Talk:Mabel Normand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Prominence"

The article twice states that Mabel Normand is the most prominent actress of the silent film era, or words to that effect. There are no sources cited for this; "prominent" is not defined and is ambiguous; and is arguably an opinion. Additionally, I don't think this acclaim is as universal as the article states--for example, what about Mary Pickford? Clara Bow? etc.

If no sources are forthcoming this should be changed.

Chevalier3 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've toned it down. Gwen Gale 00:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death?

I have noticed that the dates of birth and death of Mabel Normand in this article are not the same as those in the Internet Movie Database which in turn are not the same as those on the "Madcap Mabel" website. If anyone is able to provide some reliable source as to her dates of birth and death, that would be nice. Sarnalios 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mabel Normand.jpg

Image:Mabel Normand.jpg has been listed for possible deletion on Commons [1]. If you have information on this photo, such as the source of the image, the photographer, the date taken, please add it to discussion there or here (I will place this talk page on my watch list). Thank you, -- Infrogmation 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia obsession with deleting pictures is getting ridiculous. I don't know the source of picture, but she died in 1930, and it's at least 77 years old. Enough. Has someone complained about it? Carlo 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Procedure on Commons is to keep free licenced images only. Alas, 1930 is still 7 years too new to be sure of being PD for US images with no other information known about them. Such is the law. -- Infrogmation 23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced that image in the article with one of several easily found to be US publications which predate 1923 or public domain for no copyright renewal per loc.gov, and uploaded a few additional such photos into a gallery on Commons. Image:Mabel Normand.jpg previously illustrating the article for now remains in the Commons category, but will be deleted if no information about it can be found, so if anyone has information on it please add it. -- Infrogmation 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Happily, the PD photo which has been swapped in is more appealing to me. Either way, my worries about WP's image policy aren't with its strictness (which is very helpful in keeping WP's content free) but with selective, PoV driven "enforcement." Gwen Gale 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro cleaning

I think that last edit goes too far. I know its a bit of a clunky sentence (feel free to reword it best you can) but she was the first comedian...man or woman...to get a solo star billing for a feature. Thats pretty major considering she beat Fatty, Chaplin, etc. Not only was she the first but she was a woman!

As for the drug use, I think its careful enough with alleged. It is definitly an integral part of her story because whatever was wrong with her something was not quite right from 1917-192...4? Thats a bit of a generous estimate since she had her up periods, and she did have her down periods after that. I think maybe a better wording would be alcoholisim...as there is pretty solid proof for that (she injured herself riding a horse drunk, she married Lew drunk, and that Dines shooting she was pretty drunk as well). I dont know it is a bit hard to word...maybe one could say personal troubles?

I'm currently writing a book on Mabel, and my research has just begun. But since Wikipedia is so cranky with sourcing Im not willing to even try that until I have everything in place. Betty Fussel's book is outdated, and incorrect on a number of matters. I guess it could be used in certain places but other then that its pretty hard to source dear Mabel.--Maggiedane (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources. Wholly aside from this the wording was not neutral, but promotional/advocacy. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? What is promotional about it? The Wiki intro is supposed to summarize the person, and their notability right? That is both parts. If you want I will stick in a Fussel reference, which by wiki standards is a reliable source. But I feel something better should be up there.--Maggiedane (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding Fussel as a source when you've already said it's unreliable could stray from WP:POINT. Language should be neutral, your wording sounds like that of a fan. If you're writing a book about Normand, please understand, writing a book is nothing at all like writing an article in a tertiary source like an encyclopedia, much less a collaborative encyclopedia. As for the lead, you weren't summarizing the article, you were adding unsourced content. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty fed up with Wikipedia at this point, especially with self important users (no Im not saying that about you, there are other people I've had issues with lately) but I know how to write a good wiki article and I have done so (Olive Thomas, Miriam Cooper, Lottie Pickford, Natacha Rambova). Of course I added things that are not yet in this article, this article is crap at the moment. However to write a fully sourced nice wiki article is usually takes me 7 hours and in the end people delete important links, mash up my words, and generally bitch me out making me wonder what the point of adding is. I do not have 7 hours to make a wiki article on Mabel, and even if I did I feel its much better spent on projects that will be appreciated instead of destroyed.

Fussel's book is inaccurate at points (the Dines shooting, etc) but it has its moments, and sadly so far it is indeed the best thing out there on Mabel right now. I dont see why it wouldnt meet Wiki standards as there are a ton of books that people are disagreeable with used on articles all over this site. There is also a source book at [2] that is 400 some pages long and very very lovely (its a bunch of contemporary reports and interviews) as well as Taylorolgy. Until my or another book comes out on Mabel someone would have to go through all these sources and do it themselves.

This article is sorely in need of being expanded, and I figured if I cleaned up the intro that would help a little. If you would like to do all the research instead of just snipping at mine then feel free to. I'm going to just be quiet now because Ive had it up to here with wikipedia and all I have tried to do is add some decent edits on obscure articles. BLAH! --Maggiedane (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the lead is supposed to serve as both a summary of the main article and should be able to serve as a stand alone mini-article on its own. Secondly, if you are writing a book about Mabel Normand, I'm not so convinced it isn't first a conflict of interest for you to be adding to the article and next, submitting what might be considered original research to the article. We don't create articles from scratch, it comes from sources that currently exist and scholarly work requires adequate sourcing. It also requires that the content represent the sources, not just ones that someone personally considers valid and not crap. That is why Wikipedia is so cranky about sourcing. Thirdly, Wikipedia isn't a site for individual accomplishment - it is supposed to represent a cooperative effort at collaborative editing, and I am not seeing that you are doing that. Stating that the article is crap, and attacking and being defensive and confrontational is simply counter-productive. Gwen Gale's name is one that I see all over actor articles and is known for contributing good, non-POV, well-sourced content, so I fail to see why discussing this with her would be a confrontational matter.
Then there is your assertion that you personally wrote articles, which is a stretch. Not to mention, at least in the case of Miriam Cooper, Lottie Pickford and Natacha Rambova, when you protested my removal of links to the Silent Film wiki, based on policy concerning links to such wikis, you quite explicitly said "I did not write the articles, I brought them here so no I am not a double." So... I'm confused. In any case, writing the lead actually should come last - what is important is the article content itself, from which the lead derives. Presently, the content is deficient, so the lead falls by the wayside until the content is there from which to write it. Finally, I'd have to mention the note below the edit summary box, which says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." It's hard to swallow one's ego and accept changes to contributions, but that's also why not everyone makes a good Wikipedia editor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No I did indeed write those articles, and I have contacted you on the matter. Its not (mostly) an ego thing...I work very hard on these things and instead of a 'nice job' I just get yelled at. Heck silence is fine, but being told Im some kind of troll or 'fanzine' style is sorry but pure bull. Back to the matter at hand and Wildhartlivie you are very free to way on this. I could go and source each and every sentence in that lead, but Gwen Gale has seemed to made up her mind that I am some kind of cheerleader and thus not worthy of writing the intro. I am NOT opposed to editing it, go nuts. But why are these sentences being deleted? And instead of just bitching me out why doesnt someone take one of those nice sources (can we all agree those are some solid sources) and research Mabel themselves and either source what is there or write something they feel should be? Everyone has a lot of complaining to do, no one seems to want to do any actual work.

Its hard to take the sourcebook and source the lead statements mostly because it is made up of temporary sources. So her legacy really isnt credibly within it (sure certain things are mentioned but its probably stronger 80 years later to say she was one of the firsts then back right at the time). The sources I can currently give would be Mrs Fussel's book which because I said I feel parts are inaccurate Gwen has decided shouldnt count. I've already talked on this here, Im not repeating myself. If each and every sentence up there is sourced would we agree the sentences belong there? What are the objections exactly?

And as for this fanzine crap I write about silent film, and I try to write about it in a good (and on my own time, not Wikipedias) entertaining manner. On Wikipedia I try to write encylopediac in tone. Mabel was mostly popular during the 1910s (1918 would arguably be her strongest year for quite awhile) and she had her falls and troubles during the 1920s: Fatty, William Desmond Taylor, Dines shooting, the Church divorce, and then the alleged (and I say alleged because no one can prove 100% on someone dead for almost 80 years and I agree with that) drug and alcohol trouble. It is more than just a rumor because as I've already said there were a number of documented incidents where she was under the influence of something (at the least booze) and it didnt bode well. She did have a few hits during the 1920s but compared with the work she did during the 10s it was nowhere near as popular. Molly O (I believe 1921?) came closest and that was right before many of her troubles. Just because I've researched some of this stuff Im a pathetic fan? I mean what is this instead of critquing me why not go source somethings and add some sentences (with sources) yourself(ves)?--Maggiedane (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anywhere that someone called you a troll or anything else. People have given you policy links regarding issues, I explained what the lead section is about and of what it should consist. I don't have the sources, so I don't presume to add things to the article without them. Your "why not go source somethings and add some sentences (with sources) yourself(ves)" is simply argumentative and not in the least productive. Currently, what you've added to the lead is not supported by content in the article. But it doesn't matter what I say, my opinion and my knowledge of Wikipedia policy means nothing, so I'm disregarding your rant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I provided 3 sources above, 2 of which are online sources. Anyone can use them. My troll comments refer to the fanzine edit comments, those honestly irked me. I stand by what I said earlier which is quite simple: this article (I think we can all agree on this) is not good quality at the moment as a whole. I tried to add a nice lead as a start, and I sourced the most important and controversial of statements. Like I said I could source the other stuff as well if needed but it might be repetitive with the Fussel bio. I am not trying to pick personal fights here, I dont agree with your certain interpetations of policy (I want more input, thats all simply) but we've already discussed this, and honestly for THIS article I dont see what our beef has to do with it: my source has nothing to do with me (I am not Betty Fussel), is a published book and meets Wiki requirements as a source, and what else am I missing here? Seriously if Im missing something feel free to explain it to me. --Maggiedane (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You are edit warring, which isn't allowed. You're trying to put unsourced content into the lead. I think your writing style is not encyclopedic/neutral, but seems rather more fit for a fanzine. Your assertion that you're writing a book on this topic makes you seem less neutral and more PoV as to your goals here. I've often seen authors (published or not) come here and try to "align" en.Wikipedia articles to the outlook put forth in their own book projects. You are being tendentious about your edits to this collaborative project. Meanwhile, following en.Wikipedia policy, a published book need not be taken as wholly reliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


And you are usuing name calling to try and get a point across. I have already stated (and no offense but I am getting tired of repeating myself when this is all already written here on this talk page) I can source each and every statement, and probably later today I will. I am not trying to put this article to match my research...I wrote 2 sample chapters to secure my publishing contract (if you must know it was about Mickey) and I have JUST BEGUN my research as a whole. Havent written a thing more. So no I am not trying to 'adhere it to my point of view'. One night I realized major people like Ford Sterling had stubs let alone no good summaries so I went through some articles and tried to clean that (my edits will verify this). Mabel was one of them. I've already stated above but I will say it once again: WHAT is fanzine about it? Fanzine would be 'she was the greatest comedian ever even greater than Chaplin and Lucille Ball omgz!' You keep repeating this but I am not trying to be a jerk I am just not understanding your angle. PLEASE take whatever wording is bugging you and tell me how it is fanzine. Wildhartlivie has been on my tail about other edits and yet her only complaint here (seems to be...less Im not getting it again) is the information is not in the rest of the article. I dont think that means it should be deleted (if its sourceable) I think that means the rest of the article needs added to thank you very much.
I reverted the intro the first time because it was a mess...if I remember right you had the drug sentence followed by a Chaplin sentence, when the above paragraph had already spoken about Chaplin. Oddly you added that sentence (she was responsible for keeping Chaplin on) but didnt source it...even though (I know cuz I wrote it) its sourced on the Chaplin article. You deleted other content that was sourced because you dubbed it 'fanzine' and refuse to explain why you feel it is other than you just do. THAT is why I revert and will continue to do so (and give me an hour...I'll go source the rest I guess). --Maggiedane (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss any changes to the lead here first, before making them and wait for input from other editors, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


That is exactly what I've said to you pretty much from reply one. You are reverting sourced edits, not saying why (at least 3 times now) despite even being asked to do so, and I am not getting what your getting at. Other then calling me a fanzine type editor your last edit summary said quote "(not for the lead, unreliably sourced, see talk page". We have gone over this several times, and you refuse to even explain yourself. I will keep reverting this unless another editor steps in and says 'well gee a published book which is the only one out there on the subject is an unreliable source' in addition to a non user edited tcm article (I went to great pains on that as I wasnt going to put a user edited) and an article by the author of the source book (has anyone here actually opened up the source book yet? You know the free pdf 400 some paged file I referenced several replies ago?). Im not going to just stop because you say you dont like my writing or my edits and cant cite anything even your own edits.--Maggiedane (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The worries about the lead have already been thoroughly explained to you, yet you carry on restoring the content with no heed to this discussion at all. Moreover, you've sourced the whole lead with only one weak source and have not done anything meaningful towards what has been said about the non-neutral tone of your writing. You are clearly trying lay a framework for the book you're hoping to write into a Wikipedia article. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No they have not. The only thing I have taken from above is 1) Unsourced (so I sourced it) and 2) Not in the article. I stand by I dont think SOURCED information should be deleted just because an article is in need of adding. YOU have decided since I said I feel there are some better sources out there that this book does not count (and I never said that, I said it has its faults but it is the only thing out there) and then YOU decided I am trying to lay framework for my book. I only mentioned my book because I thought it might help say I am familiar with the topic. WHY you decided I am trying to do that is beyond me since 1) I stated above (and I stand by) I am not rewriting this article. I have done the intro and after the troubles Im having with Wikipedia that is ALL I intend to do. I left 3 solid sources and said let others have at it. So HOW that qualifies as 'rewriting it to fit my idea' is insane. My idea right now currently consists of gathering newspaper archives...and that is it. You somehow decided I am trying to mold an article to an idea which is stupid...I have already said why I even edited the intro and I am not repeating myself. I have asked you repeatedly to show me which statements you feel are fanzine or uneyclopediac. And 4 or 5 replies later you still refuse to do so just repeating I am just that...and not explaining yourself. I am willing to work with you on rewording or different sentences...but you apparently are not and just do not like a thing I have to say. You apparently have made your mind up about some imaginary situation and are welcome to it...but I think other wiki users will agree a solidly sourced edit (and Wildhartlivie has been all over me about that) is an acceptable edit.--Maggiedane (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Now see that edit is fine with me! Except for the deletion of one link which I figured I'd explain here so revert wars didnt start: Mabel Normand Source Book (pdf file). This is the 400 page contemporary articles source book. YES it is angelfire (bless Wikipedia's easy decision of what is legitimate and what is not based on hosting) BUT it is already sourced in this article under further reading: William Thomas Sherman (2006), Mabel Normand: A Source Book to Her Life and Films. This is the online version of it, there is a print version of it as well. Go look at it (as I have already urged) then tell me it doesnt belong here because it is MAJORLY important. And no for the love of God I am not Mr. Sherman!--Maggiedane (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said you were Mr Sherman? Why did you say you're not him? If you truly wish to collaborate with other editors on this, please revert the lead back to where it was and talk about your proposed changes here, thanks. So far you've shown no meaningful hint you're willing to accept input about the text or understand how leads are built in Wikipedia articles. Rather, all you have done is edit war when two editors have brought up meaningful worries about your edits. After you have done this, we can go on to the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


That was a joke jeesh! Funny Id say that third sentence to you. There originally wasnt much of a lead at all (and thats not what you changed it to), I edited it, then you started trying an edit war with me. Why not leave it here and like I've asked repeatedly to explain what you find wrong with it? I sourced my edits, and you refuse to say what you find wrong with them other than you dont like them so I dont see why I should have to say 'can I please post this sentence?' when I've done the leg work required of wikipedia. I have asked you every reply today (several now) to please tell me what your objections SPECIFICALLY are other than you dont like them and you think its fan written. You wont pick a sentence and prove your case. Some other editor just removed and tightened a few sentences, and I just said I was fine with those edits. I think that shows my point entirely: Im open to some good change but I am not going to be fine with a massive removal of sourced information just because you dont like it and refuse to say what is wrong with it other than you dont like it. I think the very fact Im not reverting just any edit shows right there I am flexible. And I will not speak for Wildhartlivie (she is capable I am sure of that herself) but her complaint seemed to be the information wasnt already in the article...not that it was fanzine or bad source. I welcome other input on this as I am sick of beating a dead horse with you and your unjustified accusations. I think quite simple the next step for another editor (no I will not be doing it) would be taking those nice sources and writing up a solid article THEN after thats been done if the intro needs tweaked again (I dont think it should need it but if it does then fine) then go for it. You just accusing me of one thing or another isnt stopping you or anyone else from improving this article...you just dont seem to want to do that. Im pretty much done replying to you now unless you can say something new. I've repeated myself on several replies here and you just keep repeating yourself in an unhelpful manner. I have tried that is all I have to say and if you keep making pointless reverts I will revert it. And if someone can make good edits I will leave it. Thats really all I have to say at this point.--Maggiedane (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, I think the lead is much better now than it was. The previous lead was a throwaway. The current one looks more like the opening of an encyclopedia article about a significant performer, and does what a lead is supposed to do: quickly tell you who the person was, and why they are significant. Carlo (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's all pinned to one weak source, carries flaws, doesn't echo the article content and is written in a non-encyclopedic tone. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It is from one source, but it seems to be pretty much standard info. Can you name a point that you believe to be inaccurate? Or that conflicts with the rest of the article? I'm not sure what's non-encyclopedic about the tone. Carlo (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0635667/) lists her as a very early writer, director and producer, and as a writer and director on at least one Chaplin movie. I didn't look at every one. Carlo (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
IMdB's not a reliable source, however, I didn't say anything at all about Normand and Chaplin. Either way, I'm not willing now to spend my volunteer time deconstructing a flawed lead. I'm hoping the edits will be reverted so that the lead can be built helpfully through discussion here. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help editing and cleaning Carlo. Yes obviously IMDB is a highly flawed source BUT just one quick glance of Mabel's filmography (any source) shows she was indeed all those things...the least of which a producer but she did do that as well. Im still tickled Gwen's judgement of the source is based on what I said long ago, yet everything else I have to say is fan based and inaccurate and self promoting according to her. There is some fantastic sources listed here and on the page...I hope someone will give Mabel the good article she deserves.--Maggiedane (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You're clearly mistaken as to any takes I may have on independent sources owing to anything you've said. Saying "give Mabel the good article she deserves" shows you're not at all neutral on this topic. Nobody "deserves" a "good" or "bad" article on Wikipedia, which is meant as a neutral tertiary source written from reliable secondary sources. However, if you mean the article as it now stands is "bad," you've already been told this is not a helpful way to discuss content. If you mean "Mabel deserves better," you likely shouldn't be editing this article at all. Moreover, please comment only on content, not other editors (see WP:NPA). You have not heeded the worries outlined here. Please revert your edits so we can carry forward with building both the lead and the article following Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL! I thought you were done 'wasting your time'? Whatever. Please dont be twisting my comments. By good I meant solid article...something nice and long and well sourced and covered (like say Miriam Cooper, though with more sources since there is way more on Mabel than Miriam out there). I didnt mean 'Omgz make her a saint and put lots of purty pictures!' I am not reverting my edits and I am not commenting one moment further as I've already said. Again I am done replying to you, please quit putting words in my mouth and get a life. Thanks.--Maggiedane (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said I was wasting my time. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

Rather than get into an edit war, there is probably a way to make the article as objective as possible. If the scandals are overblown, the article should say; but the article should also not pretend that they were trivial, at least as far as their effect on her career.

With all due respect to Ms. Normand's descendant, the article must reflect a neutral point of view, neither smearing the subject, nor whitewashing it. Let's try for consensus, shall we? Carlo (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COI (a guideline) and WP:RS (a policy). It is verifiable that there were rumours of drug abuse by Normand, but the text should likely qualify this as rumours, not fact. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

Tabled filmographies are a standard style for filmographies under WP:ACTOR. There is nothing in the stark listing of films that was previously on this article that cannot be found on the pages for the films. All articles had bare listings of films until tabled filmographies were implemented so the argument that anything was a certain way for years is not a valid argument for removing a new style format that is now being used across articles. The filmography on this particular article has been tabled since spring with no objection discussion. It's more than a little bit peckish to just revert to the bare list and suggest that the article be retabled to include the redundant content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of being able to look at a Filmography and see who appears in the film and sometimes who wrote or directed it rather than clicking dozens of times or going back and forth to the Internet Movie Database for each film seems self-evident. When Gwen Gale reverted the Filmography to the less informative version yet again, she blithely noted that you could look at the "film list" for cast members (I'm not exactly sure what that means), and now Wildhartive refers to the original content as "redundant." Having spent countless hours compiling the original Filmography myself, I can tell you that achieving a Filmography which you can glance down and see the cast members and more interesting directors (such as co-direction by Normand and Chaplin) was easier said than done at the time, especially since I was also writing most of the film articles simultaneously, and that substituting an inferior list containing so much less useful information is a vexingly weird and bully-sanctioned form of vandalism (thinking inside the boxes?), pure and simple. I'm beginning to pine for the days when Normand was a relatively unknown quantity and her page was a deserted outpost rather than, surreally, a teeming magnet for strife and vandalism. Perhaps in the future, when filmographies are converted into the boxes, users could frame the information in the original filmography with the boxes rather than simply jettisoning valuably convenient information and starting over; it would actually be easier to do it that way if you think about it since the titles would already be written. In any case, rather than waste any more time on Ms. Normand's filmography than I apparently already have, I'm going to settle for putting my original version on this Talk page as a delightful surprise for anyone who happens to click on "Discussion" for some reason, and let it go at that:

Skymasterson (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mabel_Normand/Archive_1&oldid=923249320"