Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 20 August 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pittsburgh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Evelyn Nesbit was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 1, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Barrymore, Nesbit child adopted?

I have a suspicion that my grandmother is the daughter of John Barrymore and Evelyn Nesbit. The timing, facts of my grandmother's birth and adoption in July, 1904, and her step-mother's deep commitment to secrecy and interest in Evelyn Nesbit make it a possibility that one of her "appendectomies" (aborting John Barrymore's acknowledged fetuses) actually was born and given into adoption. My grandmother grew up near Pittsburgh around Connellsville, PA. Her step-mother would not tell her who her real mother was, only to mention that some day all would be OK since she was the daughter of very important people that could not admit she was alive. Her mother, a midwife, died before she could tell her the secret.

My grandmother has a very interesting tale to tell if anyone is interested. She lives alone in a small town in Southwest Georgia and is 101 and very healthy. You can contact me via timb707@yahoo.com. This isn’t about money; this is about a wonderful woman maybe finding out who her parents were.

I believe your grandmother could well have been Evelyn Nesbit's daughter.Remember back then most abortions were fatal for the mother. Most women opted to give birth and just place the child up for adoption.Did you ever see photos of your grandmother when she was young?I hope you're right.I have always been fascinated with Evelyn.My aunt Edna, who was born several years after Evelyn looked just like her.jeanne (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack & Evelyn's relationship occurred from 1901-1903 at the latest. Since you have posted this in 2005 and you say your grandma is/was ?? 101 at that time then she would've been born in 1904 after their relationship was over. Unless Jack got Evelyn pregnant towards the end of 1903 and your grandmother was born sometime in the middle of 1904 that would be very possible. Where else have you heard this info of Evelyn possibly giving birth to one of the Jack pregnancies? I find it very interesting. Paula Uruburu states Evelyn had undergone at least three abortions, two from Jack and a third one probably from the Polo player right after Jack. While I've known about the Jack pregnancies the third one is new to me. As you know abortions at that time were illegal and dangerous. Razorblades & knives were used to cut the woman's womb open, remove the fetus, and sew the womb back shut. If Evelyn had undergone so many abortions her womb would've been so spliced & dissected I doubt she would've been able to carry future children to term. As we see she gave birth to a son, Russell, in 1910 apparently without any problems. So it is very credible that Evelyn possibly delivered one of Barrymore's children and the child adopted out without too much of a paper trail. The third pregnancy by author Paula Uruburu I doubt since she is speculating on her own and this comes from no other source AFAIK. Cecil B DeMille who was at his mother's boarding school seems to have witnessed events and talks about 'appendectomies' but not an actual birth which could mean that young Cecil who was newly married himself was not there the whole nine months of Evelyn's pregancy/ies. Also could Evelyn & Jack have expressed guilt over the children being aborted? maybe Jack since his later erratic lifestyle. It is not known if Evelyn did any detective work on her own to try and locate any person born from 1902-1904. If so this would be evidence that she was at least searching(like many mothers do today) for the baby she & Jack gave up. This would be fascinating to know if Evelyn(or her son Russell) made these endevours later in their lives to try to locate Evelyn's(& Jack's) adopted out child. I(speculating) would wonder if Drew Barrymore(& her family) as well as Russell Thaw's grandchildren would submit to DNA tests for your grandmother. Very interesting this topic. Koplimek (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough expertise to edit the Evelyn Nesbit article, but clearly Stanford White did not "slip a roofie in drink" in 1900! Perhaps it was a "Mickey Finn," but I'll leave the research to others. Dangold 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "roofie" business was slipped in by an anonymous "donor" and is gone now. I'm also removing the cleanup notice as no discussion as to what should be "cleaned up" was given hear, and it's not clear that it's pertinent any longer. If someone feels it should be added back, please do so only after dropping a clue on the talk page as to why you may think so. - Nunh-huh 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good story on slipping choral hydrate into drinks, for date rape, from the year 1900 at Jennie Bosschieter. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In the "Trial" section of the article, it states that Thaw's plea of temporary insanity was the first use of this defense. This is inaccurate: in 1869, US Congressman Daniel Sickles was acquitted of the murder of US Atttorney for the District of Columbia, Philip Barton Key, on the basis of temporary insanity. The insanity defense had been used before then, but the Sickles trial probaly represents the first successful 'temporary insanity' plea in US legal history. - unsigned

If you know something is false, you should just remove it - especially a comment like this one, made almost as an aside. I've just done so. - Nunh-huh 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. Just new to this and did not want to presume.

Why is this article in the 'sex scandals' category? The murder that happened isn't really a scandal as there is no mention of any media coverage. Thus I've removed it for now - bring it back in if you feel it's really justified. 217.95.238.107 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The murder was covered sensationally in all the media of the time. The trial was headlined as "The Trial of the Century". The statement that "the murder that happened isn't really a scandal" is not simply wrong, it's absurdly wrong. Coverage set a new standard for being lurid and sensationalistic. And it continued 18 years later when Thaw tried to establish his sanity. Time magazine at that time wrote "Thus, some 18 years ago, while some of the press gave restrained and sober accounts of the Thaw case, the gum-chewers' sheets ranted ad nauseum about the pitfalls on the Great White Way; the "wages of sin"; the wily, wicked life of White; the uselessness of Thaw; the warning to young girls; the eternal law of Justice which prompted Thaw to avenge his wife's honor; the pathetic face of Mrs. Evelyn, etc., etc. Since that time the press has not improved." - Nunh-huh 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible dating problem

In Evelyn Nesbit's history under the "Birth" heading it states that she moved to New York City in 1901 and posed for Frederick Church. However, in Church's own biography it is listed that he died on April 7, 1900. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.33.172 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Good catch. There is no doubt that Evelyn posed for Church. She wrote two autobiographies, one in 1914 and one in 1934 which confirms this:

In 1914, she wrote: ": 'I will give you some letters of introduction to representative artists in New York." This he did. I remember one was Mr. F. S. Church, and Mr. Church gave me letters to Herbert Morgan, and Mr. and Mrs. Hyneman, and Carl Blenner. For all the artists I posed."

In 1934, she wrote: "For Frederick S. Church, whose staunchest patron was John Jacob Astor, I posed on Saturdays. These associations assured me entrée into New York's studio world, and soon I had more work than I could handle"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/century/sfeature/sf_nesbit_pop_01.html

Either the date of Church's death is incorrect or the date of Evelyn's move to New York. I assume the latter. Any one have any more information?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.206.219 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Evelyn solved this mystery herself. Frederick S. Church, the artist she posed for in 1901 was noted as the illustrator for Joel Chandler Harris' Uncle Remus in 1881. Frederick E. Church, the more famous landscape artist, is the one that is linked to the article. I'll correct it.

Picture?

Diana statue? Relevance? Bouncehoper 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Nesbit bio

I'm working on this Nesbit bio, providing referenced information, and generally "filling in" the trajectory of the events in her life. I've just re-done the "Early Life," section which was woefully sketchy and inadequate. Still more work to be done! Betempte (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I've completed editing, adding inline citations for the entire entry, also adding images to enhance text. Very time consuming, but well worth the effort, as I feel that what we now have is comprehensive information on Nesbit and the era.Betempte (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evelyn Nesbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I shall review this article. Thine Antique Pen 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:LASTNAME

Please remove all use of 'Evelyn' in the article, per WP:LASTNAME. Only include where you are stating their full birth name, which is in the lead. Use 'Nesbit' their surname or 'she' or something like that in the body of the article. Thine Antique Pen 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

References

To-do.

Lead

Needs lots of work. Does not summarise the article well enough. I would expect 2—3 paragraphs for this size of article. Thine Antique Pen 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• Paragraph 1: MOS:BOLD issues. Unbold "Florence Evelyn Nesbit" and include in lead. Thine Antique Pen 12:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Modeling career

“Super-Model,” and “Pin-up Girl”

• Paragraph 3: unreferenced, add references. Remove external link.Thine Antique Pen 12:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edited entry

I've edited the entire Nesbit entry addressing the constructive comments provided by reviewers: Substituted "Nesbit" for "Evelyn" as appropriate throughout and re-wrote the lead in a summary format representative of the bio as a whole. Feedback welcomed. Betempte (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit update

I've edited the entire entry according to the constructive comments provided by reviewers: Substituted "Nesbit" for "Evelyn" as appropriate throughout entry and re-wrote the lead in a summary format representative of the bio as a whole. Betempte (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

More dating problems

The year 1900 has a confusing (and contradictory) chronology according to the text; it states that Mrs Nesbit moved to NYC in June but Evelyn did not join her until November - she was staying with family friends although where (PA or NY) is not stated - and that Mrs Nesbit made no contacts towards NY photographers until November. Yet the text goes on to describe "Two artworks, one by Frederick Church dating to July, 1900...- Church being one of the NY photographers Mrs Nesbit had been encouraged to contact. How is Evelyn posing for him when she apparently couldn't have met him for at least another 4 months? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, is it a particular period style (or photographer preference) that many of these early shots show her with her head tilted back and "looking down her nostrils"? Was there supposed to be something exceptional about her nose-holes or was the effect just incidental? For a celebrated young beauty it seems a rather odd and frankly unflattering pose. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The date of July, 1900 for the Frederick Church artwork was provided by Nesbit herself in an interview she gave in 1934. Nesbit described the painting as a portrayal of "Undine" with water lillies in her hair and tigers at her flanks." I've researched Church's work and can find no information on this specific painting which Nesbit is referencing. As she gave the interview more than thirty years after the date she cited, one can only assume that her memory was faulty and the July, 1900 date is incorrect. I've removed the date from the entry, as it can't be verified. Betempte (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nesbit's posing style

The photographs and artworks of Nesbit reflect the social values of the early part of the 20th century. “Downcast eyes” were a sign of good breeding in that it showed a woman who was modest and deferential—not open to male advances. Or alternately it could read as “coy,” the shyness only a pretense, which was considered a provocative invitation. Either interpretation conveys cultural signals recognized in that era. Many of her modeling poses were considered racy or at least “naughty.” Betempte (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evelyn Nesbit/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Accedie (talk · contribs) 21:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is extremely florid and subjective, often veering into speculation about the internal motivations of Nesbit and the people in her life. Just one example of recurring inappropriate subjectivity and non-encyclopedic tone: "Although he was still a part of her life, over time Nesbit came to realize that she had no future with Stanford White. She also knew her entanglement with White had compromised her reputation; if the extent of their involvement became common knowledge, no respectable man would make her his wife. She also harbored some resentment towards White, faulting him for never being candid with her about Thaw’s excesses and derangement." I've tried to tone this down a bit with a copyedit, but this article needs a substantial rewrite.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Quite a bit of editorializing with phrases like "Unhappily, Mrs. Nesbit was thrust into the role of managing her daughter’s career" and "It is conjectured the Thaws promised Nesbit a comfortable financial future...", as well as peacock prose, e.g., "White—a notorious womanizer known as "Stanny" by his close friends and relatives (...) A practiced voluptuary, White was a calculating seducer who used intermediaries to disarm the girl he had marked as his new conquest". Generally fails Words to watch.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Quotes are sourced, which is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Many paragraphs include facts or assertions that are not cited (as well as subjective material/conjectures that are impossible to ascertain), and there is over-reliance on primary sources: most of the material comes from one book, which itself relies primarily on Nesbit's own memoires.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Quite a bit of original synthesis, e.g.: "She pressed for the defense to follow a compromise strategy; one of temporary insanity, or what in that era was referred to as a 'brainstorm'" and, before I removed it, "Nesbit's mother was unable to provide either the business acumen nor the vigilant, proactive guardianship required to ensure the best interests of a teenage girl working as a studio model—Mrs. Nesbit was the antithesis of the archetypical 'stage mother.'"
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Too much focus on the "Trial of the Century," which probably merits its own article instead.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Too sensationalized and fictionalized – this would make a fine novel/short story, but it's not an encyclopedia entry.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	How is this, this, or this own work?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Requires a substantial rewrite to comply with Manual of Style conventions for neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Images need to be properly licensed to indicate authorship and fair use rationale, if applicable. More scholarly, factual sources are strongly recommended.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
• C-Class Pittsburgh articles
• Low-importance Pittsburgh articles
• WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Unknown-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Former good article nominees