Talk:Dick Van Dyke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early life?

What about his early life? His parents, etc.? He has a famous brother so what about where they came from? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Improbable passions?

From the article:

"One of Van Dyke's modern passions is producing 3D computer graphics. He created many of the 3D rendered effects shown in Diagnosis: Murder, did some of the special effects in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and continues to work with LightWave 3D."

Could somebody post some proof of those claims? I will delete them otherwise, as it seems highly unlikely that, among others, an actor like Dick would learn LightWave at the age of 70... Peter S. 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No answer so far. Ok, I'm removing that stuff now. If Dick really does it, add it again later with some proof. Peter S. 11:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well check out the reference at the bottom of the page. Hard to believe but it seems genuine. me

Wow. Yeah, seems either genuine or a very elaborate joke. Peter S. 00:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

An article from the LA Times about his passion for CGI and the effects that got into "Diagnosis Murder": http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-vandyke22dec22,1,5096039.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

-Mark 69.129.39.230 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As there're sources, I'm putting this back in. I'm leaving out the part about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, as it implies he did 3D graphics for that, way before they were possible. boffy_b 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I inferred from the writeups that his movies were not very good. However, Mary Poppins is perhaps the best family movie ever made, I would say better than The Sound of Music, and one gets the wrong impression in your writeup, particluarly a young reader who may not have seen his movies.

Perhaps there could be made a mention of the fact that Dick Van Dyke had a guest appearance on an episode of Scrubs, specifically Series 2, Episode 14 - My Brother My Keeper. The article at present doesn't list much of his recent work.

If he is really Dutch-American why is his last name spelled Van Dyke instead of Van Dijk and why doesn't he know that Dick van Dyke means lul van een lesbi?

He isn't really Dutch-American. I couldn't even find a Dutch-born ancestor after tracking his ancestry back at Rootsweb 200 years. I suppose the original ancestor, way, way, way back was spelt "Van Dijk" or something Mad Jack 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WXIA?

I just saw a statement on the History section of WXIA ("11 Alive") stating Van Dyke worked as an announcer during the station's early years.

Dutch?

Is he a Dutch-American? I think yes Kowalmistrz 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Film Career

In Mary Poppins, this article claims, Van Dyke played an "Australian Cockney chimney sweep"? What the *bleep* is Australian Cockney, and how is this even true? Now, his accent may have been laughable, but saying his character was Australian is going a bit far... Lazylisa 08:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..I'm dubious about it too, it seems like an excuse for his poor attempt at the Cockney accent! --Liam Mason 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholism

I’m surprised that his battle with alcoholism is given such a brief mention. He’s battled it much of his adult life and openly announced his alcoholism to help others. It is one of the reasons his career stalled in the 1960s.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/22/lkl.00.html

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/history-of-9-famous-alcoholics-who-quit-drinking.htm

Jalipa

I agree. Now it isn't mentioned at all. I think it should be mentioned. He has come out publically and said it is something he is dealing with. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism to TV career section

I don't know how to revert the "TV Career" section; it appears much of it was deleted/vandalized. Can someone with wikiskills please fix this? (I HATE WIKI VANDALISM!) Psychotroll 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. How could his entire TV career be summed up first with a reference to Scrubs and then call the Dick Van Dyke Show a "little-known situational comedy". It was ground breaking and a well know show. I can't edit--Please can someone fix this??192.128.167.68 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Jim D

Another unexplained redirect...

Why does "Learn Not to Burn" redirect here? As far as I know, "Learn Not to Burn" is the name of an NFPA program. What does it have to do with Dick Van Dyke? Nothing, I'm guessing. Or at least, it's a usage that isn't at all notable. Fuzzform (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bye Bye Birdie?

Odd that there's no mention of "Bye Bye Birdie." Starring as Albert in the original Broadway show was very important to Van Dyke's career in 1960, although he was already well-known. There's very little, in fact, on the development of his career at all. NaySay (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Older Photo

I don't suppose anyone has a free photo of Van Dike from the 50s or 60s? He's best known from that time, rather than the more recent senior-citizen photos on the site now.

97.113.68.147 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Writeup

he deserves one the size of Winston Churchill man this bloke is a legend. If I knew more about his biography I would contribute, but all I know is that he deserves a much bigger page about him.109.154.0.180 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I porpoise this should be in the article: [1].John Z (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried changing the article because Dick Van Dyke television and films seemed to be going in two different directions and I tried to make them go in one direction. Also I tried to move "personal history" to the top of the article but these were blocked and changed back. My rationale wasn't to commit vandalism.70.125.135.72 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

what's the reasoning behind deletions?

Why were the Music Man and Bye Bye Birdie references deleted?70.125.135.72 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

short sentences as paragraphs

there's too many short sentences trying to be paragraphs. I'm going to move them together. I tried before but someone put them back. With all due respect I don't think one sentence can work as a paragraph. Also the I-5 killer reference should be a footnote in my opinion. It's an achievement of his son's that his son's office prosecuted the I-5 Killer, not Dick Van Dyke's.It's like talking about one thing and then changing the subject and then going back to the original topic. It just feels irrelevant.70.125.135.72 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"emcee"

One of the references states he played the part of an "emcee". I wonder if this is accurate since thw role is actually that of "MC" master of ceromonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.211.52 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your question could have been resolved by flipping open a dictionary. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emcee 71.192.115.15 (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Younger picture, please

He looks so old in this picture. This is because he is very old. Why not using a picture when he was in the prime in his life? When he was younger. 83.84.17.246 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because they're harder to get in the form we can use on Wikipedia. The older shots (where he's young) are likely to be non-free for use here, whereas, a Wikipedian can go to some public appearance this week and try to get a shot of him, and upload the result with appropriate licensing. He'll be even older in that shot, though... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite true. There is, however, an alternative photo over at Commons which appears to have been taken about 10 years prior to the one we're currently using. It is here. Any strong opinions, one way or the other, about using that one instead? It would be great, I agree, to find a photo from the Mary Poppins days, but I don't see any that are clearly in the public domain. By all accounts he's a very nice man, so if anyone knows his address (or his agent's), he could probably be persuaded to supply one himself, along with permission to use it. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We've already got that Dick_Van_Dyke_2_crop.jpg image in the article, so I wouldn't care to change anything involving them. If Dick's got older photos, it might not be up to him to give permission for use. I'd imagine they probably come from studios or professional photogs. (But don't let me hold anyone back.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm -- you would think I would have noticed that the other photo is already in the article -- senility is a terrible thing. RE: vintage photos, you're correct that he would not own the rights to those taken by movie studios, news photographers,or paparazzi. But celebrities and/or their publicists typically own the publicity photos that they send out with press releases and such, and I can't imagine why he would object to having one of those in the article -- if anyone knows how to contact him to ask. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

CBS Morning Show

Note 15 is backed by (the perhaps more definitive): http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=vandykedic. 184.60.38.240 (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Military Service

There is no way that he was in the "Special Air Services", not least of which, no such organization exists. It is Special Air Service (no plural). He also is not British and would not have been eligible. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.217.232.58 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2012

Dick Van Dyke's great grandson is Ryan Breen, who currently resides in Phoenix Arizona as a guitar teacher at a charter school.(Metropolitan Arts Institute) This is not a change request, but an add request. 174.17.215.174 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TBrandley 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

there were few comic sparks??

"This was the first time he had ever played second banana on television and there were few comic sparks between Van Dyke and Burnett. He left after three months."

This doesn't read well for an international audience on a encyclopedia. Is it you are trying to say there was little comic synergy between the two? And what is the basis for this. I can't tell, if this is just hearsay or there is a real reference that documents the lack of comic synergy between the two. Or is this a unsubstantiated conclusion based on the idea he left after three months? I don't even recall this at all, he guest starred on CB multiple times but I don't recall at all that DVD was a substitute for HC at all. Please a reference which supports this. Jtagchair (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I have removed the unsourced part and improved wording. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Early years

Residents of Crawfordsville, Indiana have always claimed Dick and Jerry Van Dyke lived in their city before moving to Danville, Illinois. Does anyone have information about this?206.225.79.220 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Bob Cox, Crawfordsville, IN

90th Birthyday

Why does his age say 90 when its not 13th for another little under 4 hours if by eastern time? Seems like a user changed it based on Euro or British time when he is not British and still 89. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.106.149 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ages are calculated by the {{birth date and age}} template based on the UTC date. It is already December 13 UTC. General Ization ^Talk 03:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

S1 lead - veteran

" a World War II United States Army Air Corps veteran" - looking at S1 Lead... this seems quite wrong. Maybe in the lead. But not s1 and not the 1st thing. He is known for his comedic roles.Unfriend15 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

movie not listed

I'm remembering seeing a TV promo for a Dick Van Dyke film in the late 1970s to early 1980s for a film about an alcoholic. I cannot find it here or at imdb.com and yet I distinctly remember that and also that there was some mention at the time that he had been moved to make it based on personal experience in overcoming alcoholism, which I also don't see mentioned here. Does anyone else remember this??BlueIris2 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Bleeped out to read "Dick Van ****"

In Minecraft, when I typed his name, dyke got bleeped out so people can't write about Dick Van Dyke. I wrote it in a book and I was in Minecraft PE 1.2. 172.58.6.140 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But we can write D-Yikes or Dike. 172.58.6.140 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But Dick doesn't get bleeped out. 172.58.6.140 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dick Van Dyke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213021745/http://www.witsendproductions.com:80/history.htm to http://www.witsendproductions.com/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002031831/http://www.barbershop.org:80/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_114423.hcsp to http://www.barbershop.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_114423.hcsp#P-7_0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rumorfix.com/2012/03/dick-van-dyke-86-marries-40-year-old-makeup-artist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Van Dyke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130519230359/http://americanlivewire.com:80/dick-van-dyke-brain-disorder/ to http://americanlivewire.com/dick-van-dyke-brain-disorder

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dick Van Dyke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witsendproductions.com/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505173217/http://www.wyes.org/programs/localprod/goldenage/goldenage_about.html to http://www.wyes.org/programs/localprod/goldenage/goldenage_about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927230117/http://www.wdsu.com/community/267718/detail.html to http://www.wdsu.com/community/267718/detail.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.barbershop.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_114423.hcsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rumorfix.com/2012/03/dick-van-dyke-86-marries-40-year-old-makeup-artist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Diagnosis murder in Ireland

78.16.56.69 (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Bold text I live in Ireland and I was wondering if the show can be viewed here. It was shown by CBS and has been replaced by Scorpion. I have SKYE and up until tonight I could watch it. 24th.November 2017. Thanking you Cathal Henry,. cahenry01@hotmail.com

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Change "Nackvid Keyd" to "Navckid Keyd". The former is what is currently on the page, and is incorrect. I checked the credits of the film. (If you can't tell where the change is, it's NAV-ckid, not NACK-vid.) 65.189.32.236 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Chimney Sweep

The article correctly uses the term "sweep" (without the -er), and the photo caption should use the same word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.81.228 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones5922 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That is the correct terminology. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible category removal

Why is Dick Van Dyke placed in the category American tap dancers? Is there any proof that he is or was a tap dancer?2001:569:78BA:4A00:60EE:706A:BF02:8BC5 (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Article doesn't support that category (which was added in Feb 2016). I've removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

I think it would be helpful to state clearly that Dick Van Dyke endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016, right now it only says "as he campaigned for him,..." He also endorsed and campaigned for Bernie Sanders in 2020 as well. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dick-van-dyke-bernie-sanders-rally_n_5e5d35c3c5b67ed38b36359d 2603:8001:6901:50:990E:6B4C:997E:223C (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Substantial revisions

Hi @User:MarydaleEd! I was wondering if you'd like to discuss some of the recent WP:BOLD edits you've made on this page in WP:GOODFAITH. I understand the sentiment of removing "superfluous information", however, that expression can be quite flexible, and can occasionally remove sensible writing in the name of simplicity. For instance, using this edit as a primary example, you remove information regarding Van Dyke's characters in "The Comic" and "Cold Turkey" respectively. From context, the reader, unless familiar with Van Dyke's films, has any idea who "Rev. Clayton Brooks" is. But saying that Rev. Clayton Brooks was a "small-town minister who leads his Iowa town to quit smoking" gives a substantial amount of context to Van Dyke's filmography. In the same edit, you remove the phrase "any of the comedy films Van Dyke starred in throughout the 1960s were relatively unsuccessful at the box office" - which doesn't seem superflous, but a routine encyplodeic introduction of this point in Van Dyke's career.

While your tweaks regarding sentence structure are beneficial, I'm slightly concerned about some of the information you're trimming. Writing like this is routine on the pages of many quality biographies, such as Amy Adams and Ben Affleck, to name a few. Sourced content describing the trajectory of someone's career or role in a lesser-known film doesn't seem superfluous to me. I'm curious to know your thoughts on the matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I must say I nearly reverted several of @MarydaleEd's edits after seeing seemingly misleading edit summaries stating "Corrected sentence structure" on net removals of more than 1000 characters of content. I only stopped after reviewing the conversations on the editor's Talk page, but I have to wonder as well whether many of these wholesale removals shouldn't be brought here to the Talk page for discussion. General Ization ^Talk 03:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: It's customary here that when other editors are discussing your edits on a Talk page and invite you directly (via {{mention}}) to do so, you don't just go right on editing as you were doing before the invitation. Usually, that's considered suspicious and inconsistent with an assumption of good faith. There is no deadline. General Ization ^Talk 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your concerns about this article. Wikipedia is meant to be a summarization of its subjects. It is intended to provide enough information to allow the reader, if interested, to find the information in detail in other sources. Writing for an encyclopedia is a different style than writing for other media. I appreciate it that you came to Talk to inquire about my edits. You are right, it was a lot of information to remove and I am aware there are other articles like this one with superfluous information. All I can say is I’m getting to them as fast as I can. I welcome any questions about edits I make and I am happy to answer them. Also, I responded to your Talk posts as soon as I became aware of them. I am editing on an iPhone and I could not see the notifications at the top. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: I note and respect your extensive background as a professional writer, and I gather you have the best intentions. Are you overlooking the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative project? You seem to be on a mission to remove "superfluous" content, as you see it, throughout Wikipedia, while Betty has correctly pointed out that what you regard as superfluous, at least at this article, may actually offer value to some readers, and might not be found to actually be superfluous were editors of this article to discuss it and arrive at consensus, which is how we generally do things around here. Can you work within that framework, as opposed to the assignment you seem to have given yourself here? General Ization ^Talk 04:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I thank you for your comments. I am very much aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. However, as editors we edit alone, using our background, training and experience along with Wikipedia‘s style to make the best edits we can. To speak specifically to one of your concerns, the phrase "any of the comedy films Van Dyke starred in throughout the 1960s were relatively unsuccessful at the box office" violates a couple of Wikipedia policies. “Relatively“ is a word that lacks precision, and to say his films were unsuccessful is a subjective phrase and requires editorializing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Unsuccessful, compared to what? Unsuccessful, according to whom? I would like to point out that I have no interest in any article other than as an experienced editor who wants to bring all articles into proper Wikipedia style. I edit an article and then I move on to the next one. I have not given myself any specific assignment that is unlike what any other devoted editor at Wikipedia has, and that is to edit articles for proper style and content. I am among thousands of editors who do that. I’m happy to answer any further questions, but I must ask for your patience, as it is closing in on midnight where I am and I must wrap up my editing for the night. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I must agree with General Ization's sentiments - "corrected sentence structure" given as an explanation on mass removal of content does line up with WP:SUMMARYNO, and again, the definition of "superflous' is widely varied across the opinions of editors. I concede that that the "relatively unsuccessful" is unsourced (akin to many other phrases, sections, sentences in this article), but had it been sourced - i.e pointed out in a referenced article, biography, etc. then it would not seem superflous to me at all. I notice you have yet to reference a specific Wikipedia policy when referring to your edits. I'd hate to haggle over every bit and piece of your many revisions, but for instance - I don't see how a sentence describing the character of Rev. Clayton Brooks is unencyclopedic or against policy. Here, you you omit information about Van Dyke's audition process for "The Girls Against the Boys", which could admittedly be summarized, instead of crossed out completely. Here, you remove Carl Reiner's sourced involvement in "The Comic", despite the fact that Reinier is a notable filmmaker who twice (?) directed Van Dyke.

Biographies shouldn't be a mere list of people's career feats and accomplishments. Things like film reception, notable filmmaking partners, and character descriptions do not seem to be "superflous". It's a bit confusing to me that you view this type of content to be so, unless I'm misunderstanding, especially in the WP:FA biographies I pointed out, and were you to repeat your mass edits on those biographies, I would express the same concern.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I also am preparing to turn in for the night, but I will leave you with this observation: I have reviewed the article before and after the reductions you've made so far, and in my opinion it was a much better article (and not an excessively long one, needing reduction, given the subject's long and varied career) before them. It now reads like a series of bullet points, a PowerPoint version of the subject's career, and in my opinion you are damaging the article rather than improving it. If you can identify specific policy issues with content, we can and certainly should discuss them here, but I stand opposed to much of your removal of content. Were I not about to sign off for tonight, I would probably start the WP:BRD cycle by reverting your changes. Unless someone else cares to do so, that may need to wait until tomorrow. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd embark on that effort if I weren't working quite early tomorrow - while I agree with this point of view, I'd like to point out that MarydaleEd performed similar deletions on Stanley Tucci, which similarly reads like a bullet point list. While that might be unrelated to this particular article (perhaps this was a discussion better had on the user talk page) I'd like to reiterate that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is not the same as a listicle. Regardless, I agree that Van Dyke's career is long and varied, and that an article containing suitable amounts of detail and length is hardly superflous, and the quality of the article should be maintained according to the benefit of the reader and the encyclopedia. Again, WP:FA biographies like Adams, Affleck are considered some of Wikipedia's premiere BLP's according to MOS and policy. The implemented standard of text between the edited biographies and the FA biographies is quite substantial, especially when considered the amount of removed text.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Friends, I must beg your forgiveness for the length of this explanation. I had hoped to avoid a lengthy explanation, but you have raised many issues so I must endeavor to answer them. I am going to break it into paragraphs for easier reading. I hope that is not a violation of a Wikipedia rule. First, I continue to thank you for your contributions to this discussion. I understand your concern. It is clear that the amount of text that was edited or removed rattled you a bit and threw up a red flag, so I believe you are fulfilling your responsibility as Wikipedia editors by asking for an explanation. However, we must not allow a large removal of unnecessary information to distract us from our goal to write or edit in proper Wikipedia and encyclopedia style.
You have properly questioned my edit summaries. In some summaries I could have been more direct. However, when I wrote that I removed superfluous information, there was no ambiguity in that phrase. Superfluous means "unnecessary, especially through being more than enough." That is what I removed, unnecessary information that was more than enough.
It was suggested that my edits reduced the articles to bullet points. I understand that many Wikipedia editors like articles to be as if they were telling a story about the subject or like a biography they might read in other places. That simply is not encyclopedia style. Encyclopedia style is different from other forms of media. When writing for an encyclopedia, we want to get to the point without using unnecessary words. I direct you to Wikipedia's position: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
In the Dick Van Dyke article, it is unnecessary (superfluous) to include his co-stars in movies. There are many co-stars of movies. Why include one and not the other? The only answer to that question is because an editor thinks one co-star is more well-known than the others. Other people may consider another actor to be more prominent. More than anything, it is unnecessary information. This article is about Dick Van Dyke. It is irrelevant who else was in the movies he is in. It is only relevant to this article that he was in it. This article is not about Meryl Streep or Carl Reiner. If they were in a film, that film should be included in their Wikipedia articles.
To say that someone is "best known" for something or that they "gained significant popularity" for something is called puffery, as Wikipedia explains here: "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." You can't possibly know what a person is best known for unless a third party does some type of survey and publishes the results. Only then could you make such a statement because then you have a source. You might know someone best for one thing while someone else may best know that person for another thing.
We must maintain a "neutral point of view" and the requirement that the tone of our text ...should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." To return some of the language I removed would be to violate Wikipedia standards against puffery, peacock language and editorializing. Biographies of living people (BLP) "...should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
Also, biographies absolutely should be a list of people's career feats and accomplishments, written in proper Wikipedia style. Public reception of a person's work is also appropriate.
Additionally, we should not compare one Wikipedia article to another to determine if the article is properly written. We should compare articles to proper Wikipedia and encyclopedia style to determine if they are properly written.
In writing for Wikipedia, we seek "...only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them." Salient means most important. If you question how deeply I cut information in this article, I point you to Wikipedia's own example:
"An extreme example of hyperbole and emphatic language taken from Star Canopus diving accident as of 28 December 2019 (fixed in the next two revisions) reads: 'Miraculously both divers survived the 294-foot fall, but now they faced a harrowing predicament. ... Helplessly trapped, with nothing to keep them warm, ... all they could do was huddle together and pray that rescuers would find them in time. ... But time was not on their side.'
This was fixed to:
'Both divers survived the 294-foot fall.'
While hyperbole was not necessarily the issue here, I use this example only to show you that Wikipedia does not shy away from bold editing; in fact, it encourages it.
Of course I make mistakes, but this is what I do. This type of writing has been the work of my life. To understand encyclopedia style and Wikipedia style, you must not only focus on the language of the style, but also look at the bigger picture and grasp the spirit of what Wikipedia is saying. Keep the information in a neutral point of view, don't editorialize or overstate, summarize, get to the point and avoid unnecessary language.
Your point is taken that I could better explain my edits in summaries. I will try to improve that. However, as far as my edits go, I am confident that they are proper and in keeping with Wikipedia and all encyclopedia style.
Still, please know that I truly appreciate your comments. I appreciate it that you all care so much about the same thing that I care about. You were each kind and respectful in your questioning of my edits. I love this community of Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to again point out that it is perfectly understandable to "compare one Wikipedia article to another to determine if the article is properly written" when similar biographies are WP:FA, which were determined by WP:CONSENSUS to be among Wikipedia's best written articles according to the policy you have repeatedly cited. I would also like to note that you didn't just remove superflous, unsourced information - you removed sourced information that was perfectly relevant to the subject's biography and career history, including, but not limited to: establishing that The Dick Van Dyke Show Revisited was a reprisal episode instead of a reunion special a-la Friends, Van Dyke's own views on the projected reception of By By Birdy, Van Dyke's accent coach in Mary Poppins, Van Dyke's character descriptions in The Comic, Curious George, and Night At The Museum, the age difference between Van Dyke and his wife given weight in the source, Van Dyke's current sobriety, and the inexplicable removal of the word "again" in reference to Van Dyke's second endorsement of Bernie Sanders. Superfluous is subjective, and it is perfectly reasonable for it to be discussed.

I'd argue that it is necessary to include certain co-stars and collabarators when given weight by biographers and writers. Take., for instance, Grace Kelly and Alfred Hitchcock. If Reiner was a prominent partner of Van Dyke's, it should be included. No one never validated WP:PUFFERY - "neutral" and "dispassionate" are not synonyms for undescriptive and uninformative (WP:NOTCATALOG). Readers should not have to go to separate pages to clarify relevant and sourced details about characters, reception, etc. The example you give is drastic, and incredibly dissimilar to the edits you performed. WP:BOLD isn't the issue here - no one has every discouraged it, the process in question is WP:BRD. The issue is the content of the bold edit. "Of course I make mistakes, but this is what I do." I don't understand how your profession is relevant to any mishaps you might have made. Unfortunately, I am still not convinced that your edits are beneficial to the page - given the page's recent editing history, this still appears to be an issue.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd As User:General Ization previously stated, "It's customary here that when other editors are discussing your edits on a Talk page and invite you directly [...] to do so, you don't just go right on editing as you were doing before the invitation. Usually, that's considered suspicious and inconsistent with an assumption of good faith." Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, we do not cover everything that is supported by biographers for at least two reasons (perhaps more): because Wikipedia demands we keep articles as small as possible to help with accessibility and because we don't include information just because it is true or has been covered by other media.
To support the first reason, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not it says: "Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low bandwidth connections and on mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size)."
So, moving on to Wikipedia:Article size, we see it says "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers.[1] Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see Size guideline (rule of thumb) below."
The Dick Van Dyke article is more than 18,600 words, which is almost twice the recommended size.
In support of the second reason, that we don't include things simply because they are supported by third-party biographers, I will cite something that has already been stated to you, but you might have missed it: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." I would like to point out that both Wikipedia policies I just quoted you were arrived at by WP:CONSENSUS.
I see that you like the use of the word "prominent." What determines prominence to you? Who determines who or what is "prominent." That is a classic example of peacock language and editorializing. I truly don't think you understand what I am talking about when I say that, so I will not belabor the point further. Also, Wikipedia is a summarization of the subject and it is suppose to contain articles that inspire the reader to seek further information on their own outside of Wikipedia.
My background is relevant in that I have edited professionally for more than 35 years and edited for Wikipedia for 15 years and that informs me on how to edit. I get paid to do this kind of work, but I am editing for Wikipedia to give something back to the journalism world that has given me so much. That is my only interest when I edit. You don't have to take my background into consideration, as we are all equals as Wikipedia editors. But, I would think a wise person might stop and think that maybe this person knows what she is talking about. You see, you keep talking about what you would "argue" and what you think, while I have been citing Wikipedia style and policy. My only interest is to make this article come into proper Wikipedia style and remove language that is unnecessary or out of Wikipedia style, not to make it sound nice according to what I think sounds good. That is not how this is done. What is your connection to this subject? Finally, there is no "customary" practice in Wikipedia where people stop editing when others bring their edits into question. I have questioned yours and it has not slowed your edits, which is as it should be. We both have the right to continue to edit. However, I will not participate in an edit war. If this continues to be a problem I will ask for mediation, as dictated by Wikipedia policy. I have no beef with you, friend. I cannot make sense of your refusal to concede even in the face of facts. I don't understand your aggressiveness in the Talk section of this article. I am confused by your sharp words in your edit summary. We are a community. We should work together to make articles better. We should work in kindness. I have participated in this conversation with civility and kindness, which has not been difficult because I feel no malice and no particular connection to this article. It is midnight and I must turn my attention to rest. It might be a while before I come back to this, but I will come back. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:AS cites that limit for readable prose. Van Dyke's word count for the readable prose on his article is 3,041, a good deal below the limit. "Third-party biographies" are reliable sources, WP:WEIGHT is decided by the weight given by reliable sources. I did not bring up the WP:PEACOCK text at all - in fact you have not addressed any of the content issues I brought up, which is concerning, giving that's what this entire conversation is meant to be about. If you do not engage with in discussion about these content disputes, we cannot resolve the issue.

Again, contextual detail and sourced information relevant to the biography is not against Wikipedia policy. By your criteria of Wikipedia guidelines and styling, none of the WP:FA articles would be up to merit - this is the primary reason that I disagree with your edits.

I am not "refusing to concede under the face of facts" - not a single policy you have mentioned warrants the exclusion of your revisions. I cannot think of any WP:FA or WP:GA - once again, prime examples of Wikipedia styling and policy - in line with the styles you have presented. Additionally, note that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS include "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. " and "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". Speaking of sharp words, you've accused me twice of having a WP:COI - I absolutely do not.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How about a new start? @MarydaleEd and Bettydaisies:, both of you are good, experienced editors. You both want the article to be its best. You both have a clear grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is something you should be able to work together on.

None of this is all-or-nothing. Why not focus just on the specific changes in dispute, one by one, and work out a consensus on those? Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: That's what this discussion originally focused on before discussing the principles of editing in general. I'd be open to tracing specific content issues, as I partially raised here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I thank you for your comments. I have felt exactly as you have said since I was first questioned. I thought we were all in this together, but I have found as it pertains to this article, that does not seem to be the case. I have explained my edits and provided Wikipedia policy where they were questioned. I honestly don't know what else I can do. My responses are being ignored and I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. In the last 20 years of my career I have edited non-fiction books that were on the New York Times Best Seller list, but I have never, even when dealing with territorial authors, come up against the type of uninformed push back I am getting here. In almost 15 years of editing for Wikipedia I have never come across something like this. There have been blatant untruths, such as a Wikipedia "practice" that when someone asks you a question on a subject's Talk page that you stop editing and that I twice accused an editor of having a conflict of interest, which never happened even once. My intention was to bring this article into Wikipedia standard. It is too long and bloated with unnecessary information that doesn't conform to any encyclopedia style. When printed, this article, minus the reference numbers and anything other than readable prose, is six pages long, far longer that the Wikipedia standard of no more than a couple of pages. "An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance)." As I mentioned in an earlier post, I edit for Wikipedia to give back to journalism because it has given me so much, but I have no intention of pursuing this further. If you have suggestions, I am happy to reconsider. I am always open to good ideas and voices of reason. Up until now, editing for Wikipedia has been an enjoyable part of my life, but I have a full life outside of Wikipedia, full of friends, family, faith and trusted colleagues at all levels of journalism, and there is no place for Wikipedia battles. Sadly, Wikipedia and its readers lose, as do Dick Van Dyke and his fans. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've also never encountered a situation as devolving as this - save for one - but you are not alone in feeling disregarded in reason. I've cited Wikipedia policy and practice to you multiple times, including WP:SUMMARYNO, WP:BRD, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:WEIGHT, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, but I cannot make you acknowledge this. I've tried to reroute the conversation back to content twice - and I hate, hate to nitpick, but you have accused me of having a COI, twice, here, and here. I have responded to each and every one of your points and explained to you multiple times why the removed information was not excessive or superflous, and that a featured/good article without that language does not exist in Wikipedia - but again, I cannot force you to acknowledge this. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that it is democratic enough where each editor, as long as they are civil and qualified, is afforded an equal weight in opinion, whether they work in publishing or food service. Again, I'm sorry you feel this way, but I also have the prerogative to outline, in the bare minimum of terms, how I felt during this dispute. Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems the answer to my earlier question to Mary – "Can you work within [a collaborative] framework, as opposed to the assignment you seem to have given yourself here?" – was "no." That is unfortunate, but that (collaboration) is in fact the way Wikipedia is designed to work, as opposed to one editor effectively taking ownership of an article (a very well-formed and popular article, containing contributions of many editors since its creation in 2004, as opposed to an orphan in search of an editor) and imposing their editing philosophies, regardless of other editors' objections. General Ization ^Talk 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: I'm quite sure that there are articles here in Wikipedia that have benefited and will benefit from your talents, your experience, and your approach to editing. It's just possible that this is not one of them. General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I will make this final comment and then I will have nothing further to say on this article. After my attempts to explain my edits were met with confusing responses, I decided that continuing the discussion was not in anyone’s best interest and so I chose to step aside. I do not believe for a moment that is, in any possible way, evidence of a lack of collaboration; on the contrary, it shows a willingness to allow someone else’s voice to be heard over mine even if I believe it to be wrong. I have learned as a business person and as a parent that there are times when being right is not always the best goal to pursue. Working in a collaborative atmosphere is what I have done all my adult life. No professional editor performs his or her work in a vacuum. Specifically, an editor must collaborate with authors, other editors and publishers to assure the best product is given to everyone’s satisfaction. It is a delicate balance that I have successfully maneuvered in my career. I have no problems doing so on Wikipedia and have done so for 15 years, and my ability to collaborate has never been called into question. I will have nothing further to say here because I do not believe it serves any good purpose to do so. I wish the very best to all those who have contributed to this conversation and I continue to appreciate their contributions to the discussions here and to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)