Talk:Barry Humphries

The text says he was married four times but only three wives are listed. Unless I missed it, there doesn't seem ot be any reference to his first wife, only his second, third and fourth marriages.

Rrose Selavy (talk)

Removed from article:

His character, Dame Edna, was inspired by a character from his earlier film The Adventures of Barry Mackenzie, in which he is sent by his aunt, Edna, around Europe to finish his education. This included a lovely scene where Mackenzie (Barry Humphries) finds out that curry is an aphrodisiac and so preparing for his first sexual encounter pours a tin of curry down his trousers - magic.

Aunt Edna in The Adventures of Barry Mackenzie was based on Edna Everage - who by that point had been around for years - not the other way around, and Humphries played Aunt Edna, not Barry (who was played by Barry Crocker). The bit about the curry might be true - it wouldn't surprise me - but given the number of other errors, I'm not prepared to take the contributor's word for it. --Paul A 09:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Shouldn't there be an actual picture of Barry Humphries, rather than of Dame Edna? - Matthew238 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. I don't know where to find one. All the ones I know of are copyright.Fnarf999 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

the "Pus in Boots" incident is mentioned in two successive paragraphs, one implying that it took place before he entered college, one implying after. Can we resolve this? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately i can't find a good citation for this, but i heard froma reliable source that on one particular day at Melbourne University, BH rang the public transport authority to report that there were students at the Melbourne University Tram Stop impersonating police, and then rang the police to report that there were students impersonating public transport officials. BH then sat on a chair and watched the caos unfold!

Currently Humphries is listed in the List of transgendered people - this is clearly inappropriate. I have proposed deleting him from that list. --ukexpat 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed? thats a bit slow being BLP and an obvious error it should have gone SatuSuro 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"As a child Humphries was briefly traumatised by a trip to the circus when a dwarf leapt into the audience and tried to drag him down into the ring." - no source? I nearly just removed it instantly, but I know nothing about the subject matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

… and "hmmm" to your edit, too. The section you removed was clearly cited from his autobiography, even if the formalities of using the appropriate Wiki markup weren't used. Second, how is the material in that section controversial or detrimental to the subject, so it would warrant deletion? Still, I would agree to the deletion of the second and third paragraph of what you deleted on encyclopedic grounds — they don't add anything to the reader's understanding of Humphries; however, the first paragraph does.

As for sources in general in this article: how far does it have to go? For example, the next paragraph is equally personal and formally unsourced, but Humphries has told this and many other episodes on countless talk shows, interviews, and in documentaries, most recently in The Man Inside dame Edna — they have become common knowledge in these parts.

I suggest the first paragraph you deleted be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that the whole thing badly needs to be sourced properly. I don't think the section was "clearly cited" at all, and saying that someone was traumatized by a dwarf sounds very much like the sort of thing that a vandal might write. If it is true, then fine, it just needs to be properly sourced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair cop, the information regarding the dwarf was a prank, but an inoffensive one, and one in keeping with Mr Humphries' reputation as a prankster. Calling it 'vandalism' is not only harsh but represents a distortion of the true meaning of the word. Besides, I have much sympathy with those who harmlessly tweak Wikipedia for amusing effect, on the grounds that it teaches people not to rely wholly upon information contained on the site. No offence to Wikipedia nor its founders, but there are so many serious failings with Wiki - ranging from bizarre omissions of genuinely important historical figures who just don't happen to have internet-savvy champions, to the flagrantly doctored entries which seek to airbrush over important if uncomfortable facts - that it cannot and should not be taken too seriously. [Terming an amusing tweak as 'vandalism' is an example of how Wiki takes itself too seriously.] And finally of course there is the cynical abuse of Wiki by individuals who seek to promote themselves by the anonymous creation of flattering and distorted entries. No, in my opinion Wikipedia has an over-blown opinion of its own importance. It has and always will be only an amateur reference tool while it allows individuals to create, alter or delete entries. The fact that the founder himself worries about a harmless dwarf reference when there are greater issues to deal with perhaps typifies this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.208.83 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

"... at the Theatre Royal Haymarket, where he held the record as the only solo act to fill the theatre (since it opened in 1663) until controversial left-wing politician George Galloway sold it out in early 2007. " Surely 'I salute you... Saddam' couldn't have done this, what is the source for this? I have had a look at Google new and google and can see nothing about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have done some more searching, I think this must be propaganda and I am going to remove it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I used to have a tape of Dame Edna performing this hilarious 1972 piece, with music by Nigel Butterley. I remember some fleeting bits of it, particularly references to Evonne Goolagong (as she then was) being named "the Nullarbor Nymph", and someone or other being "frightfully North Shore" and therefore deserving of being taken by sharks rather than having to be bothered with blowflies, which are terribly common. You get the idea. It gets a run on ABC Classic FM from time to time, but I can't wait. I'd really iike to see the text/libretto/poems, but cannot track it/them down anywhere. Can anyone help? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fan as I am of Australia's fourth greatest living comedian (as he's been described by someone somewhere at some time, I am sure) much of this is written as a hagiography. I mean, yes, the man's a saint, a saint, as well as apparently having a CBE to go with the self-appointed knighthoods, but "Australia's leading exponent", "part of Australian folklore", "was legendary" and we haven't left the education section yet. (Anyone who says '.. but neither has he' should be spanked.) Can an Australian folklore expert, because ghod knows I'm not one, find a reference or two, yes?

'London and the 1960s' needs reordering (as was said at the time), but it's the "Humphries' success is a tribute to the tremendous skill, style and insight—and hard work—that he invests in performing two-and-a-half hour shows of entirely original material, laced with ad-libbing, improvisation and audience participation segments" sentence in 'One Man Shows' which has me reaching for the NPOV tag. Or was it stolen from somewhere? Lovingboth (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Margaret Olley in personal life and patronage?--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

At one point, the acticle mentions Oscar Wilde's phonebook. I came across an essay that Humphries wrote for the Spectator in december 2009 that suggests that that particular item is not part of his collection:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5635893/part_3/christmas-notebook.thtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.172.159 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say 'thanks' to those who have added material to this article. It's getting better all the time.

On a related note, whilst I appreciate (and have just attempted to address) some of the "constructive criticism" on this talk page, I would in turn like to make these seemingly obvious points:

1. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise

2. Most articles are free for anyone to edit

i.e. if you believe something needs correcting, or referencing, or does not sufficiently conform to NPOV guidelines, you're welcome to and free to edit it yourself. I REALLY fail to comprehend either the necessity or the value of this kind of prissy, self-righteous carping. If you don't think something in this article it's up to standard, get off your arse and fix it, instead of complaining without doing anything about it. Arrgh!

Dunks (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do his song choices really belong in the article. A lot of people have been on the program. I doubt any of them give a list of tracks. -- 2001:14BB:636:6198:0:0:160E:EB01 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Leave any notes on this event here to avoid multiple edits. Frenchfriesaredelicious (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It should be mentioned that Barry Humphris was raised a Christian & was even a Sunday school teacher Bach in the 1950’s … see link & can somebody please add link to main page. Cheers.

[1]https://www.qantas.com/travelinsider/en/lifestyle/people/travel-talk-with-barry-humphries.html

Melbourne Grammar School is a Christian school. 49.185.188.5 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have again removed the term "drag artist" from the lede desctiption, as I feel it is inaccurate. But I wanted to start a discussion to put this to the community. My reasons are that while one of his most famous characters was Dame Edna, this is him playing a character and not being a drag queen. I couldn't find a source, but I believe he said himself that he wasn't a drag artist. And the article is almost 20 years old, and a quick search back though the history shows that the term drag artist only appeared in the last week or so, maybe since his death. Thoughts anyone? Dmol (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't really consider Dame Edna to be a drag act, personally. There was this article I read (though of course I can't find it now) which stated: "she wasn't really a drag queen nor a pantomime dame, but something in between." This, in my opinion, perfectly summarises the characteristics of Dame Edna. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for raising this here. You are right and I noticed this too - in the furious editing of this page since his death, the term drag artist has suddenly appeared, with citations often to current newspaper obituaries (often US obits) that also use the term. Humphries didn't think of Edna as a drag act - rather as one of his characters, as you state. He is cited on Edna as a drag act in Ken Thomson, 1994, "Barry Humphries: Bepraisements on His Birthday" page 64. For those living in the 2 minute news cycle, of course "drag act" seems to fit, especially to those unfamiliar with the context and history of Edna Everage. But the joke is about middle class, suburban Australia. I guess it's up to established editors to help educate.Nickm57 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Drag (which is the link used) is different from a drag queen. Read the links. I'm reverting to the longstanding status quo until there is a definite consensus against it. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree. Drag is obviously correct and quite obvious. 86.187.175.83 (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dmol these comments touch on the issue you raised above. Both books are available online. Frank Cullen, Florence Hackman and Donald McNeilly’s Vaudeville old and new: an encyclopedia of variety performances in America (Vol 1, Routledge, Taylor and Francis 2007) provides this perspective before referencing Edna among others; "In theatrical practice, there are two types of female impersonation: comedy characterizations, like the comic dames of English pantomime, not intended to be true representations of women but to make audiences laugh, and illusionists who, through skillful mimicry, attempt to make audiences forget they are watching a fake." (P375-376)

This distinction is probably what Humphries himself was referring to in an interview used in John Lahr’s Dame Edna Everage and the rise of Western civilisation(Farrar Straus Giroux 1992): "There’s something of the clown, something rather ritualised in the character... It’s a clown in the form of an Australian housewife. It also belongs to a rather long pantomime and music hall tradition. It belongs a bit to the pantomime dame tradition though it doesn’t exploit the pantomime dame, which is generally a rather sturdy man. The joke of the pantomime dame is the tension between the female of the clothes and the stocky footballer’s legs and boots. The drag queen is the other extreme, really a man who is mocking a woman and at the same time trying to titillate the audience. Edna is somewhere in between, closer really to character acting, a man playing a woman and making points about life."(P5)

Nickm57 (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can we just dispense with the vernacular and call him a female impersonator? Flanker235 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Flanker235 that we should use the term female impersonator. I think it should be stated in the lede, and early in the lead, because his only role universally known is Dame Edna, and he was astonishingly convincing in it. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to what reliable source was Dame Edna an "astonishingly convincing" female impersonation? Edna was a comic character, as I have established with the RS cited above. And what is the source of the contention "his only role universally known is Dame Edna". The article currently cites Professor Anne Pender's bio "One Man Show. The Stages of Barry Humphries" (2011) which characterised him as "the most significant theatrical figure of our time" and "the most significant comedian to emerge since Charlie Chaplin" - which suggests something very different.

Anyway, just a reality check here. The article is about Barry Humphries, not Dame Edna. Nickm57 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dame Edna was a female impersonation performance/role; female impersonation performances are nearly always comic rather than serious. If you believe that any of Humphries' roles other than Dame Edna are universally known, then what are those roles? Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Interesting... except as experienced editors, we both know that's not how WP works. We don't make statements relating to biographies and then invite others to prove the opposite is true. We use reliable sources to inform what we write. So I assume what you have written above is your personal view. Thank you for sharing and happy editing. Nickm57 (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

What I have stated is the truth. Humphries was best known for his female impersonation act, and that is the only role he is universally known for. Therefore in my opinion this should be stated in the lead. Here for just one substantiation is an An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Media, Entertainment and Other Audiovisual Terms published by McFarland that states "Barry Humphries is perhaps the most enduring female impersonator. He has been appearing on film and television as Dame Edna Everage since the 1960s." [2] You may consider yourself an experienced editor, yet I have 12 times the Wikipedia experience that you do, so please stop with the insinuations and ad hominem comments and stick to the facts about Humphries. And please consider that as an Australian you have less perspective about what is known of him universally rather than nationally. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apologies Dmol, we seem to have drifted from your original request for thoughts on including reference to drag act in the lede. However as IPs can't edit again until 17th May, the issue may have resolved itself. As for describing Barry Humphries character Edna as female impersonation, I don't think anyone could object.Nickm57 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the infobox, Humphries' birthplace has been changed from Melbourne to the small (probably 10,000 inhabitants in 1934) suburb of Kew, and his death place has been changed from Sydney to the location of the hospital he died in in the Sydney community of Darlinghurst (population 10,600) within Sydney [3]. Is there consensus for these infobox changes? It seems they give much less information to the reader and are more confusing. For instance, in the documentation for Template:Infobox person, instructions for death place are to use city (not community). Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

How do you define city though - e.g. City of Kew? If anything I think being more specific is more informative to the readers given how large Sydney and Melbourne are. The population of the locality isn't really relevant - what if he was born in a small country town with a few hundred people? It should just be the most basic geographic unit. GeebaKhap (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, that's not what the infobox is for, and explicitly contradicts Template:Infobox person, and is merely puzzling rather than edifying to readers, who do not care what specific hospital the person died in, only the city they were in (and presumably living in) at the time. Infoboxes are to inform quickly, not to confuse or mystify. Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I came, I read, I was in no way "confused" or "mystified". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Likewise. I don't find an unfamiliar location confusing or mystifying. If an infobox is to be reduced to things we are already entirely familiar with, then it ceases to inform. If he died in a tiny village of 50 people, presumably there'd be no problem with mentioning its name, so why the inconsistency? It doesn't explicitly contradict the template advice, which is vague, and there's a debate currently going on there to try and find a more workable solution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Likely depends on if you're local to the area of not. For example, there's a lot of neighborhoods in List of districts and neighborhoods in Los Angeles, that locals would call a city, as it's what's listed on the postal address. But then Wikipedia gets quirky by calling everything on the Las Vegas Strip, which most everyone in everyday life refer to as part of "Las Vegas", as instead being in the unincorporated town of Paradise, Nevada. I'm not sure what standard we use on WP for locations, other than non-locals relying on whether the WP page calls that place a "city" or not. Boroughs of New York City are another example where the listed location goes back and forth.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Comment Maybe best to discuss at Template talk:Infobox person § How narrowly to read "city" of birth/death?, which Bretonbanquet alluded to above.—Bagumba (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Comment As I encountered Kurt Gödel in [4], we should go by what it was at the time, rather than what it is now, and indicate the current situation parenthetically. Without looking into the details of the situation on this article, I feel quite strongly that it should be phrased contemporarily to the time it happened. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply