Talk:Bette Davis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bette Davis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Bette 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.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 5, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 5, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 23, 2016	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Davis is a gay iconLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

United States: Massachusetts / Lowell Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Lowell (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Arthur Farnsworth

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. Shahid • ^Talk2me 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. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All true, Cinemaniac86. Shahid • ^Talk2me 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. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned daughter's criticism on Johnny Carson.

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]