Jump to content

Talk:Norman Lear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turns out the 2017 image was a cropped image which showed him with other Kennedy Center honorees

[edit]

This is the full image

Discussion regarding photo

[edit]

Norman Lear lived 101 years, and so finding a photo in his "prime" is debatable. However I do feel the current photo best represents him as he would be known to many modern readers of Wikipedia. Using a cropped 1975 photo (without his trademark hat) would seem to be a disservice to the quality of the article.

One IP editor however had made repeated claims that Mr. Lear praised Nazis in his autobiography and that the current photo should not be used. Can we please start a discussion, rather than creating an edit war with the photo? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7419:4323:970F:D6A4 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent @Rosewolf88 For your consideration, thank you for your attention. 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7419:4323:970F:D6A4 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:787D:36D5:D807:DA1B (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what was claimed was that he praised Charles Lindbergh, who was a Nazi sympathizer. It's in the preface of his autobiography Even This I Get To Experience.Speakfor23 (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't claim that I claimed he was praising Nazis when I claimed he was praising a Nazi sympathizer. Lindbergh received a German Eagle Cross from Hermann Goering and made very disturbing comments about the issue of race.[1][2] I don't feel comfortable with a photo with the Norman who praised Lindbergh.Speakfor23 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia does not censor based on if something makes you feel uncomfortable, however, I think that, with everything, it should be take into consideration. " I don't feel comfortable with a photo with the Norman who praised Lindbergh." He is still the same Norman in every photo. It is his life, good, bad, ugly, beautiful. We don't have to like things people do. We don't have to agree with their actions but his Song is written and it is the Human Song. For the record, I think the current photo is still best. --ARoseWolf 13:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Lindbergh was for a time an incredibly celebrated American due to his 1927 flight. Lear's 2015 autobiography mentions in the intro a short mention of flying from 1931. "It had been only four years since Charles Lindbergh flew thirty-three and a half hours in his single-engine Spirit of St. Louis to get from New York to Paris, and the rare plane that was spotted in the sky had us kids chasing around in the street yelling, “Lindy, Lindy!" So Dad flying to Oklahoma was a big deal." That is not "praising" Lindbergh at all, it is just citing the historical significance of the flight in the context of his life. So I see no basis to mention Lindbergh in this article. As for for the picture, i don't have a preference. Either the 1975 or 2015 one would be fine. Copyright laws prevent us from having better pictures on many biographies.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument in favor of the recent photo (or photos) is that he is more recognizable in those. I also think the hat is important because he wore that very often and it was a common feature of his public wardrobe, so if an older photo exists with the hat (that is copyright available) I could support that. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:D52B:3DF6:EF5E:582C (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have uncovered a not so good interview he had with Larry King were he suggested Obama was making people believe America was "God's People." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAmXE7ycU8w] That point in Norman's life was not cool.Speakfor23 (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of your "grievances" contribute to a discussion about changing the photo.
@Milowent 2604:3D09:927F:E900:55B2:C056:467B:649C (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Larry King interview was very uncomforting to me

[edit]

I don't want a photo of the Norman who claimed Obama was making people believe America was "God's Chosen People." This was a very self-serving interview. [3] Speakfor23 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you are uncomfortable with, that's not how Wikipedia works. It seems that there are many things about Mr. Lear that you find "uncomforting"...
@ARoseWolf 2604:3D09:927F:E900:55B2:C056:467B:649C (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not NPOV judgement on your part. Watch the interview for yourself. Claiming that "It seems that there are many things about Mr. Lear that you find "uncomforting" " isn't helpful either.Speakfor23 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page is full of examples of you making disruptive edits on numerous Wikipedia pages. And for some reason you have it in for Norman Lear, and are finding ridiculous reasons to want to change the photo and content of the article.
Do you really have nothing better to do than go fishing for things that are "uncomforting" to you? 2604:3D09:927F:E900:1571:6115:1C45:4A00 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you only edit the Norman Lear talk page and Milowent pages? That's what you edit history shows. "Ridiculous claims" is not true for the Room 222 edit. It is backed by a very reliable source.[4]Speakfor23 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, your silly arguments will not contribute to anything meaningful. So do whatever you want, you're not going to get anywhere. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:409C:506F:CE4B:A71F (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speakfor23, what in the world are you going off about? The Lindbergh stuff above was fringe already. Its probably healthier to not edit this article because you seem to have strong opinions about the man, and that can make it hard to be an unbiased editor. Larry King's million wives causes me discomfort but that's irrelevant to anything on wikipedia. E.g., i stay away from a lot of political articles because i could say every picture of trump makes me uncomfortable because of whatever he did the day it was taken.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You need to read the preface of Even This I Get To Experience. I don't think you have read it. Your statements like "Larry King's million wives" are also off topic and not a neutral point of view.Speakfor23 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing original research to support wikipedia content, that is correct. My comment about Larry is definitely not neutral, i mean he had a MILLION wives how can one be neutral about that. If I was doing original research i would posit that about 50 of larry's wives told Norman to say those things on Larry's show, they used their feminine wiles, and are the direct cause of your umcomfort.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very unrealistic to claim he had a "million" wives. You comments such "as i would posit that about 50 of larry's wives told Norman to say those things on Larry's show, they used their feminine wiles, and are the direct cause of your umcomfort." are very outrageous, and most certainly not a neutral point of view.Speakfor23 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it is not in the article, despite my fervent belief that it is true.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Televison Academy Foundation article about Room 222 discussed how the show displayed "serious contemporary issues" before Lear's sitcoms did so

[edit]

The article specifically states "A season and a half before Norman Lear made "relevant" programming a dominant genre with the introduction of programs like All in the Family and Maude, Room 222 was using the form of the half-hour comedy to discuss serious contemporary issues." Such issues which were made into Room 222 topics included "racism, sexism, homophobia, dropping out of school, shoplifting, drug use among both teachers and students, illiteracy, cops in school, guns in school, Vietnam war veterans, venereal disease, and teenage pregnancy."[5]Speakfor23 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are promoting opinionated accusations. The very reliable Television Academy Foundation has stated that "A season and a half before Norman Lear made "relevant" programming a dominant genre with the introduction of programs like All in the Family and Maude, Room 222 was using the form of the half-hour comedy to discuss serious contemporary issues."[7]Speakfor23 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the popularity of Norman shows, the claim he introduced the political and social commentary to television sitcoms isn't true. The Television Academy Foundation even noted how Lear's company Tandem Productions used the "new narrative ground" Room 222 using, stating that "Room 222 broke new narrative ground that would later be developed by the major sitcom factories of the 1970s, Grant Tinker's MTM Enterprises and Norman Lear's Tandem Productions."[8] Aside from Room 222 predating Lear's reknowned 1970s sitcoms in the United States, we should even note the British show which All In The Family was based on called Til Death Us Do Part.Speakfor23 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed both sources cited to the statements made. The first source says, "Lear’s shows were the first to address the serious political, cultural and social flashpoints of the day – racism, abortion, homosexuality, the Vietnam war — by working pointed new wrinkles into the standard domestic comedy formula." The other source says nothing about Lear and shouldn't even be cited to the statement. No sources use the word "provided" or anything remotely like that word. That statement doesn't even sound right when you say it out loud. How could his shows have provided political and social themes to the sitcom format. His shows are in the sitcom format. They provide nothing. I move that this is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I also question whether the statement is grammatically correct. Speakfor23, you seem to be too heavily invested in a particualr point of view and pushing hard for that point of view to be established in this article based solely on your opinion of Norman, which you have stated multiple times. The problem is that our personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia articles unless they are directly supported by sources we cite. In fact, generally speaking, the lead should have no citations because it should just be a summary of what is already stated and cited within the article. Regardless of that, you are both engaged in edit warring. Knock it off please. --ARoseWolf 11:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lie about a source from the very reliable Television Academy Foundation which mentioned how Room 222 predated All In The Family with "serious contemporary issues" and even mentioned Lear by name twice. [9]Speakfor23 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with everything you've said User:ARoseWolf. Yet, Speakfor23 has reverted my language of "His shows are credited with introducing political and social themes to the sitcom format" (adding "credited with" to try to reach a resolution) and returned to the nonsensical phrasing of "His shows provided political and social themes to the sitcom format." When editing against what i consider troll-like stuff, I don't consider my impish behavior warring, but I'll let others fix the problem if they'd like for now.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Speakfor23 is a troll. They are not vandalizing the article. There is a set of specific edits which are exempt from the classification of edit warring. This is not one of them. --ARoseWolf 14:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can claim "provided." However, it would false to claim they "introduced" it. There have been many media claims which even Wikipedia has pointed out are not true. The Room 222 article by the Television Academy Foundation which brough up Lear sure was interesting.[10]Speakfor23 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can not claim provided as that is not in any source you cite. It is you combining sources included one that doesn't even mention Lear to form an opinion. Simply stating that there are "many" sources is not the answer. You have to provide the sources which explicitly say what you are trying to convey without having to pull multiple sources together to form the basis for your argument. Interviews are not reliable sources therefore your cited source is immaterial, whether it is interesting or not is a matter of opinion. --ARoseWolf 14:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you telling falsehoods. The Television Academy Foundation article clearly states "the show broke new narrative ground that would later be developed by the major sitcom factories of the 1970s, Grant Tinker's MTM Enterprises and Norman Lear's Tandem Productions" and that A season and a half before Norman Lear made "relevant" programming a dominant genre with the introduction of programs like All in the Family and Maude, Room 222 was using the form of the half-hour comedy to discuss serious contemporary issues. During its five seasons on the air, the show included episodes that dealt with such topics as racism, sexism, homophobia, dropping out of school, shoplifting, drug use among both teachers and students, illiteracy, cops in school, guns in school, Vietnam war veterans, venereal disease, and teenage pregnancy."[11] Norman Lear, his company Tandem Productions, and his shows All In The Family and Maude were cited by name in the article which noted how Room 222 predated All In The Family with "serious contemporary issues."Speakfor23 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, per WP:ONUS, the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying, per the reliable sources cited to the statement and about Lear, it is not false. That's all we can go on unless you have a reliable source which states that it is false. Anything else is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. --ARoseWolf 14:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the Television Academy Foundation article clearly states Room 222 did so before Lear and All In The Family. The burden of judgement is on you. Lear's classic shows may have higher ratings and a significant popular culture impact, but they did not predate Room 222 when it came to discussing "serious contemporary issues." Tha Television Academy Foundation even noted that Room 222 "broke new narrative ground that would later be developed by the major sitcom factories of the 1970s, Grant Tinker's MTM Enterprises and Norman Lear's Tandem Productions." [12] The media even falsely hyped the Higgs Boson as the "god particle," despite the fact that even Peter Higgs himself denied it was this. The claim that Norman Lear introduced serious political and social issues to sitcoms is not true.Speakfor23 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly displaying WP:IDHT. You are showing WP:OWN and now you have moved into WP:NPA territory. Your source is an interview with the creators, directors and those close to the development of Room 222 so it is primary. We have an independent reliable source which makes a statement about Lear's programs being first. Per Wikipedia policy on reliable sources we are to accept a secondary reliable source over a primary interview that is not independent of the claim made. For example, if x politician says something is true in an interview in their own words we may include that but if an independent reliable source says the opposite is true then that takes precedent over an interview. The content mostly likely will be amended to what the independent source says or may be removed altogether. There are exceptions, as always. You need to find a source independent of Room 222 that states this as fact. --ARoseWolf 18:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now more neutral and grammatically correct. It removes any mention of who was first and now does not make the claim but also changes poorly written sentences. It takes the sources provided to say that his shows addressed in the place of provided current political and social issues in a sitcom format. I also removed the part about Room 222 in the article as the subject had nothing to do with that production and the source provided is not a secondary reliable source. --ARoseWolf 19:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your new edit summary allegations that the Television Academy Foundation articles is based on interviews related to production members of Room 222 is not cool. That is another lie. You can even watch reruns of the show for yourself.Speakfor23 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You again made up lies abut the article having nothing to do with Norman Lear, when it very much does.[13]Speakfor23 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the source is Television Academy Foundation: The Interviews (emphasis mine). You can watch and listen to interviews with persons who worked on the project. It is not an article and the Television Academy Foundation does not credit or write anything about Room 222 or Norman Lear. The part you have been incorrectly attributing to the TAF was actually said by Robert Thompson in the Museum of Broadcast Communications Encyclopedia of Television, published in 1997. If you had left well enough alone the article would have been improved by changing introduced to addressed. With doing that, however, it removes any claim and the part about Room 222 is no longer due. At the very least it should be attributed properly. Your personal attacks on me are unwarranted. I have never vandalized any article during my time here on Wikipedia. And anytime I make a mistake I address it and correct it. --ARoseWolf 11:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Lear&oldid=1241830012"