Talk:Bruce Bennett

Untitled
Happy 100th Mr. Bennett.

Succession box
This didn't make much sense. I can't find Carlton KaDell. Anyway, ther's no orderly succession. Johnny Weissmuller played Tarzan from 1932 to 1948; during that period, several other actors played Tarzan as well.--Runcorn 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The succession is accepted by fans to be from Weissmuller's first film in '32, making him the sixth Tarzan. Crabbe made one in '33, he's the seventh. Brix made one in '35, he's the eighth. Morris is the ninth, having made one in '38. Forget that Weissmuller made several to their solo efforts. Count from his first. Kadell was a radio Tarzan; these are live action actors. I see no reason for your removal of the succession box. So what if it made no sense to you. I plan on reinserting it, unless we have a higher ruling. Sir Rhosis 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no sense in which one actor succeded another; there were several overlapping actors. This is not the sort of circumstances in which a succession box is appropriate.  It would be more sensible to refer to a list of actors who have played Tarzan, where the dates could be displayed.  Obviously, you are at liberty to restore it, if you really want to.  What higher ruling did you have in mind?--Runcorn 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fairly new to this, so I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that Wikipedia had a founding/ruling body for such things as "Petty disagreements between Sir Rhosis and Runcorn." I did not institute the succession boxes, but when I went through editing and contributing bios to the various actors who have played Tarzan, I discovered that everyone of them, save Bennett, had a succession box (some had boxes linking to the various radio actors, which I changed to the next "live-action" film and TV actor).  It just struck me as odd that he was left out of the succession by whomever started adding them.  And no, it is not such a big deal that I will add it back.  I spoke too much in the "WTF is Runcorn doing removing a succession box?" moment.  Best.  Sir Rhosis 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no wish whatsoever to make a fuss. Yes, there are various mediation processes, but this is not something I feel strongly about so am happy to back down. Restore the box or not, as you see fit. Happy editing, and please call on me in future if you are ever in a situation where there is a confontation.--Runcorn 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth
I removed this note from the article, as it suggests the info contained in the article is correct:
 * NB: Standard works of reference such as Halliwell's "Who's Who in the Movies" and Katz's "Encyclopedia of Film" give his date of birth as 1909 (or 19th May 1909) but the IMDB (link below) has 1906, and this date is confirmed by the 1920 and 1930 U.S. Census records.

--Evb-wiki 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored it - I see no point in deleting it.--Runcorn 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bennett's age, put the "1906" year in there, along with the note about a possible discrepancy and leave it alone. His own son confirmed that Brix celebrated his 100th in 2006. This is not directed at Runcorn, but at the editor who wants to put multiple years in there. Pick the one with the most consensus and take a stand. I'd rather be wrong, than waffle the hell all over the place. Sir Rhosis 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works on the principle that you quote what is verifiable, not what is true. 1906 seems the best-attested date, but since there are good sources that say 1909, we should note that.  I'm afraid that what his son says is irrelevant, unless he said it somewhere that passes WP:RS!--Runcorn 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, Runcorn. My only beef with the other editor is his/her wanting to put multiple dates on the birth line. I think putting 1906 in, then the note at the bottom is sufficient to alert readers to a possible discrepancy, otherwise we're going to come up with something that says (b, 1906, or maybe 08, but again it might be 09, or who the hell knows except he was born). I exaggerate, but we need to nip it now. Best to you. Sir Rhosis 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - there was a similar discussion some time ago regarding Paulette Goddard and the same compromise was reached. It could be used as an example for formatting it here - the lead sentence remains "tidy" with the most "acceptable" date used and the other information given in the footnote. Rossrs 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bruce/Herman death date addition
I am sad to report that Herman died on February 25, 2007. I am happy that I got to meet him once--he was a very nice man with great stories. Rest in Peace, Uncle Herm! Seanlee19699 17:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to his obituary (if one has appeared in a newspaper yet)? Hate to sound crass, but we should not put it on his article until it can be confirmed by a source such as a newspaper or internet news site. He was a fine fine actor, and in interviews came off as a great guy. Sir Rhosis 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Death date
SirRhosis: As I received the news through family channels just yesterday, there is probably not an official announcement or obituary yet. Herman was my great uncle. S. SLD 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My sympathies to you and the entire family. I hope you understand that we cannot update until there is a "verifiable" news source such as an obituary either in a newspaper or online (such as CNN or maybe ESPN).  At that time, I, or another user, will add the date.  Sir Rhosis 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a sufficient article: Canadian Paul 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

=
========= I too am a grand-niece, and my siblings and I all relished being related to him. Talk about a life well lived and a role model! He was a wonderful man.209.172.113.146 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)cew