Talk:John Barrymore

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Barrymore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230210043/http://www.northjersey.com/news/taking-on-a-new-name-1.968554 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/taking-on-a-new-name-1.968554

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 7 October 2017 (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)