Talk:Mary Pickford/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Could be a GA with a few more inline citations and references, the Trivia section pared away, and some minor tidying.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Your article claims that Mary Pickford was somewhat of a recluse in her later years. My father just passed away 10/09 and we were going thru some of his pictures. There was one of him with Mary Pickford in 1942 before he shipped overseas. My mother said that Mary Pickford often invited servicemen to her home for swimming and dinner before they shipped out. My mother said that she would serve the soldiers their cocktails and actually prepared their dinner. It was her way of thanking them for their service to our country. I thought that was pretty cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.137.205.161 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Its true that some service men were hosted by Mary Pickford at her house. However, unless you can identify her house in the photo of Pickford and your father, there is one other logical explanation. The USO operated a nightclub called the Hollywood Canteen. In Los Angeles, many people from the movie business volunteered their time at the Hollywood Canteen, entertaining troops at that club before they shipped out for the war. Mary Pickford was one of many famous visitors to the Hollywood Canteen. It would have been quite exhausting, and a wear and tear on her house, for her to coninuously entertain soldiers at her house non-stop, although she was known to do it on occasion. Marc Smilen, Dania Fl.74.166.156.250 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can find a less blurry picture of her? --Infrogmation 18:17 16 May 2003 (UTC)

I found one. -- Infrogmation 02:27 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Did Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford get married on March 28, 1920 ? The Wikipage Douglas Fairbanks says March 18. Can someone in the know confirm the date and fix this accordingly, pl PFHLai 03:29, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

It's 28 (twenty-eighth) March 1920 in Charles Kidd's Debrett Goes to Hollywood, p. 47. - Nunh-huh 03:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you for fixing the Douglas Fairbanks page, too. -- PFHLai 04:15, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

205.188.117.71 (talk · contribs) changed "$5 a week" to "$5 a day". I don't know which is right. The change could be innocent but it looks like possible vandalism. Anybody know or have a source to check? -- WCFrancis 01:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

In case you still need this information: It is $5 a day.

Source: Booton HERNDON, 1978. Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks. Page 64-66
2010aurora (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

1941 Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers (later to become United Artists according to the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers wikipage) founded?? According to unitedartist.com and Charlie Chaplin's page UA was founded in 1919. Is the 1941 date incorrect?? --Stmoose 06:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The 1941 date is definitely wrong. Pickford was retired by then, and Fairbanks was dead. Rossrs 08:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am curious if anyone knows if the date listed in the article (1895) when Pickford's father abandoned the family is wrong? Her younger brother, actor Jack was born in 1896. I have never heard that they are step-brother and sister. Could this date of abandonment or Jack's birth year be wrong? ExRat 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He could have ditched the family from April to December 1895, after the mother became pregnant. Hbdragon88 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It then states she is raised in the Catholic faith by her mother in line with the father's religious heritage. Maybe I'm reading it wrong though. —The preceding

The stamps footnote 6 link doesn't work. I wanted to find whether they each had their own stamp or, as the text says, they were all on one stamp. Korky Day 06:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In an East German biography of Charlie Chaplin, I learned that Pickford strongly condemned Chaplin's politicalization of the Great Dictator. Apparently that lead to a break between them. Shouldn't that important possible reflection of her character be discussed here? --anon91.7.178.28 12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but isn't Mary Pickford died from Spanish flu in 1918? I'm very confused. Can someone look this up?

Yes, you're very confused. I dont know where the hell you got that idea. There's only one Mary Pickford that I've ever heard of, and she has a lengthy history, before becoming reclusive in her last 15 years of her life. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference is: Collier, R.1977. The Plague of the Spanish Lady: The Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919. New York: Atheneum.

thanks. 99.225.102.25 01:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont speak Dutch but it appears to me that that version of this article is a featured one. Even though I dont speak it I can say it looks well put together. Maybe someone could take some cues or translate? This page has always felt a little...lacking in something. And thats a shame. --Maggiedane (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of updating and expanding this article. A translation of the Dutch version will be used if needed. I don't know how long the updating will take place but hopefully I can have something by August 2009. Jimknut (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A translation of the Dutch page is expected within the next few months. Jimknut (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding, Maggiedane, how you could possibly make a judgment of something you can't read by how it looks. Each WP version has some differences in quality standards for featured vs. good vs. other ratings. Referencing requirements appear to be different - But at least this page doesn't include links to blogs. I hope there is content in the Dutch version suitable for this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This was an inappropriate edit. The restored image is clearer and better serves readers. Comments? Jack Merridew 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not an inappropriate edit and your stating such is itself inappropriate. The original photograph has details left, including the photographer's mark and the benchmark border from the image left intact. Such borders and marks are important to identify it as by someone whose photographs are historically significant. Just because someone can touch in darkness in the surrounding areas doesn't mean it is improved. He has also dodged out any detail except for her face and hair, and the depth of her features are gone also. You cannot see any indication that she even has a body in the "restored" image. What's restored? The image appears flat and unremarkable when "blacked over". It should have been touched to eliminate a spot without flattening the depth of field. Sorry, making it look darker doesn't improve the image, it just flattens it. Not every vintage photograph is better with retouching, this example of a vintage Moody photograph of Pickford is one of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew requested an opinion, probably because I do a lot of digital restorations. This may surprise people, but I'd actually like to revise Commons policy to allow wholesale deletion of the type of restoration that was done here. The problem is lack of documentation. Wikimedia Commons needs to build the trust of special collections librarians and museum curators to gain access to material. One of the obstacles to acquiring digital media is the concern that radical edits would alter historic material without documentation. There are many encyclopedic subjects that we cannot illustrate adequately; it is vital to earn the trust of curators in order to illustrate certain topics. It is better to use unrestored images than poorly documented restorations. Please, always check the edit notes thoroughly before considering this type of material for use in article space. Durova⁴¹² 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A manipulated photograph in an historical or biographic article never better serves readers because it obliterates historical "facts" like the benchmark border. Pickford need not look more alluring in her photo here. Perhaps at a fan site, but not here.

Any of us would scale back overwrought copy if it obscured historical facts (I've lost enough copy that way) — why should it be any different with an overwrought photograph? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A "restored" photo is a manipulated image, manipulated to someone's opinion of what looks "better". As such,

WP:NPOV apply. "Restored" photos can have there place here, under very very narrow circumstances (IMHO - the rational should probably be explained in the article text). However, the default, especially for biography, should be an as-faithful-as-possible reproduction of the original photo. Studerby (talk

) 05:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By-the-by and fyi, there have been at least 2 other images used on the page. Purely on an "I-like-it" basis, I prefer the original one better; however, I haven't looked at talk history or image history/documentation or considered any other editorial issues (and am not going to). Besides image quality and image authenticity, the main picture should have relevance to the main aspect of notability of the article subject; in Pickford's case, that would be her movie career, so we would want a career-related image if possible - a poster, movie still, promotional photo, etc. etc, not a "family photo". Ideally, the caption would explain source and relevance of the photo. Just my 2 cents, have at it... (Oh, and if we're fussing about image quality, please g*d, someone get a better version of the Pickford/Hoover photo, or a different photo. That image hurts my eyes.) Studerby (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an important distinction between a photograph of historical value and some of the more recent Flickr images that are often poorly cropped etc, and which benefit from a bit of manipulation. With those images I don't see any more of a POV issue than exists in the choice of wording in any article. With historical images, there may sometimes be the necessity to remove a major blemish, but even that would be very unusual and the integrity of the image is more important than making it more palatable to the eye of a particular editor or editors. I agree with the points presented by Wildhartlivie, HarringtonSmith and Studerby, but most of all I support the comments made by Durova. If a short-sighted approach to image manipulation results in organisations losing confidence in Wikipedia's ability to maintain the integrity of images, that can only have a detrimental effect. There are a number of Carl Van Vechten images on Commons and a tag that states "However, the Carl Van Vechten estate has asked that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer." That's just a basic example of how easily we can highlight the issue. If we can't respect such a simple request, I don't think we deserve access to these images, and perhaps people who hold valuable images may have a similar viewpoint, and withhold images that they may have otherwise allowed access to. (On a side-note ... sheesh the Laurence Olivier image I was going to use an example has been cropped 4 times, so I've reverted it back.) Rossrs (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some way or place to put that first photo in the article? It's gorgeous! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll defer to Durova's view of the restored image. The one on the left, above, is nice. Jack Merridew 06:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Large parts of the article uses unencyclopedic praise and unreferenced POV statements. This is an encyclopedia, not women's magazine. 188.100.197.94 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to point out what parts you claim use "unencyclopedic praise and unreferenced POV statements" or are we suppose to guess what you're referring to? Pinkadelica^♣ 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but it's not the only page that he did this to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Well, then I'll reiterate what an editor on

Talk:Portable Document Format said in reference to the same IP slapping an NPOV tag on that page and taking off. If the IP doesn't at least attempt to fix the perceived problems in a few days, away goes the tag. Pinkadelica^♣

06:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the peacock terms, at least the ones on the wiki puffery list. (Some were used in context not promotional. i.e. great, famous) Someone else please go over it. I may have missed some.'... legendary, great, astonishing, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, cutting-edge, fantastic, extraordinary, masterly, brilliant, famous, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected ...." The tone could be a lot better in a places: "In this period, Pickford also made two of the greatest silent films ever made in Hollywood: Sparrows (1926), which blended the Dickensian with newly minted German expressionist style, and the romantic comedy My Best Girl (1927). These films are not just technical triumphs, but are icons of the silents' great, poetic final period." but you see similar (or worse) in every entertainment bio on here. Eudemis (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, but (as acknowledged) the article still reads in a rather gushy style, and it seems to assume that the reader already knows a fair amount about its subject (for example, it talks about parties at Pickfair, without explaining that this was the name of their house). In addition, there are many long passages, etc., with no footnotes. One imagines that considerable portions of the text have been lifted from other sources, probably in fanzines. I, too, have done a little, but more needs to be done. It's like playing whack-a-mole.

--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the proof that her mother was Irish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.108.36 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anybody can offer some information to corroborate my speculation that Pickford was illiterate or Dyslexic. I collect Mary Pickford letters. Her entire life, letters were typewritten, perhaps dictated her whole life to secretaries. And when she quit movies, because she didnt want to do talkies, I speculate maybe it was because she was not able to read scripts. Silent film is all about physical expression, not verbal expression. Although she did publish a few books. However they may have been dictated. Marc S., Dania Florida 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately per the Wikipedia rules, my collection of Mary Pickford letters is not a basis for inclusion of any addional information. But with regard to her laters years, Mary was active with personal appearances as late as 1963. So her years as an alcoholic recluse really are limited to the period from 1963 to her death in 1979. Marc S., Dania Florida 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a sentence in the "personal life" section of the article that says that people "instinctively" stood up when Pickford entered a room. This is a ridiculous statement. An instinctive reflex requires no thought, happens automatically and is hard-wired into the nervous system. Its primary role is self-preservation. The wording should be changed to reflect what the writer really intended to convey.

Given that's likely exactly what the writer had in mind, it works fine. - Denimadept (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion and an obvious one at that. An opinion that is apparently yours. Are Wikipedia articles supposed to be about some editor's opinion? So it would seem. Do Wikipedia's editors want their articles to sound opinionated the way this one does? Looks like they don't mind. There must've been some people who didn't "instinctively" stand up. LOL.

It's a wording choice which fits the situation. If you don't like it, find another way to put it. - Denimadept (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You fix it you're the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Gladys Marie Smith" figures extensively in a Google books search, but so does "Gladys Louise Smith".

Erenst Lubistch says "Although she always claimed to have been born Gladys Marie Smith in 1893, Mary Pickford was actually born Gladys Louise Smith in 1892, a small but not untypical .." Laughter in Paradise - Page 86

However the matter may be cleared up by Kevin Brownlow's book which cites Pickford "I was baptized Gladys Marie by a French priest — Gladys Marie Smith. David Belasco settled on Pickford after I told him the various names in my family..." The Parade's Gone by ... p 123

We know that this happened when she was four, so the mystery is solved!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

What's the point of including the street address of where she was born 123 years ago? Sca (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mary Pickford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following