Talk:John Barrymore/Archive 1

Birthday

I have confirmed through Gene Fowler's excellent biography that John Barrymore was born on St. Valentine's Day in 1882. It would seem this page needs correction, and that IMDB had it correct. --BradGoddard 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The confusion stems from a variance in Barrymore's birth records. Both the 14th and the 15th are recorded in various acceptable places, but the 15th seems most likely to be true. This is covered in detail in Damned in Paradise and The House of Barrymore. Monkeyzpop 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"soul searching"

you and the other poster Monkeyzpop have an obvious problem with the term "soul searching". The response and editing seem to come from a religious stance on the term on your parts. I was not referring to anything religious. The use of "soul searching" here is as a matter-of-fact to Barrymore's trip to India. The other poster Monkeyzpop didn't even believe he made the trip to India which shows he has not researched the information he promptly deleted. Nobody can prove if somebody soul searches or not. A person can soul search every day of their lives and nobody can know about it. I referenced this because it is 'implied' in "Damned in Paradise" c.1977 by John Kobler. This is a biography of John Barrymore and I agree with Kobler's implication. For anybody who knows Barrymore history, he and his brother & sister had been told about India as a child by their father Maurice who had been born and bred there(ref: "Great Times Good Times: The Odyssey of Maurice Barrymore" by J. Kotsilibas-Davis c.1977). Furthermore Barrymore himself referenced the adventures told to him, Lionel & Ethel by their dad Maurice. Thank you for helping to build the John Barrymore page by keeping the trip to India text intact. Please Talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason we have a problem with "soul searching" is that it's speculation on your part, which is against the rules. But you're starting in the right direction. You have a book that apparently (1) states that he went to India and (2) suggests some reasons for the trip. You should provide specific citations (i.e. book title, author, publisher and page numbers) to support the above. If the books says it was "soul searching", it's quotable. If not, then you can't use that. But you can present the information that is actually stated in the book and let the reader draw whatever conclusions he wants. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the discussion here. It's strictly about this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the article is now protected. Let's get a consensus on whatever this is about. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely in agreement with Baseball Bugs on this. (And it's ludicrous to suggest that I opposed the entry on grounds of religious belief or on a belief that the trip never occurred. I never said -- or believed -- anything of the kind.) The point I hoped to make is three-fold. 1. Without a citation PLACED IN THE ARTICLE, an assertion as to the mental processes of John Barrymore is unacceptable under WP guidelines. Without a citation, we have only the submitter's word that Barrymore went to India for soul-searching, and that just doesn't cut it in WP. 2. "Soul-searching" is an ambiguous and amorphous term, and an intangible. It cannot be inferred from the subject's actions without something (a citation) to back it up. 3. I concluded that, without the citation to back up the soul-searching part, the soul-searching part needed to be deleted, which left only a statement that Barrymore went to India where his father had been born. In the context of the surrounding material, this now seemed a sort of meaningless triviality without point. Barrymore went many, many places around the world in his life, yet none of them are noted, and anything suggesting in the article that he went to India BECAUSE it was the land of his father's birth would fall under the same rules as the soul-searching, i.e., speculation, if no citation is provided. So I deleted the entire reference, but suggested to the OP that a citation would probably make all well. Instead, the OP tried to cite, after a fashion, in the Edit Summary or in the Talk pages. We're all willing to listen in those places, but the only place a citation counts is IN the article, and it's quite an easy thing to do, especially to one as determined as this person seems to be. (I'm leaving aside the fact that we don't have a cite yet for the trip itself. But that's just me being nice. ;-) Monkeyzpop 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

an assertion to his mental process? He's been dead for 65 years. How the hell are you going to get an assertion to his mental process. You're agreeing with Baseball because he deleted the correct info just like you did, though he kept the India info. You had a problem with the whole text I entered even after I whittled down the Kamasutra reference. hey, you might not like it, Barrymore may be your hero & he's mine as well, but he went into a bordello over there and got a good lesson in love. It's just the truth about him and if he were here he'd probably relish in telling us, nothing to take away from a man you & I admire. This really is well known information about John Barrymore. And you're gonna look silly when you do the research and the info is staring you in your face. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Monkey you don't even make sense. Maybe it's my own fault because obviously Im a lot more researched than both you & BaseBall which is why I have a problem with the earthquake paragraph. But I left that alone as it's another story. Monkey you don't make sense, and you don't have the right to speak for Wikipedia, in that you say "it cannot be inferred from the subject's actions without something( a citation) to back it up." You don't have to, and really can't prove anybody was soul searching as it is more or less a popular phrase. People can soul search just by reading Wikipedia. You might say they need proof and they'll tell you to go to hell. Let's be hypothetical and say I was an author & wrote the same information in a book on JB and I used the term 'soul searching'. Now if you read that and you didn't like the term I used, "soul searching", how would you deal with it? Answer is probably that you wouldn't because if you wrote me in dispute about it, I'd tell you to go "...jump in the lake" and I would never acquiesce to change it in future editions of the book. The usage of the term is not to say he was or he wasn't soul searching. Neither me, Baseball or you can't prove or disprove it. It's to say he COULD'VE been soul searching, hence my change to the text with the word 'perhaps'. He was coming off a divorce, was experiencing a career decline, many a reason why people make far off trips like that. True he went all over the world and the trip to India was the furthest he went from the United States.

I believe every one of the things you say about Barrymore's experiences. You however choose not to submit those statements in the manner WP prescribes. If you did so, your submissions would be accepted, end of argument. But you'd rather argue, apparently. I won't argue further. You may persist in doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results and calling it sanity, but the rest of us have a different definition. Monkeyzpop 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude I've entered countless batches of information in years past to Wikipedia in the manner I did here and it was graciously accepted by others here on this entry and on other entries. Certainly if info is proven wrong, Im humble enough to swallow my pride and admit but I also call others out when they're in error. And it usually works without a hitch all of us working together. Thus my info here has not been proven wrong which is why Baseball decided to stop deleting the India text. I encountered no problems until I ran into you & Baseball fooling with information. So don't go stating "..in the manner Wikipedia prescribes". You can't citation everything, much less someone soul searching, to prove if it is true or false. If so then you have a lifetime's amount of work cut out for you citating everything on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Birthday

John's birthday is listed both as February 14th and 15th on different pages of Wikipedia. Which one is correct and are there any sources with proof?

IMDB has Feburary 14th while Wikipedia has the 15th. I'd also like to know which is correct. Hotwine8 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Billboard June 6 1942 has Feb 15, 1882. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklemetti (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of bad edits?

I don't usually work on this article, but I notice that someone added a series of pretty bad-looking and unreferenced edits here. Someone should review these to see if they should simply be reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.otrcat.com/john-barrymore-p-48564.html

  Triggered by \botrcat\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

It was either John barrymore or Lionel Barrymore who starred in a movie about the angel of death. Barrymore played an old man who trapped the angel of death up a tree and would not let him down . He had a grandson Named Pud. tobrien933@yahoo.com

Barrymore appeared in many films and was a major star in the silent and early sound era. Unfortunately, in the early 1930s, his physical health was very much in decline and thus the last decade of his life onscreen was spent doing character roles.

Daughters

daughters it was Diana not Delores who wrote Too much too soon, and the movie was based on her autobiography.

Evelyn Nesbit: "showgirl" or "chorus girl"?

This article says that Evelyn Nesbit was a "showgirl", but her wikipedia bio page says that she was a "chorus girl" (which does NOT have a wikipedia article.)

So is this article being precise when it calls Evelyn Nesbit a "showgirl"? Or is a "chorus girl" the same as a "showgirl"?

Date of birth

As sources are divided on which day he was born, it behoves us to show both dates (as the ANB does). Koplimek, I hope you agree? - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it defy logic for him to be born one day after his original birth certificate was issued on February 14? OscarL 16:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. From memory I seem to remember he was born at home (although I will have to check that), so the birth could have been reported to the hospital the next day (or a check up at the hospital the next day too). Either way, the sources are split and the most reliable ones show both dates, so we follow suit. – SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How can info on a birth certificate be wrong? It would seem aas the most definitive proof there is. I think we should stick to February 14 but mention in a footnote that Barrymore family bible says the 15th. DrKilleMoff (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• As the sources report two dates, so do we, for all the reasons above. – SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's totally unnessecary when there is a definitive proof in the forms of a birth certificate. It's much more reliable then the Barrymore family bible which is not an official document. It's like OscarLake said above: He can't be born one day after the birth certificate is issued. I'm for reporting two dates if something doesn't weigh above the other, as the birth certificate does in this case. DrKilleMoff (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• We reflect what the sources say, not just decide off our own bat. There is confusion among the biographers which to choose and we reflect that. The Amercian version of the DNB cites both in their article without choosing, and so do we. – SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Article expansion

A small project is on to expand this article into something more suitable for the subject. I plan to add new material and expand or replace some existing material. This may take place over a few weeks or even months and I'd be delighted to hear from anyone who has any useful information of sources that may be of use. Many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

On the most I generally like your restructuring. Only thing too much deletion of external links and as I might have mentioned somewhere before, be wary of quoting John Kobler. A glaring mistake Kobler makes is when he states that Diana's seventh birthday was August 5, 1927.[August 5 1920 was the day her parents married.] Diana was born March 3, 1921 and would have been six years old in 1927. I remember reading Kobler's book over 20 years ago and it was good read. Now that more accurate material has surfaced, some of Kobler's info has to be taken with a grain of salt. Not all but some. Martin Norden's 1995 is a far more accurate source concerning Jack's career. For instance, the actor John Emery was jokingly said to be Barrymore's illegitimate son by Emery's wife Tallulah Bankhead because of 'resemblence'. What Norden tells us is that Emery as a child had actually room-and-board with Barrymore and his first wife Katharine Corri. But SchroCat, I must commend you for your efforts in particular some familiar Barrymore photos uploaded to Commons. Peace, Good Luck. Koplimek (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Komplimek. I agree entirely about Kobler - it's not just the slightly patchy dates he has, but his entire aim was "to put Barrymore back on the pedestal", so he glosses over a lot of Barrymore's actions if he doesn't like them. He is good for quotes and a number of other bits, and he is in line with Norden Morrison and Peters on a number of key points. In terms of the links, I've tried to keep in line with WP:ELNO as much as possible, although I may have been a bit too harsh with one or two (although there were also a couple of deadlinks in there too!)

There is still a bit to do, and I'm working on the press reaction, his legacy and then his portrayals by others before I re-work the lead. That should just about cover it all, and I'll take it to PR and FAC after I've proof read the final thing four or five more times. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Family tree for any other article it might be useful for

Since the tree does not have a consensus for inclusion here I have created the template to easily use and share it on other pages that might be edited by editors here. Template:Barrymore family tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the tree is not appropriate for this article. There is already a (more extensive?) family tree in the Barrymore family article, but it would be better with a more compact formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I am not asking for it to be used here. The consensus on the FAC is clearly to exclude the tree, but there was also interest in it so I made a template and wanted to let editors know it was available if they edit the other article it was suggested were more appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Family tree issues notwithstanding, is there some reason why there is no link from this article to Barrymore family? Seems a shame to leave just the category for readers to find. — Brianhe (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's there in the second sentence of the lead, and the first paragraph of the "Early life" section, although piped on both mentions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gene Barrymore?

Find a Grave claims that Barrymore had an illegitimate son named Gene born in 1915 (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=15537384), and Geni.com even seems to allege that the mother was Evelyn Nesbit http://www.geni.com/people/Geme-Barrymore/6000000006805237135 C'est la vie (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Since when adding a few names to the infobox is "forcing personal preference"? The fact is that as a major contributor of this article, you are probably the one who prefers to keep the infobox in its current format, based on your preferences. I respect your opinion, but may I ask why you insist on removing those names? Keivan.f^Talk 19:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Its your personal preference as this IB has been without the names since 2016 (to the best of my recollection). When you were reverted you should have come here, rather than try and force the issue by re-reverting. We do not need to add lists of names to the box. We have a link to the whole family, so there's is no benefit in adding swathes of other names to duplicate: less is more is a good rule of thumb when it comes to IBs. – SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who started reverting, and the fact that the infobox has been without the names since 2016 doesn't make it forbidden for everyone else to edit it. As I had realized earlier there's no point in this discussion because both of us have opposing views. Probably I should open an RfC and ask what the other users think. Keivan.f^Talk 19:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted first: it's what BRD suggests should happen. What it suggests next is for discussion, not for you to enter into edit warring. If you wish to waste people's time with an RfC, that is entirely up to you. As to your rationale of "Only those whom he hadn't met, like his grandparents", perhaps you should start by reading the article to understand his relationship with, for example, his grandmother, before try and sum up his life in meaningless factoids. – SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course I have already read the article, otherwise I wouldn't have become interested in editing it. "not for you to enter into edit warring" I suppose you don't even know what edit war means then. One revert per 24 hours is not considered an edit war. And as you are already aware, I'm able to open an RfC and ask for the opinions of others. Whether it's a waste of time or not, however, cannot be determined by you. Keivan.f^Talk 21:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You breached BRD: that's edit warring. End of story. Despite your claim to the contrary, I do know what I'm talking about.

If you had bothered reading the article you wouldn't have written "Only those whom he hadn't met, like his grandparents", as his grandmother was the main female role model in his life – something the article makes clear. – SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)