarion County, Pennsylvania
 * Richland Township, Venango County, Pennsylvania

South Dakota

 * Richland Township, Beadle County, South Dakota, in Beadle County, South Dakota

title: Richland Township


text:
Salem Township

Salem Township may refer to:

Arkansas

 * Salem Township, Greene County, Arkansas, in Greene County, Arkansas
 * Salem Township, Saline County, Arkansas, in Saline County, Arkansas

Illinois

 * Salem Township, Carroll County, Illinois
 * Salem Township, Knox County, Illinois
 * Salem Township, Marion County, Illinois

Indiana

 * Salem Township, Delaware County, Indiana
 * Salem Township, Pulaski County, Indiana
 * Salem Township, Steuben County, Indiana

Iowa

 * Salem Township, Henry County, Iowa

Kansas

 * Salem Township, Allen County, Kansas
 * Salem Township, Cowley County, Kansas
 * Salem Township, Greenwood County, Kansas
 * Salem Township, Sedgwick County, Kansas

Michigan

 * Salem Township, Allegan County, Michigan
 * Salem Township, Washtenaw County, Michigan

Minnesota

 * Salem Township, Cass County, Minnesota
 * Salem Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota

Missouri

 * Salem Township, Daviess County, Missouri
 * Salem Township, Dunklin County, Missouri
 * Salem Township, Lewis County, Missouri
 * Salem Township, Perry County, Missouri

Nebraska

 * Salem Township, Franklin County, Nebraska, in Franklin County, Nebraska

North Carolina

 * Salem Township, Granville County, North Carolina, in Granville County, North Carolina
 * Salem Township, Pasquotank County, North Carolina, in Pasquotank County, North Carolina

New Jersey

 * Salem Township, Salem County, New Jersey, now the city of Salem

Ohio

 * Salem Township, Auglaize County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Champaign County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Columbiana County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Highland County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Jefferson County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Meigs County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Monroe County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Muskingum County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Ottawa County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Shelby County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Tuscarawas County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Warren County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Washington County, Ohio
 * Salem Township, Wyandot County, Ohio

Pennsylvania

 * Salem Township, Clarion County, Pennsylvania
 * Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
 * Salem Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania
 * Salem Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania
 * Salem Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania

South Dakota

 * Salem Township, McCook County, South Dakota, in McCook County, South Dakota
 * Salem Township, Turner County, South Dakota, in Turner County, South Dakota

title: Salem Township