Talk:Drew Barrymore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

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.

I agree, she is not bisexual,I checked that on almost every website,they say that is untrue,"Nan" IS her business partner, and yes she was dating The Strokes drummer Fabrizio Moretti.On what was seen on Ellen Degenres show was just joking!She has dated men, not women! (Trampton 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)).

[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) This is just quite embarassing to her i must believe but then again icant feel all her pain because i wouldnt encourage drinking alcohol and smoking at such a young age.( DOWN WITH SMOKING DOWN WITH LUNG CANCER) PLUS SMOKING IS EVIL02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)LAlalalad I have never smoked also!````Lalalalad

[edit] Little Girl Lost Link

The link to her book Little Girl Lost sends you to a page about a Twilight Zone episode

[edit] Blyth vs. Blythe

What is her real middle name?

Blyth:

Blythe:

We should call her or something... :-) --Hu:Totya (talk!) 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a picture of her autograph online somewhere and she wrote 'Blyth'.

Her God mother is Sophia Loren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeladeieso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uh, picture???

lol could we get a better picture of drew-bear plz? god. i mean, i love drew through and through, but i swear she would want a better picture up in this piece. WE CAN DO THIS ;D

edit: also, happy birthday dear drew :) *infinite hearts* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.108.228 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

yeah, I agree with that, a better picture pleeaaasee! - a guy from H

[edit] SNL

drew is currently the youngest person to ever host saturday night live at age 7, she has aloso hoted a number of other times, this should be mentioned somewhere.Snowfreak91287 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it, then it should be mentioned. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seemingly arbitrary removal

Cornellrockey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has removed one external link saying "one fansite allowed per WP:EL". This seems to be both arbitrary and, as far as I can tell, unsupported by any reading of policies and guidelines. I've restored the link for now. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It looked like a fansite IMHO, and that makes it a violation of WP:EL, & theirfor UNarbitrary removal. Cornell Rockey 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response.
Could you explain why you think a site constructed by and for fans of Drew Barrymore is against the External links guideline? It doesn't seem to fall under any of the types of site disqualified under "Links normally to be avoided" section but perhaps I'm missing some other part of the guideline that applies here. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, WP:EL has changed since I last used read through it, but I've found the one fansite allowed rule in another part of WP; view this WP:NOT#LINK. I think that sums it up enough. Seriously, one fansite for a music, film, print or TV personality should be enough on any biographical article. Cornell Rockey 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems a bit arbitrary, as I suggested earlier. I think we should consider external links on their merits and the policies and guidelines you have cited seem to support this reading. Before provisionally restoring the removed link I visited it. It's a rather well designed site that contains lots of archived material on Drew and her family, which goes back in movies as far as the silents. Because it seems to complement our article quite well I think it's appropriate for our external links collection. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I think it makes for terribly unencyclopedic bio articles and would banish all non-mainstream external links if I was incharge of WP. Cornell Rockey 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting proposition, but how do you define "mainstream" in this context? --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
IMDb, news articles from reputable publications, official sites, official blogs, official myspace pages... etc. Cornell Rockey 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Is there such a thing as an "official blog"? And what is an "official myspace page"? By "official" do you simply mean "authorised by the subject"? If so I'd suggest that our interests as an encyclopedia are not so easily circumscribed as to limit our sources solely to those the subject of the article approves of. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
IMDb as well as news articles & interviews with the press are not something the subject of the biographical article has veto-power over, yet at the same time these sources are obligated to tell the truth; whereas a fansite has no obligation to publish things based facts and can print whatever they wish to. I don't believe this website should be a vehicle for publishing unsubstantiated rumor, stalking information or just general fan ranting/idol worship (which is obviously POV- filled). WP:NOT also defines wikipedia is not being a directory of external links, and theirfor people shouldn't be coming here to find them. Cornell Rockey 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you insofar as some fan sites may be unreliable. imdb also often carries unreliable items. Your reference to What Wikipedia is not seems misplaced here. It doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that we should not use fan sites. It just means that we shouldn't be collecting great lists of external links to sites.
So to summarise, while I completely agree with your basic sentiments, I don't think removing-on-sight this particular link, or fan sites in general, is merited or implied by those sentiments. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think direct quote from WP:NOT is up for interpretation: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." but I'm tired of discussing this so I'm giving up & moving on. Have a good day. Cornell Rockey 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page of What Wikipedia is not I see that certainly some editors don't seem to support this interpretation of the policy. I've made a comment there suggesting that the wording be changed so as to avoid what I consider to be a misreading in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Could we get a more current picture of her? Shes not even looking at the camera in this picture. <3Clamster 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a better free picture of her, let's use it. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is an alternative photograph than the one I put on the page - I'll let those invested in the page decide which to use. --David Shankbone 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what, you're probably going to laugh, but until I saw that picture and the one on the article now I didn't realise how beautiful she is. Amazing! --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree - they're not bad pictures at all. I don't see what the problem is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The photo comments were from before I took the current photographs, so the complaints are outdated. These photos were taken and added post-complaints. --David Shankbone 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ¡HollywoodbabylonoPedia!

Latest (re-) addition:

In March 2007, former magazine editor Jane Pratt alleged on her Sirius Satellite Radio show that she had a romance with Barrymore.<ref>[http://www.usmagazine.com/drew_barrymore_2?page=1 Former Jane Editor Claims Sex Romp With Drew], US Magazine, March 28, 2007 (retrieved on May 15, 2007).</ref>

Us Magazine redirects to Us Weekly, which I learn is "a celebrity magazine". The verified fact that a celebrity magazine has stated that somebody claimed on her own radio show that she had a romance (or even a "sex romp") with somebody famous strikes me as supremely tabloidy and unencyclopedic.

Or is it me that misunderstands the meaning of "encyclopedia"? -- Hoary 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'd removed that as unsourced and then someone must have trawled the web until he found some gossip magazine reporting it. I've removed it as poorly sourced. --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hah, good, we at least half agree then. For the other half, let's play a what-if. Suppose the same thing appeared in a "serious" news source: that the NYT (for example) reported that Pratt had alleged on her radio show that blah blah blah. I'd say that that too would be eminently deletable: that even if there were rock-solid evidence that Pratt alleged this, it's mere tittle-tattle, grist for a Barrymore fansite perhaps, but not for an encyclopedia article. (Of course, if the allegation were to lead to something else, such as a lawsuit, I'd agree that it could be significant.) What say? -- Hoary 08:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that this wouldn't be worth putting in the article, but I could be persuaded. It would depend on the nature of the claim and the person making it. I feel pretty queasy about having "personal life" sections in these articles anyway, but if it's a Hollywood star I suppose that's inevitable. --Tony Sidaway 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why it's inevitable for Hollywood stars. When I look in a newspaper (a real one, not a Murdoch production), I may read a review of a film starring DB or an interview with DB. The interview may or may not touch on (or even wallow in) her "personal" life. Nothing other than an interview would mention it, except possibly a single half-sentence within a write-up of who had her arm around who and wore which bizarre dress as they tottered along the red carpet into the oscars, pardon me Oscar® award. It's not a matter of queasiness ("Lawks a mercy, they're living in sin!"), just one of avoiding trivia. The matter of who's bedding who is for the red-tops and mags left lying around in hairdressing salons. -- Hoary 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DavidShankBone has restored the reference with the edit summary: Don't be ridiculous. This has been widely reporter "Jane Pratt" and "Drew Barrymore" return 18,000 hits. She said it; if you want a better ref, get it yourself

Counting google hits seems to me to be missing the point; we don't judge a statement's encyclopedic significance by weighing google hits. I will not revert this myself, but suggest that it should be removed unless DavidShankBone can provide a proper justification. --Tony Sidaway 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

It's a little silly to take issue with US Magazine as a source when the 1) the page uses People Magazine, Starpulse Blog and Hollywood.com as sources; 2) they actually quote Jane Pratt; and 3) that you flat out remove comments that have been reported about widely. US Magazine is a major publication and is still open to liability, especially on direct quotes. It's not The Enquirer. --David Shankbone 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

David, it does looks to me like we can source the info but is it relevant. I mean if we could prove it was all true, should every person on Wikipedia have a list of their former sexual partners? It seems a little tacky... Is there anything very notable about this relationship - longevity, controversy etc. ? WjBscribe 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not encyclopedia-worthy. Are we going to start having articles, List of X celebrity's sexual partners next? Danny 12:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the justifications for removing the note-worthiness of the quote are more sound than removing it for lack of a reference or for the reference used. Whether it is noteworthy? I think that is debateable. There is considerable attention given to her bisexuality, and Jane Pratt was founder of Jane Magazine and Barrymore was featured on the cover of their premiere issue in 1997. So, I'm torn. I won't revert for any of the reasons listed above; I was reverting for the lack of source/quality of source reason. But, it's a questionable addition, though not clearly un-includable. As always, I note that the term "un-encyclopedic" is meaningless. --David Shankbone 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Our Biography of living persons policy is pretty stringent in this regard. Here's part of the section of reliability of sources:
Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?
And sure enough, reading the US Magazine artice, the weasel words are there. The reporter distances herself from the claim:
So is this just a case of name-Drewping? Of course, this juicy announcement of 90s she-sex agreeably coincides with the upcoming debut of Pratt's new talk radio show, Jane Radio, on Sirius Satellite Radio
We shouldn't really be using this if the reporter herself feels that she has to express such strong skepticism about the motives of her source. --Tony Sidaway 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The distancing is over the claim, not over whether it was said or not. Pratt said the quote, and that's what the article states. It doesn't state as fact that the two were getting it on; it's only Pratt saying that. And US Magazine is no more or not less than many of the other sources found on the page. The real issue, Tony, is whether it is notable for inclusion. The quote was said, so fussing with the source, on a page sourced with gossip-reporting, isn't particularly helpful. --David Shankbone 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They're saying they don't know whether or not to believe her, and hint very strongly that they think she's doing it to draw attention to herself. This kind of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A reliable source does not print stuff it doesn't know to be true, even with massive caveats. This source is not a reliable one. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter. The issue is (or was) whether Pratt has made the claim, not whether they had sex. And we aren't here to ascribe motivations such as attention-seeking. I buy more the claim that it doesn't belong than I did about the original issue you presented over sourcing. I wanted the claim inclusion-worthyiness of the claim debated than the referencing angle you explored. --David Shankbone 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that it's odd to dismiss this celeb rag and not to dismiss another, or a blog. Solution: Dismiss the lot. (I hadn't noticed their use because I hadn't even read the article: I just latched onto this part because a complaint was posted about it on WP:AN/I or some such place.) ¶ The quote was said, so fussing with the source, on a page sourced with gossip-reporting, isn't particularly helpful. Zap all the gossip. ¶ The issue is (or was) whether Pratt has made the claim. That's your issue. Mine include whether anyone cares whether Pratt made the claim, and whether anyone would care about it even if they knew the claim were true. ¶ There is considerable attention given to her bisexuality. There is? Not in any news source to which I pay any attention. ¶ As always, I note that the term "un-encyclopedic" is meaningless. It is? I thought it meant something like "insignificant". This woman is an actress; do other people's tales (even if true) about her sex life have any significance in her acting? To me, it sounds like trivia. (Articles on celebs generate "Trivia" sections, to which teenagers and others earnestly contribute, and when these sections get too big somebody comes along with a scythe and lops them, because the contents are trivial.) -- Hoary 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd have no problem removing the sources, but only if you are willing to go through the trouble to find better sources. It's easy to delete; it's tough to actually do research and work. ¶ It's not my issue whether she said it, it was the issue of an included piece of information, the genesis of which was not me - you stated the real issue I wanted the page to explore, whether it merits inclusion, but not because of a ref-related reason, in my opinion. ¶ There is considerable attention given to her bisexuality in the article and on the Talk page, and it was recently the subject of an edit war. It's meaningless to say "not to any news source to which I pay any attention." So what. ¶ Nope, it's meaningless, used as a justification when "un-encyclopedic" is ill-defined. I see it over and over. ¶ The article isn't entitled "Drew Barrymore's acting" it's about Drew Barrymore, the actress, producer and person. But I would probably agree, it's inclusion is not necessary; that wasn't my point. And I suppose you're the scythe-wielder - wow, what a Wiki-hero! You should burnish your own superhero insignia. --David Shankbone 13:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My superhero status [thank you!] and other matters aside, if we agree that inclusion is unnecessary, can't we cut it? Or are there solemn devotees of tittle-tattle hereabouts who'll be offended? As for sourcing, aren't there articles about Barrymore in some periodicals worth reading, like, oh, I dunno, New Yorker or the (London) Guardian or similar? I'd have thought that those interested in her would be able to dig these out. Anyway, I strongly disagree with any notion that finding good sources is the responsibility of somebody who objects to crappy sourcing -- especially when what's being sourced doesn't seem worth inclusion. -- Hoary 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It's already been cut, before you first wrote above. I'm more of a photographer and occasional writer of brand new, heavily-sourced articles, (such as Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, Larry Kramer and Evan Wolfson, et. al.) so I thoroughly understand where you are coming from. However, I disagree with the tendencies of some (not necessarily you or anyone else on this page) to remove information that is poorly-sourced instead of adding a fact tag or finding a decent source. This was the genesis of my issue. I see it over and over that things are just removed because of poor- or no-sourcing. Wikipedia was born from poor-sourcing fire; however, it hasn't become one of the top 10 global internet sites because this information wasn't/isn't seen as useful. I am very against removing things willy-nilly because it's an "unsourced statement" but wholly supportive of removing things because they matter little or are "unsource-able." --David Shankbone 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iconicity

  • Barrymore has an iconic image as one of the world's most recognized celebrities
    • Does this mean anything beyond Barrymore is one of the world's most recognized celebrities, and if so, what?
  • She made a comeback with an iconic but small performance in the successful 1996 horror film Scream.
    • Does "an iconic" mean "a good", "an impressive", "an important", something else, or nothing at all?

-- Hoary 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just bad English, so rewrite. Iconic means "like, of pertaining to, a picture." Here's it seems to be used in a superlative or definitive sense, meaning perhaps "Drew Barrymore seems more like a celebrity than anyone else I can think of", and "when people hear the word celebrity, they think of someone like Drew Barrymore." --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of living persons

I've removed unsourced of poorly sourced statements. If a statement is poorly sourced, please do not just remove the source, remove the statement itself to comply with Wikipedia policy. If a statement is unsourced or poorly sourced, 'do not stick a "citation needed" tag on it. These are not to be used in biographies of living persons. To comply with Wikipedia policy, remove unsourced statements from this article immediately and without discussion. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

I moving them out because she has been married two times, of course she isn't lesbian!My answer--71.96.235.230 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This "answer" is apparently in response to this question of mine (about removing material indicating DB was bisexual, not that she was lesbian). How having been married twice shows you're not bisexual is beyond my comprehension.
And why the sex life/preferences of DB belong in an encyclopedia article about her is beyond my comprehension. For example, I haven't seen any hint that any of this has affected her acting or producing in any way.
There's also the little matter pointed out at the very head of this talk page. -- Hoary 04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verify Bisexuality?

Can anyone verify the June 2003 New Woman reference? Given the history of this article, it'd be nice to make sure it's valid. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

two reports from, I would think, reliable sources in 2003 soon after the interview. [4][5]NIghtjar 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

nope, those aren't true!imo--71.96.237.176 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Her weddings?

Seems we are missing the section on Drew's personal life.... weddings??

Barrymore has been married twice. Her first was to Jeremy Thomas, but the marriage lasted less than two years. Her second marriage was to Canadian comedian Tom Green, and in this case, they separated after five months and the marriage was dissolved shortly after.

So how about putting that in the article??? What, are all the lesbians in the readership trying to rewrite this woman's history (yet again)?? Amazing that she can talk about never being with just one woman and it's in the article but the fact that she's tied the knot TWICE is neglected! Helllllooooooo?16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginity

If she was drinking, smoking, and doing drugs by 13, at what age did she lose her virginity then? And please don't delete this post as vandalism. --202.71.137.18 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just before her 14th birthday as cited in this article --60.242.209.195 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scruff McGruff

She was in a Scruff McGruff video called "Users are Losers, i have the videowhicky1978 talk 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected why??

There is no reason listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.167.113 (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olive, the Other Reindeer

She played Olive in this. Should it not be mentioned? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive,_the_Other_Reindeer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drug use/Rebelious phase

Noticed that the article quoted as a source for the drug timeline is misquoted, can't edit as it's protected, but maybe someone who can is still paying attention... so here's the quote: "Barrymore opens up about her substance abuse problems, which landed her in rehabilitation for over a year at the age of thirteen. She even shares her substance use timeline, including smoking her first cigarette at nine, having her first alcoholic drink at eleven, smoking marijuana at twelve and doing cocaine at thirteen." smoking her first cigarette at nine, having her first alcoholic drink at eleven, smoking marijuana at twelve and doing cocaine at thirteen."

[edit] Link Add

Please Add Chinese Link - zh:茱兒·芭莉摩. The page is protected. -- by 218.174.154.125 -- 11:07 30 January (UTC)

[edit] 2000 Malibu Road

Something should be written about her starring role in 2000 Malibu Road--Mongreilf (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ihbgy8gyihgyugy8gyttgftrf7t9f7tf7tf7t0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.164.233 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)