Talk:Drew Barrymore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drew Barrymore article.

Contents

[edit] Bisexuality

Drew Barrymore was on Ellen ( talk show ) last week and during her interview , within the first few moments; Drew referred to a woman named Nan as her "partner" and said Nan was there [pointed to Nan offstage cameras broke to Nan smiling and laughing] watching her and Drew said she was "SO excited." "Soo Happy" then said later to Adam Sandler (same show same interview etc..) that "love at first sight does happen ! Adam Sandler said "yeah its happened to her" Drew then said " It's Wonderful."

I think Drew is a beautiful actress and have watched her all my life in all her filmes and I just really wondered if she was seeing this woman Nan and if so if there are any articles referring to her as being bisexual ?

I know given her fame and the paparazzi and their relentlessness that she would have more than likely been outed before this unless her references to this Nan woman were meant with some other meaning does anyone know? aymees99@hotmail.com

No, that was her business partner...isn't she dating someone from The Strokes? Adam Bishop

You wouldn't happen to be SD-6 Agent would you, aymees? Anyways, I don't know - is this related to the Drew Barrymore article? Remotely, yes, but I don't think this is the place to request information. I'm sure it's pertinent in some way though. Anybody else seen this show? And in any case, if she isn't bi, shouldn't the article be updated? --Johnleemk 06:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's quite well known she is bisexual. That's why I added that fact here and no that wasn't me who said that earlier. SD6-Agent 04:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I moved the line about her bisexuality to the bottom paragraph on her personal life (rather than its strange placement after her childhood drug abuse), and made it less pedantic. The information is all over the internet, and perhaps can be all traced back only to the New Woman article, but it is at least there and probably originated from other sources too; no need to list the specific magazine in the article. Postdlf 23:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NAN IS HER PRODUCTION PARTNER, IN HER PRODUCTION COMPANY, "FLOWER FILMS" - NOT ANYTHING ELSE SUGGESTED IN THIS ARTICLE

  • Unsigned comment by User:195.93.21.6.

[edit] "Bowdlerism"

Cut and merge-pasted from Psb777's and RickK's talk pages:

It's not Bowdlerism to delete nonsensical trivia about which movies an actress appears nude in. Should we indicate what color her hair is in those movies? RickK 22:35, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
It is exactly that, by definition. If it is unwanted trivia then it would be that also. But your unwanted trivia could be my essential research material. Paul Beardsell 23:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You planning on going into every actor and actress's article and annotating them? RickK 23:25, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Non sequitur. So you agree: It is bowdlerism. No, I am not going to do as you suggest. Are you going to censor every page with "nude" in it? Don't be a prude. Paul Beardsell 23:30, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with prudery and has everything to do with making an encyclopedia, not a list of trivia. RickK 23:33, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
That is your opinion. Leave the article alone. I think best to continue this on the talk page of the article as is customary. Paul Beardsell 23:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

merge-paste ends Paul Beardsell 00:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think Paul isn't thinking big enough. He needs to do the same for every actor and actress that Wikipedia has an article on. And don't just stop with "nude". Tell us whether they're full nude, partial nude, frontal, rear, whatever. After all, if we don't have this major important information, then Wikipedia is being Bowlderized. </sarcasm> RickK 00:04, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Err, no. See bowdlerize. Besides, I did not add the info that RickK thinks inappropriate. I am just objecting to his censorship of it. Paul Beardsell 00:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Those who have arrived here as a consequence of RickK's RFC should also read Village Pump. Paul Beardsell 00:55, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to list nude appearances in filmographies. This isn't an issue of bowdlerism—I think information on sexuality is quite proper for wikipedia (see my recent new article SuicideGirls, if you don't believe me). However, not every context is proper for it. Many movies are in fact notable for their nude scenes, and many roles are as well, such as Sharon Stone's leg cross in Basic Instinct, and that information is rightfully included. But listing under every actress which movies they've appeared nude slants the character of the article away from a serious discussion of the subject into a resource for horny boys, particularly when that is the only information that a movie is tagged with. This isn't Celebrity Sleuth—it isn't per se relevant to every actress article except to people who just want to see nekkid girlz, and that should hardly be a target audience. Can you imagine www.imdb.com labelling nude appearances in filmographies? If it can't be made into content of substance (such as "Jenny T. Actress refused for her entirely career to do nude scenes, citing religious reasons, yet notoriously appeared in a 15 minute graphic sex scene in "American Pie 13"), then it shouldn't be included. As for including an actress's physical measurements, that may be proper in some cases (I don't think Pamela Anderson would be complete without it), but serious restraint needs to be used with that as well. Should we include known penis sizes in every article on actors? I think in Drew Barrymore's case, a brief mention of her nude film appearances could be properly combined with information on her Playboy photoshoot, but wikipedia shouldn't descend into cataloging nude scenes for their own sake. Postdlf 02:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, you think the what-movies-she-was-nude-in information added by someone else, culled by another and the subject of one of several reversion-skirmishes between RickK and me should stay, in this case. Good. BUT, what I cannot work out is why, in the general case, that Wikipedia shouldn't "descend" to catalog nude scenes. It is the use of "descend" that puzzles me. Paul Beardsell 06:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm one of the ones who "culled" it from her filmography. As I said above, if it can be discussed in context, if nudity is significant in understanding the article subject (as it kinda is with Drew), then it is appropriate if appropriately done. Merely composing a laundry list of which movies the actress has appeared nude in is not proper, because the only use for such info is for those who just want to see her naked without any other understanding. That's why I used the word "descend"—listed in such a manner, it isn't serious or relevant information. But saying something like "Barrymore appeared in a Playboy pictorial and has also appeared nude in several films, including "blahblahblah" and "blahblahblah Part 2", furthering her "bad girl" media image", is more proper. If it can be properly fit into the article so as to actually explain something about her, go for it. But don't just tag filmographies, where it has no explanation of why it's relevant, and suggests that's the only reason why those film roles were notable for her. Postdlf 13:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You seem convinced, if not obsessed, by the idea that you're fighting some kind of good fight against censorship and "bowdlerism" against a bunch of prudes... despite several people repeatedly pointing out that this is not the case. What it all comes down to is, an encyclopedia article has to "look like" an encyclopedia article. A list annotated with "nude" doesn't fit, but you then incorporated similar information into the article text in a relevant way. The sentence about body measurements doesn't really fit either. It has nothing to do with bowdlerism: if you had written that same sentence about her shoe size, it would have been edited out for pretty much the same reason. —Curps 07:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for actually entering into the discussion. What I am actually against is the unexplained removal of information. I did not originally add the information which got left out in the refactor of the acticle. I simply replaced it. It was then removed without explanation, repeatedly, by RickK. If he said what you have said, that the info is irrelevant or that the information is badly placed, then I could argue the contrary should I so choose. Paul Beardsell 08:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To address your irrelevancy point: The info is not irrelevant. There is prior history as to the relevance of the info and this could be reviewed. If Drew Barrymore was on the radio, or was a print journalist or even a sex-therapist I would agree with you: Irrelevant! But she is not: She is a film actress (and sex-goddess) who depends upon her atractiveness for many of her roles just as Stallone depends upon his physique and Cruise on his good looks. Paul Beardsell 08:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Paul.
The info is doubly irrelevant at the moment as it is in the career section rather than the trivia section.
Neither the Tom Cruise article nor the Sylvester Stallone article refers to the actor's height, weight or chest size. Cruise is famously diminutive, but such a reference would still remain offtopic unless integrated in the way you've integrated the nude material into this article. e.g. "Cruise, who at just 5 cm high is famously petite, had to climb onto a chair to propose to his second wife, the statuesque Nicole Kidman ... " &c.
Unlike, say, Calista Flockhart or Geri Halliwell, Barrymore is not famous for her weight, so that stat is a non sequitur.
Many people find the use of so-called "vital" statistics sexist (e.g. [1] [2]). As has already been pointed out, the size of male pectorals and penises are not catalogued in the same demeaning way. Avoiding this kind of double standard is one of the precepts of Wikipedia.
She is a film actress (and sex-goddess)
Wikipedia articles are neither encomia, fan pages or personal essays.
Three people find the use of statistics which describe Barrymore as though she were at worst a piece of meat, and at best a racehorse, irrelevant. Do you plan to continue flouting consensus on this issue?
chocolateboy 10:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Good characterization and comments. Postdlf 13:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the current inclusion of the notorious nude information is more proper—it does explain something to say that she appeared nude in five movies straight in the context of that paragraph. Is it necessary to list which five movies, however? Postdlf 13:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Information is being removed without comment. Repeatedly. That is my major gripe here. That we are now having a discussion, where we can remind each other of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines are, is good. And I certainly have sympathy with a lot of what is being said. We need to strike a balance between vacuous, needlessly invasive, personal detail and prudish censorship. I hear the PC argument - they are arguments I have used myself in different circumstances - and PC is far from always bad, but the real world seems to be a different place: Wikipedia should reflect the real world. Note that "ugly chicks" are not to be found in the movies. That Drew Barrymore trades on her beauty, she benefits from her great figure which she is not ashamed to show off and nor should she be ashamed. I enjoy looking at her and I am not ashamed to say that either! I will accept a different way of expressing what is said in the article but to say it is irrelevant is just nonsense. Paul Beardsell 13:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now the so-called vital statistics are gone but the height remains. I do not understand what reasoning can allow that: Either her height is important enough to mention or not. If it is then why should other physical dimensions not be mentioned. Two guys on a street corner or at the pavement cafe might idly wonder natural or falsies but not 5'4" or 5'6". That is what goes on. You may disapprove but it is real world. What else can this censorship be but prudery/bowdlerism? Paul Beardsell 19:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey.
I agree, which is why I've removed the item entirely. You've provided no evidence that unverified statistics from the porn mag "Celebrity Sleuth" are encyclopaedic. In addition, you've failed to acquiesce to the clear consensus that the information should be removed. Finally, you have failed to cite any policy documents that support your adoption of Wikipedia as a forum for encomium, fantasy and fetishism.
I enjoy looking at her and I am not ashamed to say that either!
This article is about Drew Barrymore. It is not about you.
chocolateboy 19:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You really miss the point. I like to see information in Wikipedia that I like to see. When that is rocket engines or natural numbers or Ottawa then what some would call trivia is allowed. Of course, it is not trivia to all but to most. But it is not censored. I think you (or some of you) are in denial. What is interesting about Drew Barrymore (amongst many other things) is her sex appeal. That is perhaps the most important reason we know of her at all. That I am prepared to acknowledge I find her attractive may say something about me, but that (some of) you find this aspect of Drew Barrymore needs to be censored says something about you. What does it say, d'you think? Where else in Wikipedia are you culling information? If only here or in articles like this one then that is very sad indeed. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not know there is a porn mag called "Celebrity Sleuth". I do not know if the stats came from that publication. I did not introduce the info you are trying to cull. The Wikipedia-wide consensus is that information is not removed. What is space elevator but fantasy? Should the article on high heel shoes be censored? And what is wrong with the rampant encomium found at Wikipedia? Paul Beardsell 20:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One good reason for not including measurements is that they are totally subject to change. Even if your figures came from a reliable source, they don't remain constant, and Drew in particular has been known to fluctuate quite a bit. So giving her weight, hips, waist, bust size, etc, simply can't be accurate listings. Postdlf 22:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is that your only objection? If they were accurate and were known to be accurate and if these stats were known not to cary over time would you then be happy with their inclusion? Do you agree that 44DD-34-38 would create a very different impression? Paul Beardsell 22:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. These 'measurements' are going to change pretty frequently (unlike height). We're not going to update the latest reported waist size and weight of Drew every week (though I'm sure there are people who would like the job). If we did we would be moving into the realm of cheap tabloid journalism. DJ Clayworth 22:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Psb777, please don't replace that images link—each thumbnail links to horrible pop-ups at some awful commercial site that is likely copyvio-ing like mad. Why don't you put a link to her imdb picture section up? Postdlf 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, we are all editors here: You put the link to IMDB in. I have not aided any copyvio by providing a link to a web resourse and it doesn't implicate Wikipedia nor is such a link against Wikipedia policy. What is Wikipedia policy is not removing stuff from articles without good reason. The Google image search is richer and more varied that that available at IMDB. Paul Beardsell 00:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I removed it because of the obnoxious pop-ups every time you clicked on a thumbnail. And knowingly linking to a website with copy-vios can get you in trouble for contributory copyright infringement. How are those for good reasons? Postdlf 00:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was a link to a Google image search so I think you are wrong on the copyright issue. I was unaware of the popups but that might be because I use Mozilla. Have you inserted the link you would like for a picture of Drew yet? Paul Beardsell 09:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes—hope you like the two I posted. Actually, you're right, I am wrong on the copyright issue, because I didn't think about it being google's mere collection of thumbnails from other sources—those do count as fair use. Directly linking to a site that is known to contain unauthorized copies, however, can be a contributory copy vio. The popups were in the first couple thumbnail links—not all of them are that bad, but a bunch of them are out of date (the pages are now down). I wonder if there's a better collection out there, perhaps an official site or a fan site that may not be rife with copy vio problems? Mainly the magazine scans are the problems—screen shots are more easily justified as references to the works rather than copies because they don't in any way supplant use of the original, but use of the stand-alone photos are harder to justify under fair use. Postdlf 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: measurements, I can only think of a couple kinds of articles in which they would be appropriate—one, an article on a Playboy Playmate, in which the figures are given on the centerfold and thus "fixed" with their image, and...well, Dolly Parton. It just seems gratuitous here. I think my article rewrite tackles her sex appeal quite substantially and meaningfully, and I even mentioned the Letterman boob flashing incident which had been left out (though I don't have a date). Let's all stop the bickering and move on. Postdlf 22:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course, everybody wants to stop the bickering on their version of the article. As it happens, I think the current version is the best yet but that is besides the point. There won't be a peep about all this new "salacious" detail from the body-image-femi-nazis. No. Only if the none-PC vital stats are quoted. Or if a link to a beautiful or just explicit picture of a sexually attractive woman is shown. Dingbats. Paul Beardsell 00:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Watch the insults and histrionics. This is a peer-edited project, and you're quite frankly alone on this. If you want to be taken seriously at all, tone down your comments and figure out how to work with people, and figure out why you're in disagreement, which I don't think you have yet. Just remember—there is no heckler's veto on wikipedia. Postdlf 00:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me why I am in disagreement as this is something you seem to claim to know? There may be no heckler's veto but some claim a censor's veto. Dingbats. Paul Beardsell 08:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Drew is a good actress.

[edit] "images" external link

I removed the link to a google search for images of Drew Barrymore. It's not adding any information and would only interest someone going around looking for pictures of scantily clad celebrities. Notice how fan sites of attractive women have a lot more image galleries than for say, old men - the link is subtly (perhaps not subtly) sexist in this respect. I don't want to seem overly PC but that was just my reaction to it... --Tothebarricades.tk 18:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Rather than dual listing her status, as a bi-sexual person AND a bi-sexual actor, I propose we just list her under Category:LGBT. It is the same as listing someone under Category:American actors, rather than having 2 categories, Category:American and Category:Actors, they are combined. So again, I am removing "Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people", since LGBT is already listed. Feel free to discuss and recommend changes. Thank you. <>Who?¿? 16:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity

Is it appropriate to have a nude picture [3] on this article? As a side issue has anyone considered adding ratings to Wikipedia articles to warn children or parents? --YUL89YYZ 20:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what the wiki policy is also. As far as a warning label, the entire Internet needs a warning label. Any parents who let their kids surf the 'net freely ought to be smacked upside the head. Wahkeenah 20:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering how countries vary widely in the degree of nudity they permit in public let alone in print, I don't see how a NPOV rating system is even possible, let alone useful in theory. Under Wiki policy, the only standards we have to comply with are legal and editorial ones. In this case, the image is appropriate to the article's content, and falls far short of any criminal obscenity standard. And objectively speaking, why would anyone need to be warned about images of the human body? Taking offense is hardly a valid reason, and religious beliefs are irrelevant here (else we'd remove all full facial pictures of women to protect Islamic sensibilities)...I can't think of any other reasons in this context. Postdlf 04:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see what purpose there is to having the picture (from a pornographic magazine) included with the text. It seems unnecessary. It is not necessary or even helpful for understanding the meaning of the text. It seems sufficient to say what is in the text, that Drew Barrymore was on the cover of Playboy. I think it would be totally acceptable to just have a link to that file instead of putting the picture right in there with the text. Even if you are sitting together with your kid monitoring their internet use, this picture sneaks up on you with no warning and it is right in the middle of the screen when you are viewing pertinent text. I don't want to be too ethnocentric, so I'm not going to say it shouldn't be shown just because its classified as pornography by American standards, but it just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the norms of wikipedia sites. I think it would be perfectly acceptable if there was just a link to the picture in the text. --Cfwschmidt 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're checking out stuff about Drew Barrymore with your kid, I think you're a little past whatever "innocence" might be there regarding your kid. As for the photo, I have no opinion on its appropriateness, but if you're going to use a nude, surely there's a better one to use than that one, which is not especially attractive or flattering. Wahkeenah 22:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've always thought it was an attractive picture...  ; ) But the best reason for using it is that it's a magazine cover, so it is not only a very simple instance of fair use, but it also directly documents the prominence that her pictorial had in a major, internationally published magazine. Postdlf 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Beauty (or lack thereof) is in the eye of the beholder. Going back to what the previous user said, he called Playboy "pornography", which tells me he's never actually seen pornography. Wahkeenah 18:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

gone --Karrmann

That ugly image will be back within an hour or two, count on it. Wahkeenah 02:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep. 1 hour, 33 minutes from when you removed it. And so the edit wars over this ugly broad continue. Wahkeenah 03:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to have become embroiled in an edit war. I can quite understand why. I think wikipedia is a fantastic tool. I would love to see it used widely. I understand that some articles will have nude pictures, e.g., if I went searching for an article on playboy magazine it should be no surprise to find images of nude women. However, in this case the image from the greek playboy magazine is unnecessary and only serves to reduce the broad acceptance of wikipedia in the community. The first rule in dispute resolution for wikipedia is avoidance. It seems to me that the dispute over this article is easily avoided without detracting from the usefulness of the article at all. Paul Grace 7 Sept 2005

Well said. It is worth noting that the article for Playboy has no nudity. --YUL89YYZ 01:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Postdlf Stated: In this case, the image is appropriate to the article's content, and falls far short of any criminal obscenity standard I agree with the first part, the image is appropriate to the article's content, and I have no problem with it being there. The second part, however, is only true in countries with a more liberal approach to the human form. While the Wiki-servers are in the United States, an international view should be taken, as such images could cause wikipedia to become content blocked, even in U.S. libraries. I'm sorry to see the pic go, as I never thought I would take the same side as those "Oh, won't somebody please think about the children" people. Autopilots 03:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Content blocked? If we show China the same discretion as US libraries then there would be a whole lot of censorship on Wikipedia. No, better to have people complaining that Wikipedia is not available at a particular library than to have a censored Wikipedia. Paul Beardsell 11:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Less prudishness please. Children should not see nipples? I think you forget what they are for! Paul Beardsell 11:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"If children should see this..." they would probably ask, "Mommy? Daddy? Why is this homely-looking babe in such a wretched-looking pose on this supposedly distinguished website? Is that the best they can do???" And Mom and/or Dad would answer, "Well, it's a free site, and you get what you pay for!" Wahkeenah 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the image removed. It doesn't really add anything compelling to the article, and I note that all the "adult film" and "big bust" actor/model articles I've seen avoid using images with nudity, so why have it for someone who usually acts clothed? Niteowlneils 20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Because some yahoo finds it attractive (or enjoys reading the arguments) and they keep putting it back. It's more "re"pelling than "com"pelling, don'cha know. While it lasts, I'm going to print it out and post it in the basement, to scare the mice away. Wahkeenah 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Wahkeenah , should we put this whole discussion into the "bad jokes" collection ? I had to laugh more than one time :-) Greetings MutterErde 20:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (LOL)
  • I didn't originally add the Greek Playboy cover to this article, but I am opposed to removing it for the wrong reasons, namely a culturally dependent taboo against bare breasts. "But think of the children!" What about them? I don't see what the possibility of children viewers has to do with the appropriateness of the image, because I don't see any rational NPOV reason as to why children should be shielded from nudity. The fact that many parents may disagree is also irrelevant, because why should they enlist us to enforce their standards (should we also remove text that many parents don't want their children reading)? And yes, there are jurisdictions with more restrictive censorship laws than the U.S., but if articles like clitoris, penis, group sex, and DVDA haven't already triggered them, this one certainly isn't going to. And fuck 'em anyway. We're not going to reduce our content, whether in text or pictures, so that it passes the standards of the most restrictive governments (bye-bye all images of women not in bhirkas) and we're not going to start imposing some misguided sectarian moral view of whether an image is "harmful" to children or anyone else. Unless it would actually break the law in Florida, where the servers are located (as would be the case with kiddie porn, obviously), the only valid reason for removing an image is because it lacks relevance/informational content to the article. Postdlf 17:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that's setting the standard pretty high isn't it. We dont remove anything unless it actually breaks the law. Great, that should lead to a fantastic encyclopedia that a few people might actually use. Might as well start up your own private web site if you ignore any kind of consensus. Paul Grace 12 Sept 2005

Feel free to start your own totally-censored online encyclopedia. Since you will defer to anyone who has a problem with anything, that will keep it small, and you should be able to run it on a TRS-80. Wahkeenah 14:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Considering how Wikipedia is currently uncensored and the #1 reference site on the internet... Postdlf 17:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, my opinion has changed. As I originally stated, I had no problem with the content, but was worried that this sort of thing could limit people's access to wikipedia. The fact that this was censorship never even crossed my mind, though it was and is the paramount issue. I wish to thank those of you who made compelling arguements. No, I do not wish see this or any encyclopedia become a watered-down Brady Bunch version of reality, and the nature of the wiki has come to the correct consensus for the inclusion of image. Autopilots 01:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hey! You're not allowed to admit to changing your mind. That sets a dangerous precedent. Before you know what's happening everyone will be doing so. And they'll be expecting me to consider doing so as well! Then where will we be? Besides, it's against the rules, I bet. Paul Beardsell 07:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The Brady Bunch was not reality??? Next thing you'll be telling me that there's no Santa Claus. ); ); ); Wahkeenah 01:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on the Above

Just for those who didn't want to sift through all of that, not putting this picture in due to someone's perception of obscenity would be against WP:NOT, which is most definately Wikipedia policy. Karmafist 00:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of nonfree images

This article has multiple nonfree images on it. Please try to reduce the number of non-free images to the minimum necessary to discuss the subject of the article. Kelly Martin 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breast reduction

She had breast reduction surgery at 16. I think it could be included, especially considering what else is in this article.--165.154.8.237 20:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as you can prove it, lest the Verification Police collar you. Wahkeenah 20:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] huh?

never heard of this person. my friend has!

[edit] Clean-up required

It's not a very good article and more material needs to be incorporated. I'm adding the clean-up tag. Never Mystic (tc) 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/e/Talk%7EDrew_Barrymore_a071.html"