![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is this the same Bette Davis mentioned in the Margaret Herrick article ? That article says Bette Davis is/was Academy President and takes/took credit for inventing the name Oscar to refer to the Academy Awards. There is no mention of either of these facts in this article. Jay 15:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have replaced the filmography list with a link to Bette Davis chronology of film and television performances. The filmography list as it existed in this article, was very long and yet it was not complete. Considering Davis was such a major figure in film acting, I think it appropriate that her filmography be complete, and is also worthy of more information that just a list of titles. Therefore I expanded it to include the name of her character, her director and co-stars. This is more complete but it's quite large so to leave it the article would be inappropriate. This way anyone who wants to see the list, need only click on the link. And anyone that does not want to see it, won't need to scroll past it. Rossrs 13:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a fairly major rewrite of the article and I would like to just explain the main changes.
Continuing your romantic edit: The following caption is wrong Bette was filming mr skeffington when her husband died she returned to the set either a week of fortnight after his death, she did not film the entire picture after his death; you may like to correct this. "Davis filmed Mr. Skeffington (1944) shortly after the death of her husband. The difficult production was marred by Davis's reported erratic behavior and was followed by some negative reviews of her performance."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.133 ( talk) 11:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Davis was referred to as the fourth, and not the fifth. The term is used in the James Spada bio that is cited in references, and derives from a quote attributed to Davis herself. At the time of Davis's success there were 3 Warner Brothers - Sam Warner died in 1927 before Davis started acting. "Fifth" is numerically correct, but she was never called this. Hence the quotation marks. Rossrs 08:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda new to Wiki and wondering if the following link would be appropriate to the external links or not. [http ://jayparrino.com/Store/Search.aspx?&key=%20Bette%20Davis Photos of Bette Davis]. Our site does sell a product but we have hundreds of original Bette Davis photos posted that are relevant to the article and would probably be of interest to researchers. I've seen similar type links but I'm looking for guidance as to what's considered appropriate. Thank you. --mmg Mmgphotos 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
These people are jerks. They do not allow fansites to be posted. They allow people to edit their page, but not add useful links for people to view. I do not know why, it is pretty stupid if you ask me. And they ASK people to send them money for donations and they cant even allow them to post links up on their page?? Most of the time, things they put on here is not accurate. Try and change it and they remove it. These people running this thing are so stupid. I would not pay anything into this site, as it is not beneficial and they remove any ACCURATE sites and information you put on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1973 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed "Warner Brothers" in the text to "Warner Bros." which is the studio's official spelling. "Warner Brothers," therefore, should only be used when talking about the brothers themselves. Jimknut 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont know ho removed the section i added yesterday but It was vital to understanding the downward spiral bette went through durting the last leg of her warner bros. career and then her massive comeback in all about eve - when everybody thought her career was over. The roles she missed out on illustarate the importance of all about eve and the mistakes she made and the restrictions jack warner enforced on her. E.g beyond the forest.
I shall reinstate this section as it is important and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.133 ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with several of your points, such as a 'lead in' or 'lead out', also It should have the same tone as the rest of the article and perhaps the pictures are unnecessary. However, I do think that it is important in the context of her career at this time, to mention roles she missed out on and the films which she instead made. When I personally found out about theses parts which could have continued her success into the late 1940s I wanted to find out more- thats why i placed them in the article - to inform. Yes, we cant mention everything she 'did' but we cant gloss over the four pictures that were failures during the end of her warner bros. career. This section may be more trivia, but it is still important, as if these films had been made combining in some cases both Crawford's and Davis' appeal they would have been extremely successful. Hence maintaining Davis position. I also feel that the period of her life from 1938-1944 should be divided in this article from that of 1945-49 as this marked her decline; until her comeback. Perhaps an altered Lost warner roles acould be amalgamated with a 1945-49 section outlining the films she made then and the decline of her appeal as well as the films she didnt make or 'missed out on'. I think that this article should be based on fact and inform those who are unaware of Bette Davis, but i do think that this should also be for fans to find out something more about Bette that they didnt know before. Not just to inform in a basic and simple manner to those who were oblivious to her before reading this article. I have also commented on a mistake about the filming of mr.skeffington in the 'Edit' section of discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.133 ( talk) 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes its definitly a start. I would agree that Time to sing is the least important to include as it was never made and if it had been i doubt that a musical with joan crawford and bette davis would have been very good. But possessed and the african queen should be mentioned for the reasons you outlined above. I have a source for the african queen, and for possessed being written for davis. Caged could also be mentioned - a if it had been a joint vehicle for crawford and davis it would have been likly to be a success following on from joans appeal in Humeresque / possessed and davis' in a stolen life. I dont think the period 1943-1949 was all missery, there have been suggestions that davis wanted farnsworth dead anyway - and she was having an affair with vincent sherman at the time he died. Also her third marriage and birth of her daughter were high popints in her life until they became estranged in the late forties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.33 ( talk) 12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i have edited the article I think it both reads well and has increased the amount of informative material on Davis without overloading the reader. Let me know what you think Rossrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.25 ( talk) 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Im glad you like the edits. It would be good to get a beyond the forest image to contrast the image of margo channing. I think that the two main reasons for the mary todd lincoln pictures cancelation are that Warner simply didn't like biographies and that he thought it was unpartriotic. I doubt that he would not have made it becaused of financial concern, I dont think any biography ive read states that; what one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.25 ( talk) 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes i remember reading that the project was shelved. I really do find these 'lost roles' so interesting. Had Davis starred in a stark prison drama along side crawford -that tension from what ever happened to baby jane but in a warner bros 1940s film noir, melodrama when they where at the height of their fame and power- or possessed playing a schizophrenic, or insane mary todd lincoln or in the tragic ethan frome where she attempts suicide, then they could have been some of the best films she would have ever made. Have you seen that there is a new biography coming out soon called 'Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis by Ed Sikov'. Also there is a joan crawford biography coming out in february written by charlotte chandler called 'Not the Girl Next Door: Joan Crawford, a Personal Biography'. It will make an interesting comparison to her Davis biography 'the girl who walked home alone.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.175.31 ( talk) 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I hereby propose that Harmon Nelson be merged into this article. Essentially, Harmon is much less notable than Bette; any news article involving him revolves around her, which means he lacks the independent third-party mentions required to establish notability on his own. A recent AfD on a similar article ended with this result, and I'd like to resolve the issue without taking it that far. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) Tell me what you think! 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would rather the ham nelson article was not merged - as he is a different person after all. Besides the Davis article is so long already lets not add anything unecessary or pariferal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.17 ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As no expert on Davis' career, I am loath to make a change without support that I am correct in thinking that she was known as the fifth, opposed to the fourth, warner brother. This is what is cited on the official Bette Davies website, as well as the IMDB. 78.145.81.28 ( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article refers to a cavalcade but I think the intended meaning is cabaret. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I never actually wrote that Bette's cigarette smoking, which was pretty much every moment she was awake, caused her death. What I did write, and stand by, was that while the jury was out about smoking during Davis's heyday, we now know the correlation between cigarettes and breast cancer. How, I ask, can you have a section called "Illness and Death" and overlook, so to speak, the two-ton elephant in the room? Now, if you remove the very neutral edit I put in about Davis's breast cancer and tobacco, if you have real ingegrity, then you will go right to the article about Steve McQueen and remove the reference to exposure to asbestos; then you will go right over to the article about Johnny Carson and remove the reference to chain-smoking. I could go on... User:Professor Von Pie 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to concede that the Mayo and Science Daily articles did put the emphasis on women with specific genes markers and/or hormone replacement therapies. Okay. But here's one that is completely free from that:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/31298.php
The WebMD article does employ the word "controversial," but that, I feel, does not merit its disqualification, because everything- and I mean EVERYTHING - is open to "controversy," as defined in any standard dictionary. Just in yesterday's paper, it was reported that a mother and father, instead of taking their young child in for medical treatment for Type 1 diabetes (which is treatable and should never be fatal), they prayed for the child. Naturally, the child died and the matter is now in the courts. But I assure everyone, the matter is controversial. Of course, you will find people who would argue that prayer is as good, if not better, than standard medicine, and praying to God is more effacacious than relying upon doctors. Another controversial issue, raised by Ronald Reagan: trees cause more pollution than cars. Yes, he said it, and some would argue on both sides. My point is that an issue merely being controversial, in itself, doesn't mean both sides of the controversy are equal or should be viewed by reasonable people as equal.
I never said Johnny Carson died of cancer. He died of respiratory failure due to emphysema. He did say that cigarettes were "killing" him, but here I ask: Why not remove that from his article? Where's the proof? Of course, I say this facetiously, but here's the difference between Carson and Davis regarding their cigarettes: Carson knew they were killing him, and his quote is included in his article; Davis DIDN'T know they were killing her, so it's not to be mentioned?
I don't understand why nothing less than an article that states, "Bette Davis died from cigarettes" will suffice, when no article will ever state, "Steve McQueen died from asbestos exposure," and no article will ever state, "Johnny Carson died from chain-smoking," but both wiki articles mention exposure to asbestos and cigarettes (killing Carson, in his own opinion), respectively. I never claimed this reference existed: "Bette Davis's Breast Cancer Due to Decades of Chain-Smoking." All I stated, and attempted to reference, is the current knowledge based on scientific research, that cigarette smoking greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer, genetic predisposition or not. I see no compelling reason to overlook that. User:Professor Von Pie 03:04 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to make a career out of this article, so I'll get off the train here. But first I'll say that although Davis died at age 81, above the statistical table for white American females, she was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 73. It is a specious argument to say that since Davis died at 83, we should therefore rule out non-natural causes, ie tobacco, alcohol use. I'll go even a step further: the world's oldest-living woman, Jeanne Calment, smoked almost to the end of her life, and only stopped because she became blind, couldn't light her own cigarettes, and was embarrased to ask for assistance. We are not talking about moderate or even heavy smoking as most reasonable people who define it where Davis is concerned. We are talking about ingestion of tobacco to an extraordinary limit for a remarkably long length of time. If there is no way to broach the topic as adults, "featured" article or not, and say, "here are the facts vis-a-vis Davis's trademark habit," then I suppose there's no way. User:Professor Von Pie 05:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Cosmetics? Then Joan Collins would have been dead by the third season of "Dynasty." ;-) User:Professor Von Pie 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Profferor Von Pie "If there is no way to broach the topic as adults, "featured" article or not, and say, "here are the facts vis-a-vis Davis's trademark habit," then I suppose there's no way," the issue is not addressing the topic as "adults" the issue is the fact that this sort inclusion is both commentary, and bias, and a violation of wiki editing policy.
If you want to include that sort of information it has to be relevant to the article, for instance if you were to find a news article stating, or even speculating, about this being the cause of her death, it would be perfectly appropraite to include provided you sourced the inclusion.
But lets not kid ourselves here, she was 83, alot of people, at the time of her death, and in her age group died at that age, in fact alot of people still do, besides the life expectancy and median age rate was shorter even just twenty years ago for elderly people. Its equally possible her time was just up. 216.201.48.26 ( talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this is an old topic, but I get very incensed when people try to project science the way they wish to and my being a nurse only makes that worse. The end result is that Bette Davis' cause of death was breast cancer. It does not say smoking. I'm actually quite familiar with all the studies and the bottom line is that nothing is conclusive. We can link a number of factors to breast cancer and the coincidence that she smoked may be only that. Good grief I can't stand it when people try to scientifically politicize articles!!! MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Happy 100th birthday, Bette, wherever you are. -- JackofOz ( talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy 100th Birthday, Ms. Davis. I meant to mention this on April 5, 2008. I recently visited you at your grave in Los Angeles. I will always love you. 20yearoldboyfromNY ( talk) 02:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are there tanks at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 ( talk) 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed them now their is a row and columns 4 by 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 ( talk) 12:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did the tanks go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.132.249 ( talk) 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Never heard such a prize, btw campione d'italia is a town and the link itself redirects to the page of that town... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.100.221 ( talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions this movie to be Bette Davis' most successful film up to that point, while the very basic article on the movie itself states it was not a box office success. Surely Bette Davis movies before this one were successful, as regardless of her acting skills she'd have been jobless if was box office poison like some of her peers... Can someone who has that information correct whichever article needs correcting. Dollvalley ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the link to Rootsweb. The actual pages at Rootsweb are written by any amateur genealogist. Rootsweb is not so much the "publisher" as the "hoster", the pages are not vetted, or reviewed by any editor. So these links are no better than a blog posting. Perhaps someone can find a page written and signed by a prominent genealogist on her. Wjhonson ( talk) 04:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed her from "Female writers" and "American novelists". She is in the category "American memoirists" which seems the most specific and correct category to put her in for her work on her autobiographical material. That is more of a "child" category and "female writers" is more of a parent category so it's redundant to have her in both". I'm making that call in good faith, but I'm not 100% sure of that, so I'm happy to be reverted on that, if someone explains why. I'm certain however that she does not belong in "American novelists" as she never wrote a novel. Her writing was only in relation to her contributions to three autobiographical works. Rossrs ( talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not listed in her IMDb credits, but it's been popping up online. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.16.234 ( talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
this was called hotel it was not picked up by the network, although i have read that bette said spelling offered her millions to return and film the entire series, this was 1982, so just before her stroke in 1983— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.113.179 ( talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the order these two films are mentioned ought to be switched, as I seem to remember audiences loving a "new look bette davis" in june bride following her maternity leave in 1947.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.113.179 ( talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone identified as 71.71.83.199 recently took down several Bette Davis photos from Wikipedia Commons on this site with no explanation. Upsmiler ( talk) 21:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I just notice that Davis is part of the LGBT Studies portal? What on earth? -- Lobo512 ( talk) 09:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I must point out a big mistake. There is a photo of Davis in "A Stolen Life" (1946) that states "In A Stolen Life (1946), one of the unsuccessful films Davis made in this period". As it says in the article and in most of Davis' biographies, "A Stolen Life" (1946), was her biggest box office success at that time. The film received mixed reviews but Davis' performances (she played twins) was hailed. The first of her unsuccessful films was "Deception" (1946),followed by "Winter Meeting" (1948), "June Bride" (1948) and "Beyond the Forest" (1949) which all lost money and received mixed to poor reviews. -- Mircea romania ( talk) 01:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Serbian article is mindblowing! Shame on you! :)) -- 93.86.149.243 ( talk) 11:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is it very odd to mention that she had several abortions while married to her first husband? It just doesn't seem to fit the context of an encyclopedic biography—far too personal and irrelevant to her notability. Phiwum ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has a great lack of references to be highlighted. I think it should be reassessed.-- Nhriber ( talk) 02:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Prepared this in case anyone wants to use it for this article. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
anybody have any objections to using this new photo?
frankly, the current one is nothing more than a less than superb, less than flattering, screengrab from a trailer; both are in public domain; apparently some unregistered user has a problem w/ the suggested one. i personally don't see why any classic actor/actress should be using 'grabs' from trailers when plenty of high quality studio released portraits exist in the public domain. P.s. ( talk) 15:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is bad enough that the word "iconic" is used constantly, but now there are degrees of "iconic" as in "most iconic"? Come on, that's bad writing.
As to smoking, it was known in the 1930s that cigarettes were bad for health; that's why cigs were called "coffin nails." The article doesn't need to make a causal connection, just note that Bette Davis smoked heavily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 ( talk) 23:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Give me a break. Since when is the use of a standard honorific acceptable Wikipedia style? I'm deleting its inexplicable use in this article. fishhead64 ( talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the recently added "famously distinct eyes" descriptor belong in the first sentence of the lede? This is a question, not a criticism; I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more appropriate in the second lede paragraph, following "forceful and intense style". I also wonder if something like "strikingly piercing" wouldn't be more specific (and descriptive) than "famously distinct". Again, I'm asking, suggesting -- not telling. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 23:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, reading the article, I agree with the vast majority of it—with the exception of Davis's appearance. Is there something wrong with me? Everyone keeps saying she's plain but I think she's rather beautiful. What the hell??!!? Is everyone blind? Apparently so, since this is the country which had Clara Bow as a sex symbol (no offense Ms. Bow). -- Monochrome_ Monitor 01:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is currently rated as a Featured Article, but a cursory glance through shows that it does not meet the actual criteria for being rated as such. Most problematically, there are sentences and paragraphs dotted throughout the article that are not in any way cited. I can see that this article was awarded FA status back in November 2006 (almost ten years ago), when Wikipedia's standards for FA were a lot more lax; while it might have passed then, it would not pass now. The editor who brought the article up to FA status has only made one edit on the encyclopaedia since 2011 and thus does not appear to be active here anymore. Unless there are any objections, my suggestion is that this article be considered for Featured article review with the ultimate possibility of de-listing. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Bette Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The article states that William Wyler wanted her to play the role in imitation of Tallulah Bankhead, and Miss Davis disagreed. Here is what Miss Davis wrote herself:
"Gregg Toland was the cameraman and Mr. Wyler was again my director. This was the first time we were not in accord with the concept of the character I played. We fought bitterly. I had been forced to see Tallulah Bankhead’s performance. I had not wanted to. A great admirer of hers, I wanted in no way to be influenced by her work. It was Willie’s intention that I give a different interpretation of the part. I insisted that Tallulah had played it the only way it could be played. Miss Hellman’s Regina was written with such definition that it could only be played one way."
Davis, Bette. The Lonely Life: An Autobiography (Kindle Locations 3202-3203). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition. -- 108.245.41.109 ( talk) 02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Bette Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The article lists a couple of boarding schools Bette Davis attended in her younger years, one called Crestalban in Lanesboro (aka "Lanesborough", depending on whether you enter the town from the Pittsfield entrance to the south, or Lanesborough if you enter from the New Ashford or Chershire entrances to the north), and Cushing Academy in Ashburnham, but fails to mention another that she attended, which was Northfield Mount Hermon. Quite some time ago I noted the Northfield Mount Hermon connection because a close friend of mine was a Northfield alum (his classmates included the sons of writers Saul Bellow and John Irving). I have found a definitive citation that this was true about Bette Davis on Northfield Mount Hermon's own Prominent Alumni page, under the Historic Figures category (rather than under the Arts and Literature category). Since the citation says she attended in 1927, Davis would have been 19 years old. [1] I can't determine whether Davis graduated or only attended, since the definition of "alumni" could mean either. giggle ( talk) 17:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's sourced, yet it's trivial, and I don't think you want to argue that the info is significant or even relevant. The section "Reception and legacy" captures the essence of her legacy, significance, and influence. Minor trivial information don't belong here. Keivan.f Talk 23:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Per news article about the inquiry into husbands death, Farnsworth had fallen down stairs two months prior and hit his head, which could have started the small bleed in the head that caused his fall. Author only eludes to Davis not having recollection of any injuries two weeks prior. It was highly likely and presumed that the skull fracture bled slowly until that fateful day. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=DNLA19430828&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-autopsy+arthur+farnsworth-------1 67.0.54.32 ( talk) 20:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The info in the lead section/introduction keeps being changed to include what seem to be irrelevant details for an article introduction- I edited the article to remove a section a few days ago (without an account- I created an account yesterday) but the section was reinstated with the explanation that this was not an adequate reason for removal, and to discuss this on the talk page. I'm very new to editing so I may well be wrong but the current state of most of the lead seems disjointed, not to mention lacking wikilinks and some sentences that read clunkily. I've seen that a number of other users have left messages for on the user talk page of the person who has made these edits, but it is still happening so thought I'd post this.
Toadheart ( talk) 16:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
On 4 August 2022 14:44 User:Billsmith60 Changed the start of the Introduction from "Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis was an American actress..." to "Ruth Elizabeth Davis was an American actress..." with the explanation "Removed dimunitive name".
Does anyone know the policy for the intro opening, where a person is known universally by their diminutive name?
Comparable Wikipedia instances seem to vary, eg no diminutive include: Fred MacMurray is "Frederick Martin MacMurray", Burt Reynolds is "Burton Leon Reynolds Jr."; whereas with diminutive include: Groucho Marx is "Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx", and Bing Crosby is "Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr." Masato.harada ( talk) 08:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial.As "Bette" is not a common hypocorism of "Elizabeth" it should remain. In any case it was incorrect to remove the name from the text but leave the IPA pronunciation. CodeTalker ( talk) 15:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography para 2.6 concerning hypocorisms gives the example of Bill Gates, and says:
That seems to mean you should use the article's title to show the diminutive name, and that the introduction should show the birth name without the hypocorism, so that User:Billsmith60's amendment was correct. I am now confused. Is the difference that her name is spelled "Bette" rather than the common "Betty"?
Masato.harada ( talk) 15:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey.The guideline for article titles is at WP:NICKNAME. Somewhat confusingly, it uses the same Bill Gates example there to illustrate a different point, that a nickname in quotes should almost never be included in the article title. In this case, the spelling "Bette" is an uncommon nickname, and that is also the name she is most commonly known by, so the title should be "Bette Davis" (per WP:NICKNAME) and the first sentence should identify her as "Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis" (per MOS:NICKNAME). The fact that "Bette" is a hypocorism of her middle name rather than her first name probably also weighs in favor of including the hypocorism in the text. CodeTalker ( talk) 16:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I’ve lately been seeing some pretty hideous AI edited images of Bette being put in the infobox. I think we should just settle this now.
Here are 4 images I am proposing that we could use for the infobox which don’t have that hideous AI editing:
1)
2)
3)
4)
What do you guys think? Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 06:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Since there has been no other response as of now and the most voted photo is option 4, I will go ahead and make the change. Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I hope we’re all in agreement that we should not be using an AI edited, colourised photo here. Assuming agreement on that, the discussion in August 2022 was about which of 4 monochrome images we should use. I voted for a ‘mature’, mid-career image, given the length of her career. Since no-one else voted, User:Dancingtudorqueen (who had asked for views and presumably did not oppose) made the change. User:Shshshsh thinks this is image not ‘flattering’, and prefers one which had been in place previously, showing her ‘in her prime’, by which he presumably means younger (around 27). He says that if we do not reach agreement, he'll take it to WP:RfC. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, although I still think the mid-career image is more representative. Can others please join this discussion? Masato.harada ( talk) 11:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't contribute to Wikipedia, so I won't alter it as to not make any errors on Bette Davis' profile. Under the part where she married Harmon Oscar Nelson, it states a citation is needed. It was cited in the book "Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis" by Ed Sikov. 2603:8000:7000:2FA8:39D4:194E:60D5:527C ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
A user has consistently removed cited information on this page regarding Bette Davis' involvement in the Hollywood Canteen claiming the sources as "unverifiable."
This is the information I've provided:
In 1942, Davis and John Garfield co-founded the Hollywood Canteen at 1451 Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood. The Canteen offered food, dancing and entertainment for servicemen and was staffed by members of the entertainment industry.
Serving as the President of the Canteen, Davis dictated the racial integration policy and ruled the dance floor should not be segregated after questions were raised if white soldiers could dance with black volunteers.
In 1983, Davis received the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the Department of Defense for her work with the Hollywood Canteen.
She appeared as herself in the film Hollywood Canteen (1944), which used the canteen as the setting for a fictional story. Warner Bros. donated 40% of proceeds from the film to both the Hollywood Canteen and the Stage Door Canteen in New York.
Citations:
Stern, Julia (2021). Bette Davis Black and White. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 8. ISBN 9780226813868.
Sikov, Ed (2008). Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 210–211. ISBN 978-0-8050-8863-2.
Considine, Shaun (January 25, 2017). Bette & Joan: The Divine Feud (Ebook ed.). Graymalkin Media. ISBN 978-1-63168-107-3.
The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States: Feature Films, 1941-1950. F4. University of California Press. 1999. p. 1071. ISBN 9780520215214.
Graham, Sheila (December 20, 1942). "Hollywood Canteen Joy To Many Lonely Lads: Started By Bette Davis and John Garfield and Enthusiastically Supported By All the Stars in the Movie Capital, It Is the Mecca For Every Soldier and Sailor Passing Through". The Hartford Courant. pp. A15. Retrieved August 5, 2023. [ https://www.proquest.com/docview/559727344/D32333E1844B43A5PQ/4?accountid=3783)
Bette Davis Overrules Objection To Mixed Couples At Hollywood Canteen". The Pittsburgh Courier. January 16, 1943. p. 21. ( [2]
"Davis Reelected Canteen Prexy". The Hollywood Reporter. February 9, 1945. p. 5. [3]
"Medal is given to Bette Davis". The Baltimore Sun. June 13, 1983. [4]
I see a couple of you are making some sort of a "deal" on how to word content that was in question due to questionable sources and an editor's perceived connection with the subject. I will address that last part later. However, I am not a party to the deal that was made and I should tell you now that starting tomorrow, (I hope), I am going to go over this article with a fine-tooth comb, putting this article in proper encyclopedia/Wikipedia style and slashing the extreme bloat that has overwhelmed this article. I will also be checking sources very carefully. As a result, the content that will survive will be the facts, and only facts that can be supported by a proper, respected, third-party publisher.
I simply glanced over the article and can easily see how incredibly bloated this article is. It is structured chronologically like a biography would be instead of being written in encyclopedia style. Tomorrow, I hope to jump into profoundly editing this article to bring it into proper encyclopedia style. I hope there are no editors who have attached themselves to and held court over this article. Such an editor would probably find my bold edits painful, but I am keeping a positive mind that such a transgression will not occur. We are not supposed to get so connected to an article that we start feeling some kind of ownership over them. My only interest in this article is to bring it into proper encyclopedia style and proper Wikipedia style. Of course, I am happy to work together with any editors who want to join me in this project. 69.180.218.186 ( talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is this the same Bette Davis mentioned in the Margaret Herrick article ? That article says Bette Davis is/was Academy President and takes/took credit for inventing the name Oscar to refer to the Academy Awards. There is no mention of either of these facts in this article. Jay 15:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have replaced the filmography list with a link to Bette Davis chronology of film and television performances. The filmography list as it existed in this article, was very long and yet it was not complete. Considering Davis was such a major figure in film acting, I think it appropriate that her filmography be complete, and is also worthy of more information that just a list of titles. Therefore I expanded it to include the name of her character, her director and co-stars. This is more complete but it's quite large so to leave it the article would be inappropriate. This way anyone who wants to see the list, need only click on the link. And anyone that does not want to see it, won't need to scroll past it. Rossrs 13:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a fairly major rewrite of the article and I would like to just explain the main changes.
Continuing your romantic edit: The following caption is wrong Bette was filming mr skeffington when her husband died she returned to the set either a week of fortnight after his death, she did not film the entire picture after his death; you may like to correct this. "Davis filmed Mr. Skeffington (1944) shortly after the death of her husband. The difficult production was marred by Davis's reported erratic behavior and was followed by some negative reviews of her performance."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.133 ( talk) 11:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Davis was referred to as the fourth, and not the fifth. The term is used in the James Spada bio that is cited in references, and derives from a quote attributed to Davis herself. At the time of Davis's success there were 3 Warner Brothers - Sam Warner died in 1927 before Davis started acting. "Fifth" is numerically correct, but she was never called this. Hence the quotation marks. Rossrs 08:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda new to Wiki and wondering if the following link would be appropriate to the external links or not. [http ://jayparrino.com/Store/Search.aspx?&key=%20Bette%20Davis Photos of Bette Davis]. Our site does sell a product but we have hundreds of original Bette Davis photos posted that are relevant to the article and would probably be of interest to researchers. I've seen similar type links but I'm looking for guidance as to what's considered appropriate. Thank you. --mmg Mmgphotos 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
These people are jerks. They do not allow fansites to be posted. They allow people to edit their page, but not add useful links for people to view. I do not know why, it is pretty stupid if you ask me. And they ASK people to send them money for donations and they cant even allow them to post links up on their page?? Most of the time, things they put on here is not accurate. Try and change it and they remove it. These people running this thing are so stupid. I would not pay anything into this site, as it is not beneficial and they remove any ACCURATE sites and information you put on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1973 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed "Warner Brothers" in the text to "Warner Bros." which is the studio's official spelling. "Warner Brothers," therefore, should only be used when talking about the brothers themselves. Jimknut 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont know ho removed the section i added yesterday but It was vital to understanding the downward spiral bette went through durting the last leg of her warner bros. career and then her massive comeback in all about eve - when everybody thought her career was over. The roles she missed out on illustarate the importance of all about eve and the mistakes she made and the restrictions jack warner enforced on her. E.g beyond the forest.
I shall reinstate this section as it is important and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.133 ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with several of your points, such as a 'lead in' or 'lead out', also It should have the same tone as the rest of the article and perhaps the pictures are unnecessary. However, I do think that it is important in the context of her career at this time, to mention roles she missed out on and the films which she instead made. When I personally found out about theses parts which could have continued her success into the late 1940s I wanted to find out more- thats why i placed them in the article - to inform. Yes, we cant mention everything she 'did' but we cant gloss over the four pictures that were failures during the end of her warner bros. career. This section may be more trivia, but it is still important, as if these films had been made combining in some cases both Crawford's and Davis' appeal they would have been extremely successful. Hence maintaining Davis position. I also feel that the period of her life from 1938-1944 should be divided in this article from that of 1945-49 as this marked her decline; until her comeback. Perhaps an altered Lost warner roles acould be amalgamated with a 1945-49 section outlining the films she made then and the decline of her appeal as well as the films she didnt make or 'missed out on'. I think that this article should be based on fact and inform those who are unaware of Bette Davis, but i do think that this should also be for fans to find out something more about Bette that they didnt know before. Not just to inform in a basic and simple manner to those who were oblivious to her before reading this article. I have also commented on a mistake about the filming of mr.skeffington in the 'Edit' section of discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.133 ( talk) 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes its definitly a start. I would agree that Time to sing is the least important to include as it was never made and if it had been i doubt that a musical with joan crawford and bette davis would have been very good. But possessed and the african queen should be mentioned for the reasons you outlined above. I have a source for the african queen, and for possessed being written for davis. Caged could also be mentioned - a if it had been a joint vehicle for crawford and davis it would have been likly to be a success following on from joans appeal in Humeresque / possessed and davis' in a stolen life. I dont think the period 1943-1949 was all missery, there have been suggestions that davis wanted farnsworth dead anyway - and she was having an affair with vincent sherman at the time he died. Also her third marriage and birth of her daughter were high popints in her life until they became estranged in the late forties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.33 ( talk) 12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i have edited the article I think it both reads well and has increased the amount of informative material on Davis without overloading the reader. Let me know what you think Rossrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.25 ( talk) 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Im glad you like the edits. It would be good to get a beyond the forest image to contrast the image of margo channing. I think that the two main reasons for the mary todd lincoln pictures cancelation are that Warner simply didn't like biographies and that he thought it was unpartriotic. I doubt that he would not have made it becaused of financial concern, I dont think any biography ive read states that; what one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.25 ( talk) 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes i remember reading that the project was shelved. I really do find these 'lost roles' so interesting. Had Davis starred in a stark prison drama along side crawford -that tension from what ever happened to baby jane but in a warner bros 1940s film noir, melodrama when they where at the height of their fame and power- or possessed playing a schizophrenic, or insane mary todd lincoln or in the tragic ethan frome where she attempts suicide, then they could have been some of the best films she would have ever made. Have you seen that there is a new biography coming out soon called 'Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis by Ed Sikov'. Also there is a joan crawford biography coming out in february written by charlotte chandler called 'Not the Girl Next Door: Joan Crawford, a Personal Biography'. It will make an interesting comparison to her Davis biography 'the girl who walked home alone.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.175.31 ( talk) 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I hereby propose that Harmon Nelson be merged into this article. Essentially, Harmon is much less notable than Bette; any news article involving him revolves around her, which means he lacks the independent third-party mentions required to establish notability on his own. A recent AfD on a similar article ended with this result, and I'd like to resolve the issue without taking it that far. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) Tell me what you think! 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would rather the ham nelson article was not merged - as he is a different person after all. Besides the Davis article is so long already lets not add anything unecessary or pariferal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.17 ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As no expert on Davis' career, I am loath to make a change without support that I am correct in thinking that she was known as the fifth, opposed to the fourth, warner brother. This is what is cited on the official Bette Davies website, as well as the IMDB. 78.145.81.28 ( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article refers to a cavalcade but I think the intended meaning is cabaret. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I never actually wrote that Bette's cigarette smoking, which was pretty much every moment she was awake, caused her death. What I did write, and stand by, was that while the jury was out about smoking during Davis's heyday, we now know the correlation between cigarettes and breast cancer. How, I ask, can you have a section called "Illness and Death" and overlook, so to speak, the two-ton elephant in the room? Now, if you remove the very neutral edit I put in about Davis's breast cancer and tobacco, if you have real ingegrity, then you will go right to the article about Steve McQueen and remove the reference to exposure to asbestos; then you will go right over to the article about Johnny Carson and remove the reference to chain-smoking. I could go on... User:Professor Von Pie 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to concede that the Mayo and Science Daily articles did put the emphasis on women with specific genes markers and/or hormone replacement therapies. Okay. But here's one that is completely free from that:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/31298.php
The WebMD article does employ the word "controversial," but that, I feel, does not merit its disqualification, because everything- and I mean EVERYTHING - is open to "controversy," as defined in any standard dictionary. Just in yesterday's paper, it was reported that a mother and father, instead of taking their young child in for medical treatment for Type 1 diabetes (which is treatable and should never be fatal), they prayed for the child. Naturally, the child died and the matter is now in the courts. But I assure everyone, the matter is controversial. Of course, you will find people who would argue that prayer is as good, if not better, than standard medicine, and praying to God is more effacacious than relying upon doctors. Another controversial issue, raised by Ronald Reagan: trees cause more pollution than cars. Yes, he said it, and some would argue on both sides. My point is that an issue merely being controversial, in itself, doesn't mean both sides of the controversy are equal or should be viewed by reasonable people as equal.
I never said Johnny Carson died of cancer. He died of respiratory failure due to emphysema. He did say that cigarettes were "killing" him, but here I ask: Why not remove that from his article? Where's the proof? Of course, I say this facetiously, but here's the difference between Carson and Davis regarding their cigarettes: Carson knew they were killing him, and his quote is included in his article; Davis DIDN'T know they were killing her, so it's not to be mentioned?
I don't understand why nothing less than an article that states, "Bette Davis died from cigarettes" will suffice, when no article will ever state, "Steve McQueen died from asbestos exposure," and no article will ever state, "Johnny Carson died from chain-smoking," but both wiki articles mention exposure to asbestos and cigarettes (killing Carson, in his own opinion), respectively. I never claimed this reference existed: "Bette Davis's Breast Cancer Due to Decades of Chain-Smoking." All I stated, and attempted to reference, is the current knowledge based on scientific research, that cigarette smoking greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer, genetic predisposition or not. I see no compelling reason to overlook that. User:Professor Von Pie 03:04 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to make a career out of this article, so I'll get off the train here. But first I'll say that although Davis died at age 81, above the statistical table for white American females, she was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 73. It is a specious argument to say that since Davis died at 83, we should therefore rule out non-natural causes, ie tobacco, alcohol use. I'll go even a step further: the world's oldest-living woman, Jeanne Calment, smoked almost to the end of her life, and only stopped because she became blind, couldn't light her own cigarettes, and was embarrased to ask for assistance. We are not talking about moderate or even heavy smoking as most reasonable people who define it where Davis is concerned. We are talking about ingestion of tobacco to an extraordinary limit for a remarkably long length of time. If there is no way to broach the topic as adults, "featured" article or not, and say, "here are the facts vis-a-vis Davis's trademark habit," then I suppose there's no way. User:Professor Von Pie 05:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Cosmetics? Then Joan Collins would have been dead by the third season of "Dynasty." ;-) User:Professor Von Pie 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Profferor Von Pie "If there is no way to broach the topic as adults, "featured" article or not, and say, "here are the facts vis-a-vis Davis's trademark habit," then I suppose there's no way," the issue is not addressing the topic as "adults" the issue is the fact that this sort inclusion is both commentary, and bias, and a violation of wiki editing policy.
If you want to include that sort of information it has to be relevant to the article, for instance if you were to find a news article stating, or even speculating, about this being the cause of her death, it would be perfectly appropraite to include provided you sourced the inclusion.
But lets not kid ourselves here, she was 83, alot of people, at the time of her death, and in her age group died at that age, in fact alot of people still do, besides the life expectancy and median age rate was shorter even just twenty years ago for elderly people. Its equally possible her time was just up. 216.201.48.26 ( talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this is an old topic, but I get very incensed when people try to project science the way they wish to and my being a nurse only makes that worse. The end result is that Bette Davis' cause of death was breast cancer. It does not say smoking. I'm actually quite familiar with all the studies and the bottom line is that nothing is conclusive. We can link a number of factors to breast cancer and the coincidence that she smoked may be only that. Good grief I can't stand it when people try to scientifically politicize articles!!! MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Happy 100th birthday, Bette, wherever you are. -- JackofOz ( talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy 100th Birthday, Ms. Davis. I meant to mention this on April 5, 2008. I recently visited you at your grave in Los Angeles. I will always love you. 20yearoldboyfromNY ( talk) 02:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are there tanks at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 ( talk) 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed them now their is a row and columns 4 by 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 ( talk) 12:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did the tanks go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.132.249 ( talk) 12:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Never heard such a prize, btw campione d'italia is a town and the link itself redirects to the page of that town... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.100.221 ( talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions this movie to be Bette Davis' most successful film up to that point, while the very basic article on the movie itself states it was not a box office success. Surely Bette Davis movies before this one were successful, as regardless of her acting skills she'd have been jobless if was box office poison like some of her peers... Can someone who has that information correct whichever article needs correcting. Dollvalley ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the link to Rootsweb. The actual pages at Rootsweb are written by any amateur genealogist. Rootsweb is not so much the "publisher" as the "hoster", the pages are not vetted, or reviewed by any editor. So these links are no better than a blog posting. Perhaps someone can find a page written and signed by a prominent genealogist on her. Wjhonson ( talk) 04:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed her from "Female writers" and "American novelists". She is in the category "American memoirists" which seems the most specific and correct category to put her in for her work on her autobiographical material. That is more of a "child" category and "female writers" is more of a parent category so it's redundant to have her in both". I'm making that call in good faith, but I'm not 100% sure of that, so I'm happy to be reverted on that, if someone explains why. I'm certain however that she does not belong in "American novelists" as she never wrote a novel. Her writing was only in relation to her contributions to three autobiographical works. Rossrs ( talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not listed in her IMDb credits, but it's been popping up online. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.16.234 ( talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
this was called hotel it was not picked up by the network, although i have read that bette said spelling offered her millions to return and film the entire series, this was 1982, so just before her stroke in 1983— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.113.179 ( talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the order these two films are mentioned ought to be switched, as I seem to remember audiences loving a "new look bette davis" in june bride following her maternity leave in 1947.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.113.179 ( talk) 01:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone identified as 71.71.83.199 recently took down several Bette Davis photos from Wikipedia Commons on this site with no explanation. Upsmiler ( talk) 21:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I just notice that Davis is part of the LGBT Studies portal? What on earth? -- Lobo512 ( talk) 09:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I must point out a big mistake. There is a photo of Davis in "A Stolen Life" (1946) that states "In A Stolen Life (1946), one of the unsuccessful films Davis made in this period". As it says in the article and in most of Davis' biographies, "A Stolen Life" (1946), was her biggest box office success at that time. The film received mixed reviews but Davis' performances (she played twins) was hailed. The first of her unsuccessful films was "Deception" (1946),followed by "Winter Meeting" (1948), "June Bride" (1948) and "Beyond the Forest" (1949) which all lost money and received mixed to poor reviews. -- Mircea romania ( talk) 01:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Serbian article is mindblowing! Shame on you! :)) -- 93.86.149.243 ( talk) 11:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is it very odd to mention that she had several abortions while married to her first husband? It just doesn't seem to fit the context of an encyclopedic biography—far too personal and irrelevant to her notability. Phiwum ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has a great lack of references to be highlighted. I think it should be reassessed.-- Nhriber ( talk) 02:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Prepared this in case anyone wants to use it for this article. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
anybody have any objections to using this new photo?
frankly, the current one is nothing more than a less than superb, less than flattering, screengrab from a trailer; both are in public domain; apparently some unregistered user has a problem w/ the suggested one. i personally don't see why any classic actor/actress should be using 'grabs' from trailers when plenty of high quality studio released portraits exist in the public domain. P.s. ( talk) 15:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is bad enough that the word "iconic" is used constantly, but now there are degrees of "iconic" as in "most iconic"? Come on, that's bad writing.
As to smoking, it was known in the 1930s that cigarettes were bad for health; that's why cigs were called "coffin nails." The article doesn't need to make a causal connection, just note that Bette Davis smoked heavily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 ( talk) 23:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Give me a break. Since when is the use of a standard honorific acceptable Wikipedia style? I'm deleting its inexplicable use in this article. fishhead64 ( talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the recently added "famously distinct eyes" descriptor belong in the first sentence of the lede? This is a question, not a criticism; I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more appropriate in the second lede paragraph, following "forceful and intense style". I also wonder if something like "strikingly piercing" wouldn't be more specific (and descriptive) than "famously distinct". Again, I'm asking, suggesting -- not telling. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 23:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, reading the article, I agree with the vast majority of it—with the exception of Davis's appearance. Is there something wrong with me? Everyone keeps saying she's plain but I think she's rather beautiful. What the hell??!!? Is everyone blind? Apparently so, since this is the country which had Clara Bow as a sex symbol (no offense Ms. Bow). -- Monochrome_ Monitor 01:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is currently rated as a Featured Article, but a cursory glance through shows that it does not meet the actual criteria for being rated as such. Most problematically, there are sentences and paragraphs dotted throughout the article that are not in any way cited. I can see that this article was awarded FA status back in November 2006 (almost ten years ago), when Wikipedia's standards for FA were a lot more lax; while it might have passed then, it would not pass now. The editor who brought the article up to FA status has only made one edit on the encyclopaedia since 2011 and thus does not appear to be active here anymore. Unless there are any objections, my suggestion is that this article be considered for Featured article review with the ultimate possibility of de-listing. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Bette Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The article states that William Wyler wanted her to play the role in imitation of Tallulah Bankhead, and Miss Davis disagreed. Here is what Miss Davis wrote herself:
"Gregg Toland was the cameraman and Mr. Wyler was again my director. This was the first time we were not in accord with the concept of the character I played. We fought bitterly. I had been forced to see Tallulah Bankhead’s performance. I had not wanted to. A great admirer of hers, I wanted in no way to be influenced by her work. It was Willie’s intention that I give a different interpretation of the part. I insisted that Tallulah had played it the only way it could be played. Miss Hellman’s Regina was written with such definition that it could only be played one way."
Davis, Bette. The Lonely Life: An Autobiography (Kindle Locations 3202-3203). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition. -- 108.245.41.109 ( talk) 02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Bette Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The article lists a couple of boarding schools Bette Davis attended in her younger years, one called Crestalban in Lanesboro (aka "Lanesborough", depending on whether you enter the town from the Pittsfield entrance to the south, or Lanesborough if you enter from the New Ashford or Chershire entrances to the north), and Cushing Academy in Ashburnham, but fails to mention another that she attended, which was Northfield Mount Hermon. Quite some time ago I noted the Northfield Mount Hermon connection because a close friend of mine was a Northfield alum (his classmates included the sons of writers Saul Bellow and John Irving). I have found a definitive citation that this was true about Bette Davis on Northfield Mount Hermon's own Prominent Alumni page, under the Historic Figures category (rather than under the Arts and Literature category). Since the citation says she attended in 1927, Davis would have been 19 years old. [1] I can't determine whether Davis graduated or only attended, since the definition of "alumni" could mean either. giggle ( talk) 17:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's sourced, yet it's trivial, and I don't think you want to argue that the info is significant or even relevant. The section "Reception and legacy" captures the essence of her legacy, significance, and influence. Minor trivial information don't belong here. Keivan.f Talk 23:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Per news article about the inquiry into husbands death, Farnsworth had fallen down stairs two months prior and hit his head, which could have started the small bleed in the head that caused his fall. Author only eludes to Davis not having recollection of any injuries two weeks prior. It was highly likely and presumed that the skull fracture bled slowly until that fateful day. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=DNLA19430828&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-autopsy+arthur+farnsworth-------1 67.0.54.32 ( talk) 20:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The info in the lead section/introduction keeps being changed to include what seem to be irrelevant details for an article introduction- I edited the article to remove a section a few days ago (without an account- I created an account yesterday) but the section was reinstated with the explanation that this was not an adequate reason for removal, and to discuss this on the talk page. I'm very new to editing so I may well be wrong but the current state of most of the lead seems disjointed, not to mention lacking wikilinks and some sentences that read clunkily. I've seen that a number of other users have left messages for on the user talk page of the person who has made these edits, but it is still happening so thought I'd post this.
Toadheart ( talk) 16:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
On 4 August 2022 14:44 User:Billsmith60 Changed the start of the Introduction from "Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis was an American actress..." to "Ruth Elizabeth Davis was an American actress..." with the explanation "Removed dimunitive name".
Does anyone know the policy for the intro opening, where a person is known universally by their diminutive name?
Comparable Wikipedia instances seem to vary, eg no diminutive include: Fred MacMurray is "Frederick Martin MacMurray", Burt Reynolds is "Burton Leon Reynolds Jr."; whereas with diminutive include: Groucho Marx is "Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx", and Bing Crosby is "Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr." Masato.harada ( talk) 08:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial.As "Bette" is not a common hypocorism of "Elizabeth" it should remain. In any case it was incorrect to remove the name from the text but leave the IPA pronunciation. CodeTalker ( talk) 15:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography para 2.6 concerning hypocorisms gives the example of Bill Gates, and says:
That seems to mean you should use the article's title to show the diminutive name, and that the introduction should show the birth name without the hypocorism, so that User:Billsmith60's amendment was correct. I am now confused. Is the difference that her name is spelled "Bette" rather than the common "Betty"?
Masato.harada ( talk) 15:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey.The guideline for article titles is at WP:NICKNAME. Somewhat confusingly, it uses the same Bill Gates example there to illustrate a different point, that a nickname in quotes should almost never be included in the article title. In this case, the spelling "Bette" is an uncommon nickname, and that is also the name she is most commonly known by, so the title should be "Bette Davis" (per WP:NICKNAME) and the first sentence should identify her as "Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis" (per MOS:NICKNAME). The fact that "Bette" is a hypocorism of her middle name rather than her first name probably also weighs in favor of including the hypocorism in the text. CodeTalker ( talk) 16:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I’ve lately been seeing some pretty hideous AI edited images of Bette being put in the infobox. I think we should just settle this now.
Here are 4 images I am proposing that we could use for the infobox which don’t have that hideous AI editing:
1)
2)
3)
4)
What do you guys think? Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 06:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Since there has been no other response as of now and the most voted photo is option 4, I will go ahead and make the change. Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I hope we’re all in agreement that we should not be using an AI edited, colourised photo here. Assuming agreement on that, the discussion in August 2022 was about which of 4 monochrome images we should use. I voted for a ‘mature’, mid-career image, given the length of her career. Since no-one else voted, User:Dancingtudorqueen (who had asked for views and presumably did not oppose) made the change. User:Shshshsh thinks this is image not ‘flattering’, and prefers one which had been in place previously, showing her ‘in her prime’, by which he presumably means younger (around 27). He says that if we do not reach agreement, he'll take it to WP:RfC. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, although I still think the mid-career image is more representative. Can others please join this discussion? Masato.harada ( talk) 11:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't contribute to Wikipedia, so I won't alter it as to not make any errors on Bette Davis' profile. Under the part where she married Harmon Oscar Nelson, it states a citation is needed. It was cited in the book "Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis" by Ed Sikov. 2603:8000:7000:2FA8:39D4:194E:60D5:527C ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
A user has consistently removed cited information on this page regarding Bette Davis' involvement in the Hollywood Canteen claiming the sources as "unverifiable."
This is the information I've provided:
In 1942, Davis and John Garfield co-founded the Hollywood Canteen at 1451 Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood. The Canteen offered food, dancing and entertainment for servicemen and was staffed by members of the entertainment industry.
Serving as the President of the Canteen, Davis dictated the racial integration policy and ruled the dance floor should not be segregated after questions were raised if white soldiers could dance with black volunteers.
In 1983, Davis received the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the Department of Defense for her work with the Hollywood Canteen.
She appeared as herself in the film Hollywood Canteen (1944), which used the canteen as the setting for a fictional story. Warner Bros. donated 40% of proceeds from the film to both the Hollywood Canteen and the Stage Door Canteen in New York.
Citations:
Stern, Julia (2021). Bette Davis Black and White. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 8. ISBN 9780226813868.
Sikov, Ed (2008). Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 210–211. ISBN 978-0-8050-8863-2.
Considine, Shaun (January 25, 2017). Bette & Joan: The Divine Feud (Ebook ed.). Graymalkin Media. ISBN 978-1-63168-107-3.
The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States: Feature Films, 1941-1950. F4. University of California Press. 1999. p. 1071. ISBN 9780520215214.
Graham, Sheila (December 20, 1942). "Hollywood Canteen Joy To Many Lonely Lads: Started By Bette Davis and John Garfield and Enthusiastically Supported By All the Stars in the Movie Capital, It Is the Mecca For Every Soldier and Sailor Passing Through". The Hartford Courant. pp. A15. Retrieved August 5, 2023. [ https://www.proquest.com/docview/559727344/D32333E1844B43A5PQ/4?accountid=3783)
Bette Davis Overrules Objection To Mixed Couples At Hollywood Canteen". The Pittsburgh Courier. January 16, 1943. p. 21. ( [2]
"Davis Reelected Canteen Prexy". The Hollywood Reporter. February 9, 1945. p. 5. [3]
"Medal is given to Bette Davis". The Baltimore Sun. June 13, 1983. [4]
I see a couple of you are making some sort of a "deal" on how to word content that was in question due to questionable sources and an editor's perceived connection with the subject. I will address that last part later. However, I am not a party to the deal that was made and I should tell you now that starting tomorrow, (I hope), I am going to go over this article with a fine-tooth comb, putting this article in proper encyclopedia/Wikipedia style and slashing the extreme bloat that has overwhelmed this article. I will also be checking sources very carefully. As a result, the content that will survive will be the facts, and only facts that can be supported by a proper, respected, third-party publisher.
I simply glanced over the article and can easily see how incredibly bloated this article is. It is structured chronologically like a biography would be instead of being written in encyclopedia style. Tomorrow, I hope to jump into profoundly editing this article to bring it into proper encyclopedia style. I hope there are no editors who have attached themselves to and held court over this article. Such an editor would probably find my bold edits painful, but I am keeping a positive mind that such a transgression will not occur. We are not supposed to get so connected to an article that we start feeling some kind of ownership over them. My only interest in this article is to bring it into proper encyclopedia style and proper Wikipedia style. Of course, I am happy to work together with any editors who want to join me in this project. 69.180.218.186 ( talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)