Talk:Garrison Keillor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion

I was just wondering if anyone has hear that Mr. Keillor lives in San Francisco at certain times of the year or owns a home in SF?

Was it really necessary to include a quote that insults republicans? I love Garrison Keillor as much as the next guy, and I respect his views, but I'm sure there's a better quote out there that wouldn't offend so many people and still represent Mr. Keillor.--Nkrosse 20:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

>> Was it really neccesary to include a quote that insults republicans?

In my opinion the quote insulting Republicans is appropriate and relevant to the subject. Garrison Keillor is quite outspoken in his political beliefs and it would present a false image of the man to portray only his gentle, "folksy" side without his more agressive political "humor". Here are some other notable quotes from Mr Keillor:

"I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. Just a little project of mine. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where their citizenship is, in heaven, it's not here among us in America." "A Prairie Home Companion" Radio Show, 6 November 2004

"The American public school, how remarkable it will seem someday. With the introduction of school vouchers, you got to send your kids to schools where they learned the TRUTH - your truth - Our Lady of Sorrows, Foursquare Millennial Gospel, Moon Goddess, Malcolm X, the Open School of Whatever, the Academy of Hairy-Legged Individualism, the School of the Green Striped Tie, you name it, and who could argue with the idea of free choice? - until you stop and think about the old idea of the public school, a place where you went to find out who inhabits this society other than people like you." -- Garrison Keillor (talking about other people's kids), "The Future of Nostalgia," New York Times Magazine, 29 September 1996

"We looked at a public school and decided to send her (instead) to a place where Miss Clavel is still in charge and children proceed in quiet lines into the building covered with vines, and of course, my daughter loves it there." - Garrison Keillor (talking about his own daughter, who attends a private school), “Daughter Dearest,” Time Magazine, 30 August 2004 . --Nobel_Savage 15:15, Jul 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Liberal Democrat?"

I strongly disagree with the labeling of Keillor as a "liberal democrat" (POV?) in the article. It's an overtly arbitrary and poorly-informed act to characterize someone's entire political beliefs with a two word epithet. Listeners and readers of keillor would note that he is "conservative" on many cultural issues. In fact, Keillor states this himself according to an article by Guardian books (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,1163066,00.html) I think the image most see when someone says "liberal democrat" is that of an angry picket-toting morally-ambivalent MIchael-Moore-style fringe man bent on furthering his partisan agenda. This is definitely not the image of Garrison Keillor. The article, if it covers his personal beliefs at all, should give a more comprehensive summary and a wider range of quotes, instead of being lazy and relying on an overused and tired one-sentence label.

Can we at least agree to put back in the fact that he is a democrat, considering the article that the political section links to has him use the phrase "Us Democrats"?

He himself identifies strongly with the term "liberal." see: [1]. Perhaps the modern term "progressive," or just saying that he is liberal (the word he chooses) in his political views. Flowrider 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

also - in the "writing" section - the phrase "doesn't clearly identify as a liberal or conservative" misrepresents the article linked as source material, which is an article extremely critical of President Bush and the modern Republican party. I changed the phrase and left the same link to accurately reflect Keillor's political views. Flowrider 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt what you BELIEVE you are, in terms on politics, matters AT ALL. It's like the truth. Either you are or you aren't.

A two word epithet to sum up a persons political beliefs? Way to simplific. Personally I adhere to both conservative and liberal views on differing ISSUES. For example, I believe in PERSONAL (not corporate) freedom, wich I would believe to be a liberal standpoint. At the same time I believe in social security and universal healthcare, with I would believe to be socialist standpoints. Also, I'm 100% AGAINST gun control and a gun nut. A conservative alt. libertarian standpoint. If that doesn't satisfy... I'm against women having 100% deciding power of abortions. I believe the father should have a say. Defenitely conservative.

I do call myself, social liberal, but if that is a facual summing up of all my political beliefs I highly doubt. HOWEVER, you could call be a "independent voter" since I would vote for independents, as compared to democrats or republicans, if I was eligble to vote in the US elections and if you for some reason needed to know my party affiliation.

The whole ideology vs. issues thing *zzzz*

213.141.89.53 (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any point of view that assesses Garrison Keillor as "liberal" or "conservative", it is a fact that he describes himself frequently on his radio show and in his books as a liberal, and also as a Democrat. See for example page 20 in Homegrown Democrat, where he writes "I am a liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness. Liberals stand for tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, the defense of the weak against the powerful, love of learning, freedom of belief, art and poetry, city life, the very things that make America worth dying for." On page 18 he mentions, "Once we Democrats were young and rebellious and lobbed eggs at the bewigged and berobed ..." (Try using the Search inside this book feature with the words "liberal" and "democrat" on the page http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0670033650/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link .) Citing examples like these, along with the obvious meaning of the book's title, can't we say as an objective fact that Garrison Keiller is a self-described liberal and Democrat? CosineKitty (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

MNspeak.com Controversy

As a current (and growing) event, I felt that this should be included. Calton seems to disagree; opinions on whether this should remain?

I think the MNspeak.com Controversy section should remain. Keillor is the trademark holder of PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION and he has acted officially to restrict MNspeak.com. It is appropriate to report these facts objectively and neutrally in a timely manner. --Fjarlq 20:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a Google search, and the only hits about this so-called cause celebre came from MNspeak.com itself. When it's an actual controversy (say, when it's reported by a news outlet) and not an apparent attempt by MNspeak.com to pump up their Google hits, then it should be included. Wikipedia is not in the business of publicizing MNspeak.com and whatever their cause de jure is. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Try googling "Garrison Keillor" and "MNspeak.com" now - numerous hits, including actual newspapers (TwinCities Pioneer Press, among others). And for what it's worth, though I wrote the original blurb, I have no affiliation with MNspeak.com. In fact, I'd never heard of them until this story came to my attention. Assume good faith. 70.27.71.137 07:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd never even heard of MNspeak until now, and I'm aware of the case. --Spudtater 12:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I [whoops, I wasn't logged in as me, sorry] just changed the language "he [Keillor] sued" to "his lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter" because as of today that is the only formal action that has occurred, per the news stories and MNspeak.com's own discussion. A lawsuit may or may not follow. Personally, I feel there's a slight bias in the current language ("attracted some negative press"; and it's arguable whether "Prairie Ho Companion" is genuinely 'parody' of Keillor's show or its trademarked name), but not quite enough to complain about other than right here. --Dsewell 23:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be dropped - it seems petty and I don't think it is a relevant fact at all. Celebrities have lawyers that look after their trademarks all the time. This could be the 50th time a simple letter has been sent out to someone who has leaned on the trademark of "A Prairie Home Companion". Should we update the entry every time that happens? It does not define Garrison Keillor in any way to say - Garrison Keillor's lawyer did something and it made some news in some blogs online. It really seems like it is information's only function is to tie MNspeak with free advertising via Wikipedia. Doing a google search does not turn up much of any real newspapers besides the TwinCities Pioneer Press, and that story seems to be more about MNspeak than Keillor. Most all the entries are internet blog entries - and are copies of the MNspeak story. rex8 12:06 19 September 2005

It's definately making the blog rounds, which makes it newsworthy, at least IMHO. And lately, the traffic on this psge seems to be completely dedicated to the MNSpeak issue. Rather than get into an edit war, I think it's worth leaving *something* about this - at least while people are interested and the subject is trendy. We've already reduced it down to a sentence. 70.27.71.137 06:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly feel we should have something about this in the article. Our aim is to illuminate, and this particular C-and-D letter, it seems to me, tells us something more about Keillor than simply that he's a businessman trying to protect his interests. Fair disclosure: I used to be something of a fan of his, until this incident; now, I'm not so sure. WMMartin 12:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically all we are saying is Garrison Keillor hired a guy to do a job - and that guy did his job. Should we add a paragraph about how Garrison Keillor's gardener used too much nitrogen on the grass of Keillor's front lawn - and then Keillor received some negative press in the community news bulletin because his grass was brown. Neither of these things are important enough to be in this entry. I also think that leaving something in "while people are interested and the subject is trendy" speaks more to the fact that this line's purpose is for advertising and striking while the iron is hot - not for illuminating anything. Rex8 14:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you're exactly right when you say that Keillor hired a guy to do a job, and the guy did his job as well as he could. The interesting point isn't that the lawyer shot off the letter, but that in the ensuing brouhaha Keillor hasn't said "oops, silly lawyer hasn't got the sense of humor". So far as I know, Keillor hasn't said anything. The illumination comes not from the noise, but from the silence. WMMartin 19:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And this is my point exactly. Keillor might not care or even know about the t-shirts. If a lawyers job is to look after the trademark of his/her client, than that is what he or she does. A lawyer doesn't need to have "the sense of humor" at all. Weather he thinks it is funny or not, he can still send a letter and say - "Keillor wants you to stop making money off of his ideas. And while this might be a parody; I would rather hear it from a judge, than some guy with a blog." This is why I think this entry should be removed. None of this really defines Keillor at all. The silence that is so illuminating to WMMartin could be the fact that the lawyer didn't bother to tell Keillor about the t-shirts, as it was 1 of 20 things that he did for him that day. This is my third edit on this page and I am not going to spend any more time on this. I think if you really look at it - you will see that the brouhaha is all from MNspeak, and this whole entry is nothing more that a bruised ego from a blogger that has a lot of time on his hands. Rex8 07:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Keillor's ethnic background and religion

Garrison Keillor is not Norwegian, he is Scottish. Relevant information corrected in article. --ZekeMacNeil 17:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is Norwegian. Go to this site, search for the word "keillor", and read the paragrpah that mentions him. If you think that site is wrong, go to this site and search for "keillor", then read the paragraph that mentions his name. -Bert Sveen

GK has stated on numerous occasions that he is NOT Norwegian. (Nor is he a Lutheran, btw.) The bulk of his ethnic heritage is Scots-Canadian. Take it from the man himself.--Nkrosse 20:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

He isn't, he told my mom a while ago that he was going to visit relatives in Scotland. 67.232.193.190 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lutheran?

GK is not Lutheran. He is steeped in it though, any semi-ruralite Minnesotan can tell you, much of Minnesota is Lutheran-minded. He pokes good fun of the Lutherans, and the Roman Catholics too.

• • I thought he was Episcopalian. I'll check. aliceinlampyland 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Specifically, Keillor has stated that his family's religious origins were in the Plymouth Brethren, an unusual Protestant sect in which each invididual family is essentially its own denomination-Ken Burch KenBurch 21:18 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In his Lake Wobegon persona he is a member of the "Sanctified Brethren". Saxophobia 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 HMMMMmmmmmmm     Sanctified Bretheren. Was that actually the Separated Bretheren ? Was his family in a "Closed" church ?  Similar to theOld Order Amish ?  If so, it could be the reason you never hear 

anything from Garrison about his parents. He may have had to abandon his family relationships in order to leave that church. I find his mother's name ( Grace Ruth Denham Keillor) listed in the Trott Brook Cemetery in Ramsey Mn. in plot 46 listed as "reserved" and his father's name (John Phillip Keillor Sr.) - apparently dead. Does anyone know what Garrison's relationship with his mother is? 76.2.61.154 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Ro

Well she gave birth to him... 67.232.193.190 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian?

According to the APHC website, Keillor is of Scottish ancestry on both his mother's and father's sides. See Question 3 of the Quiz. Is there any verifiable evidence that he has any Norwegian ancestry? older ≠ wiser 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Garrison Keillor is not of Norwegian ancestry. See this journal article from the University of Virginia: http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2001/winter/nelson-church-on-saturday/ Peer Gynt (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lutheran, Norwegian

So in this talk page there's been a smattering of discussion over Keillor's alleged Norwegianness and Lutheranism. Norwegian he most certainly isn't, so I'm being bold and removing that from the article. As for the Lutheranism, in an article in Christianity Today he says, "I went to a Lutheran church in New York, which I really loved; being Lutheran in New York City is an experience."[2] I guess this qualifies him as having 'been Lutheran,' albeit barely, so I'll leave that alone. Bws2002 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Garrison Keillor is NOT Norwegian-American

Hi there. :)

Garrison Keillor is NOT Norwegian-American. He is of Scottish and English descent and he was raised in a non-Lutheran church. He did, however, grow up, attend college, and work in Minnesota amongst a plethora of descendants of immigrants from Norway, which is how his shtick was inspired. He has discussed this.

Some references regarding his ancestry (the second two references have already been posted by two other users on this page -- a big thank you to them):

1. A journal article from the University of Virginia

2. A short autobiography by Keillor, himself.

3. See Question 3 of the Official Prairie Home Companion Web Site's Quiz on Garrison Keillor

Best Regards, Peer Gynt (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GK Strikes Fear Into His Very Own PHCOMPANIONS

Here's the very latest news from Minnesota about the "shy-ster" prairie poet from Anoka, MN. Once again he throws a scare into his PHCompanions by threatening to leave the Fitzgerald Theater, a venue that Minnesota Public Radio actually BOUGHT for him, saving it from the wrecking ball. His threats come from a long line of artsy pouting and running away. The first time is when he fled with one of his many wives to Denmark over some remark from a local writer. He came back only to pull this stunt again and again. Most of us around here would be glad to see him go, finally, and with no unhappy returns! Of course, Garr is no fool. He has St. Paul-based Minnesota Public Radio in the palm of his lilly-white, limp-wristed hand. Would William Kling fire him? Not likely. He's a cash cow in the MPR nationwide radio network. And he'll pull this phony act again. (Unsigned comment by IP 209.173.230.125)

Links to Wives

I'm new to this and don't really know how to edit anything. However, the links to article on Jenny Lind Nilsson, etc. lead nowhere.

Red links go nowhere because no one has yet created a page with that name. 69.129.36.131 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

external Honda link not working

The link to Grr Grr Advert - Honda - "Hate Something, Change Something, Make Something Better" http://multimedia.honda-eu.com/diesel/Movie.swf doesn't lead anywhere.

This one works: [3] Someone deleted all links to Honda ads, perhaps because they, um, advertise Honda : ) But I'm glad they were on the page back when I saw them, I liked hearing the ad and Garrison's voice. Also, the actual commercial itself isn't very Honda-ish until you see the end. I think some version of the Grr advert should remain, because it's art, beautiful, and voiced over by Garrison Keillor. But that's me. Gaviidae 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

Tried to spruce things up a bit. Other than fleshing out some of the bio, I did remove the quotes. Those are all duplicated at Wikiquote. Really, a few quotes would have been fine, but there was waaaay too long of a list in the article. NickBurns 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone inserted a joke link to that "Face on Mars" thing from 1995, claiming that it looks like Garrison Keillor. I am removing it now. 71.218.153.130 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? It really does look like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pericles626 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Second Coming Republican" redirects here..

I managed to follow a link from Second Coming Republican to this article and I'm puzzled as to why. Presumably there should be a reference somewhere in the article, otherwise this redirection is going to cause confusion as it has done for me. If the article is not amended, I may remove this redirection. I get the impression that it used to be a free-standing artcle that was merged to this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article that was previously there basically contained no reliable sources; see Talk:Second Coming Republican and I don't see the point of merging its info into this article. I'd put it on redirects for discussion but I have to leave soon and I won't have the time until tomorrow. Graham87 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This entry seems very incomplete

This entry seems very incomplete. It's long on Keillor's folksy quotations and short on Keillor's journey into political screedism.

It seems that the writers of this article haven't been long-time listeners, nor have they actually read HOMEGROWN DEMOCRAT in which Keillor calls Republicans "hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. .. .tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, grab-ass executives, gun fetishists, genteel pornographers, nihilists in golf pants."

While claiming that his book describes "the politics of kindness, Keillor also says that Republicans are "criminal" and worse, "evil, deeply evil."

In 1999 Keillor told THE GUARDIAN (London) "Republicans might be heathens out to destroy all we [sic] hold dear; but that doesn’t mean we take them seriously. Or be bitter because they are swine.”

Moreover, Keillor's show predictably departs from its friendly, inclusive, folksy format and dives into bitter political polemic every presidential election cycle. The show immediately following the 2004 election featured Keillor "jokingly" suggesting that Christian conservatives have their voting rights revoked.

I fail to see why entries on conservatives who use inflammatory rhetoric, such as Ann Coulter, contain abundant and lengthy examples of such comments, while secular progressives such as Franken and Keillor enjoy entries that omit their equally incendiary statements and behaviors (all of which are accessible and documented).

I have often used Wikipedia entries (and have directed my four children toward them) when doing research. I have found them to be accurate and very helpful. This entry, however, has caused me to question the integrity of this service and to wonder about, or perhaps simply to recognize, a political bias that distorts the accuracy of information presented.

To maintain credibility, Wikipedia needs to amend its approach to use a more even hand when representing highly outspoken and controversial figures on both sides of the aisle.

Sixbrocks 05:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Above comment relocated here to allow timely archiving, as appropriate. The above comment previously appeared in the "More information about this article..." section, above. Art Smart (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gay Dad Column Controversy

Some mention of the 3/14/07 column should remain in the article, as the perception of homophobia and xenophobia the column creates will stick with Keillor for the rest of his public life.

Frondelet 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a mention of his clarification of the issue - he spefically addressed it and apologized and that is not yet treated here. Flowrider 07:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Question - because I'm fairly new - that entire section appears to be gone, but such does not appear in the edit history.  ??? Flowrider 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because all of you are wimps and haven't added it. 68.0.113.54 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tempests in teapots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.77.78 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That

first paragraph might list the North American element of television stations, television networks, radio stations, radio networks. That paragraph has an anti- North America bias.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

It seems that Keillor has a stalker.[4]--70.253.203.15 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Highland Park "Incident"

Why is a "local controversy", which only seems supported by a rant by a local columnist (not a reporter bound by finding sources, etc) suitable for an encyclopedia. This seems to violate WP:BLP. Oniononion (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He made it national by talking about it in his syndicated column, distributed by Tribune Media Services. It's his own doing. Nova SS (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

sure his comments were national, but there's no proof provided that a "controversy" extends beyond this woman's column in a local paper. is this really encyclopedic, and in compliance with WP:BLP? Oniononion (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Open your eyes. It was well reported in the media and the blogosphere and even was criticized in the United Methodist Reporter. Nova SS (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Lee" :
  • ''Garrison Keillor'', page 30. University Press of Mississippi, 1991.
  • ''Garrison Keillor'', page 32. University Press of Mississippi, 1991.
  • ''Garrison Keillor'', pages 35, 85. University Press of Mississippi, 1991.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Autogyro?

The phrase "while flying an autogyro" in the "Radio" section seems to be nonsense. It was added in July 2008 by Scientizzle, who made some other apparently valid corrections. It doesn't really belong, does it? Commasense (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was probably old vandalism. I've removed it. — Scientizzle 01:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Retiring?

Did GK recently announce he's retiring? I had two people tell me this in the last week. 24.188.207.20 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Close to "Good Article" status?

Is this article close to being worthy of a WP:GA review? It seems to me all it really needs is for the controversies to be relocated elsewhere in the article, or deleted if they're not all that notable. Other thoughts? Academic38 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea – I think that GA is achievable. The controversies section is a mess, although I don't know how best to proceed (although I fully support your recent removal of one particularly unsubstantiated controversy). I looked at the links and none verify any notable controversy as each issue appears fairly typical short-term gossip for a public figure. A "controversy" needs some analysis in a secondary source – not just a news item. I'm torn: many people like gossip; it's not encyclopedic; deleting the section invites controversy here; there's no useful way to integrate any of the material. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Very poor article

This article reads like a press release written by the subject.

As an example, the article does not mention Keillor's feuds with the local media over Ulla Skaerved, his self-imposed "exile" and is curiously silent on certain other related topics. The article is outright dishonest in describing events in 1987 with regard to the radio show. His move to Denmark? His move to New York? How about Ulla's letter to the Startribune where she described how (and when) the marriage actually ended (which is still at odds with other accounts).

The claim that he was ever a Lutheran is very dubious. The article's supposed source is a dead link.

The article should be substantially rewritten to present facts about the subject rather than promoting the subject and his projects. Its unclear why its relivant to include a huge block of text from a Salon.com article thats almost as long as the coverage of his entire life.

70.234.253.242 (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)