Jump to content

Talk:Bette Davis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBette Davis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 5, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 5, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2016Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Arthur Farnsworth

[edit]

Readded the entire section pertaining to Arthur Farnsworth after it was removed. The removed content had a series of citations which included newspapers and books dating back to 1943. The death and investigation of Farnsworth death is covered in every Davis bio and is a well-known topic of Davis' life. There is no reason to remove that section from the article, especially when there are various citations for the informaiton cited throughout the section. Wcooper0191 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine, not a conspiracy site, and all these investigations are completely WP:UNDUE in this article. Please also read WP:OR, original research is not allowed. Our articles are not written in this documentary-style sort of empty "testimonies" of her past husband or a bystander or anyone. Eventually this incident did not reach any notably groundbreaking conclusion and wasn't even as scandalous as some would like it to be. I have also gone through some of the biographies and it hasn't been elaborated on in this fashion at all, so I don't know what you're referring to. Not that it matters anyway, it's just not a notable story. Moreover, parts of it are not cited and others are mere hints at what might have happened. The section remains unwarranted, and citations do not necessarily warrant inclusion. Honestly, to me this section is just a joke. ShahidTalk2me 09:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, as stated above. Ideally, this article ought to aspire to return to its former glory as a WP:FA-status (or at least WP:GA), and including a speculative forensic investigation will hinder those efforts. I agree with @Shahid (Shshshsh?! Apparently!) here that this section would be irrelevant fluff. As much as I love Angela Lansbury, Peter Falk, Peter Sellers, Peter Ustinov....All the Peters....Oh, also Margaret Rutherford—Well, you get the picture....We are not playing mystery detective writer!
Now @Wcooper0191, if Farnsworth had his own article, that's about the only place where the circumstances of his peculiar death might be worth presenting multiple perspectives w/ citations, as it'd be appropriately pertaining to the topic. In this case, on this article…it's an external party connected to the topic, one removed, and was never anything along the lines of the Lana Turner/Johnny Stamponato stabby daughter melodrama to qualify as relevant. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All true, Cinemaniac86. ShahidTalk2me 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is an attempt to whitewash the Bette Davis article. The Farnsworth information is not "original research." All information in that section is all based on cited newspaper articles and published books. There is nothing irrelevant about the section because it details Davis' husband's death, for which she was suspected of causing. This story is covered in every Davis biography. Nothing "speculative" about the information. It is based on the statements of firsthand sources, all of which were published in articles and books. Wcooper0191 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly what you're saying it isn't: speculation, and if I may, funny gossip, which till today had place in some weird internet forums dedicated to fostering age-old feuds, and somehow got to Wikipedia. Moreover, she was never suspected of causing his death, as you're suggesting, she was interrogated during the inquest and that appears in this article. Again, I have gone through the Davis biographies, and no, it is not covered in this way, so I don't know what you're basing yourself on. And Wikipedia articles, mind you, are not authored biographies but encyclopedic entries. This speculation would be of note if it ever got substantial coverage, like the Lana Turner example given by Cinemaniac86 above. Is there a book dedicated just to the case? If there was, this "story" would have enough notability almost a century later. That Davis's ex said she said something to him is really funny. Christina Crawford suggested that her mother Joan killed her husband. And that story got so much more coverage I can show you a million reliable sources which would build up a nice story for Crawford. Are you willing to write it, by the way? But Wikipedia does not work like that. What we had on the article, and I can't believe no one noticed it and removed it earlier, is a classic case of WP:SYNTH and a violation of so many of our core policies. ShahidTalk2me 10:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned daughter's criticism on Johnny Carson.

[edit]

The article states Bette never spoke of her daughter's book. On "The Tonight Show" she made the following joke about it. "My daughter says I beat her. Beat her constantly. Beat her, beat her, beat her.". Audience laughter. Bette continues; "I never beat her. I may have burned her." (gesturing with her cigarette) "But I never beat her.". 2600:8807:5400:600:D0B2:3983:9366:1A8B (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]