Talk:Spring Byington

"MASH" segment

I removed this bit:

After Harry Morgan joined the cast of the television show M*A*S*H in 1975, the photo used for Colonel Potter's wife, Mildred, was one of Spring Byington. Morgan had previously co-starred with Byington in December Bride as neighbor Pete Porter.

The photo is not of Spring Byington, it's of Harry Morgan's second wife, Eileen Detchon. You can find stills of the photo of Mrs Potter on the 'net, and it's obvious that it's not Spring Byington; there's not much physical similarity. Clockster 10:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

The stuff about her not being gay should be removed. I already reported the user, 69.98.234.237, who repeatedly added this language (including referring to him or herself as "I." Regardless of any merit it has, it doesn't belong here. The user has been blocked.

To Whom It May Concern:

There is ample proofthat Spring's Lesbianism has some distinct substance as was inferred by Majorie Maine, who was quoted as "Spring never had much use for men." This is in the Public Domain. Also, it has been a relative known fact that Spring and Majorie were "girlfriends." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.192.5 (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the less important changes I made to the non-controversial first paragraph (now three paragraphs), I was about to delete the objectionable material, but I saw the two edits by Bzuk, and so for the moment I've left the objectionable language in. Hopefully, Bzuk will agree that the material should be removed. Simply removing the first person pronouns doesn't change the fact that this was written by a user who claims first-hand knowledge and speaks only from that first-hand knowledge.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Family

The current write up has been deleted and replaced with the previous write up. The deleted write up had information that was both inaccurate and self contradictory. The previous write up was based on many discussions with Spring Byington over many years and discussions with Roy Chandler’s family. 98.165.118.33 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Desert Habu.

This writeup has been replaced for the second time. The information is self evidently inaccurate, illogical, and self contradictory. The accurate writeup was based on specific documentation and many discussions with Spring Byington over many years and discussions with Roy Chandler's family. 98.165.118.33 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Desert Habu.

Text must be sourced and cited and germane to the article. Quis separabit? 15:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

The text of this section has once again been replaced with factual data. Spring Byington was married in 1909, not 1915. (Evidenced by letter from Spring to Roy's grandmother in November 1909). The footnotes included in the previous writeup did not in any way validate the statements. Birth certificates for Phyllis and Lois Chandler verify that they were born in New York state, not Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.118.33 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The marriage of Spring Byington to Roy Chandler was in late 1909, as evidenced by a letter from Spring to Roy's grandmother written in November 1909. Desert Habu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert Habu (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The only nonsense was informtion for which there is no proof. Authors referenced use words such as 'ostensibly', 'claiming', 'widely reported', and 'said to be'. These are words of speculation and rumor, not proof. This type of information does not belong in this writeup. The fact is that there is not one shred of proof that Spring was gay or bisexual. If she was, ok, but there needs to be proof. Desert Habu.

Once again this post is removed. The referenced publications are replete with speculation, rumor, and innuendo. Writer suggest that there needs to be proof that she was not gay. But a negative can not be proven. Writer needs to provide proof that she was. He cites statement that she did not like men, but this is not a full statement. The full statement is that 'she did not like men in Hollywood'. That's accurate and considerably different. Truncating a statment to satisfy ones interests is poor research or dishonest. Take your pick. ≈≈≈≈ Desert Habu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.42.95 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Here's what the deleted post actually said: "Byington has been identified as a lesbian by a number of Hollywood historians." This is a FACT. A number of Hollywood historians have identified her as a lesbian, and specific references to published sources have been provided. Again: "Actress Marjorie Main's biographer Michelle Vogel has noted that Main and Byington were reported widely as having had a long-term affair." This is also a FACT -- the reference to the page number where Vogel makes this claim is provided. The quote from Main is also a FACT, not an innuendo -- Main actually did say that. The existence of these published sources is as real as it gets. You cannot get away with simply saying that you don't like or agree with what these published sources are saying -- that's only your point of view and WP is NPOV. If you find other published reliable sources that dispute what these published reliable sources are saying, you are free to reference them. I'm going to revert the removal of this text, again. Please do not delete it until you can identify any reliable source that says that the published sources are in error.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, this somewhat lengthy talk post is because, in your recent posting, you seem to make assertions about my efforts that had a tone of irritation. Don't wish that, but the postings about Spring Byington's sexuality are inaccurate, without provable foundation, and should not be on Wikipedia. Let me explain. You note that there are a number of published references to her being gay. You note that as FACT. Agreed. It is certainly a fact that the publications exist and that certain words are used that assert that she was. But I have to ask whether you have actually read the same referenced publications. I have. In the references, the words used to describe her as being gay are words such as "ostensibly", "claiming", "widely reported", and "said to be". With respect sir, you know that these are words of speculation and gossip, not words of evidence or proof. You noted that my postings were simply my opinion. That's not accurate. What I have done is to note that the words in the publications offer no evidence or proof that she was gay. That’s not opinion, it’s true. You have challenged me to prove that she was not gay, but a negative cannot be proven. I have asked that you provide 'proof' as evidence that she was. I don't think that this is an unreasonable request, since the words used in the publications do not offer proof as evidence. I do realize that Wikipedia relies on referenced documentation to support statements made, rather than personal knowledge. Don't disagree with that. But I can provide publications, including congressional testimony that our government was behind the 911 attack. Does the fact that those words exist in a publication make it true? Would Wikipedia accept that as valid proof? Don't say this to be argumentative, only to point out that there are publications that contain all manner of inaccurate data. Simply being in a publication is not provable evidence. Equally, noting that a historian put the publication together says nothing about the quality of the publication or the accuracy of what is published. I do realize also that Wikipedia does not accept personal knowledge. I understand that. It’s the right thing to do. But I have to note that I was acquainted with Spring Byington and her sister for many years. I knew her background and interests. I know that you would not accept my statements about her thinking or interests. Understood. Its personal knowledge, not in a publication. But I do have a fair amount of knowledge about the men she preferred and some of her relationships. It’s just not something you would accept. So, I respectfully request that if you or anyone wants to post information about her being gay, you do the due diligence and actually find proof or actual evidence rather than rely on words such as 'ostensibly' and 'claiming'. These are words of suggestion and rumor. In any standard dictionary these words don't prove anything. And without some sort of proof, the statements should not be made on Wikipedia. Doing less is a disservice to the ideals of Wikipedia. Is that unreasonable?? 72.223.21.90 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Desert Habu

Yes, to a certain extent it is unreasonable, as it is inconsistent with wikipedia policy and practice. As you have stated, personal experience is not acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS for a full treatment of reliable sources. Also, please consult WP:FIVEPILLARS for a specific discussion of personal knowledge, where it states: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." The content that you keep deleting is fully compliant with wikipedia policy; it is supported by multiple reliable published sources. These sources do not state definitively that Byington was a lesbian; they state that she "has been identified as a lesbian" and was "reported widely as having had a long-term affair" with Main. The reader of wikipedia is intelligent enough to understand the meaning of these statements; he or she is not well served by an editor simply deleting or excising material with which the editor personally disagrees. If you know of any other reputable published source that disputes what these sources say, please feel free to add a reference to that source. I am again reverting your deletions. If you wish to carry this matter further, I suggest that you initiate the Requests for comment process or one of the other dispute resolution processes available on wikipedia. I hope there are no hard feelings between us. This isn't personal -- or at least it shouldn't be personal.--Jburlinson (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No sir, there are certainly no hard feelings. And no, it should not be personal. My latest change is to make more clear that what the historians wrote are just 'claims'. This is an exact word used in more than one of the references. The word 'identified' could be interpreted as having proof. The word 'claim' is the exact word used and is more subject to the interpretation of readers. As you say, wikipedia readers are intelligent and should be able to impart the correct meaning to the word claim. (Have no idea what the Request for comment is or how to exercise it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.21.90 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks. "Claims" works well in this context. All the best.--Jburlinson (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal life - metaphysics.

"her knowledge of the Earth's satellites": The Earth only has one natural satellite. Nevertheless, some metaphysical groups have postulated others. This made me hesitant about simply removing the "s". Eclecticology (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spring Byington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060405164432/http://www.classicimages.com:80/2000/june00/byington.shtml to http://www.classicimages.com/2000/june00/byington.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)