Talk:Ed Sullivan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Year of birth?[edit]

I started looking into this after someone posted a question about it on WP:RD/H. There are several reputable sources claiming he was born in 1901(NY Times obituary; Television Heaven; Encarta) and also several reputable sources claming he was born in 1902 (IMDB; Biography.com; NY Times). Anyone have any insight into which is correct? Chuck 21:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As per the New York City Birth Index 1891-1902, Birth certificate #38725 shows that Edward Sullivan was born 28 Sep 1901. To be absolutely sure you'd have to see the original. - Nunh-huh 07:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Red Scare[edit]

I recall reading somewhere that Sullivan was in the habit of "outing" suspected communists in his column during the '50s, yet I see no mention of this rather distasteful aspect of his life and work in the article. Can somebody look into this issue? (24.114.255.83 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Favourable?[edit]

To be honest the tone of this article isn't really fitting for an encoclyopeadic entry, it tends to grant Sullivan the benefit of the doubt in a few cases and ommitts certain unsavoury details such as those mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.97.187 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Ed Sullivan is notable and a major icon of American culture. So I think the article deserves attention make it a first rate entry. I'll start off with some of my observations.

The section names are confusing to me. For example, "Personality" seems to list the acts that were banned from the Ed Sullivan Show. Should the section should be named "Banned Acts"? If the section instead is about Sullivan's personality in general, then I would expect to read about other elements of it - a positive side, his relationship with people off stage, etc.

Also, his show had a multi-decade run. Did his show have more banned acts than one would expect? Did Sullivan himself call for the bans? In some of the cases, an artist did another song than what they had agreed to perform. I would expect artists to get in trouble for this! (See, for instance, Elvis Costello who switched songs on Saturday Night Live).

The article also makes some claims about Sullivan that should either be supported with cites, put in context, or flagged as possible original research or examples of a non-neutral point of view. For instance: "Somehow, Sullivan still seemed to fit the show; he appeared to the audience as an average guy ..." and "He had a knack for identifying and promoting top talent and paid a great deal of money to secure that talent for his show."

Also, the article suffers from poor organization. The obituary section ("Death") mentions his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame - that seems more like something for either the introduction or a section on awards. The same section also mentions his daughter and then adds "Sullivan was in the habit of calling Sylvia after every program to get her immediate critique." That might go into "Personality" or a section on his relationship with his family.

Normally, in an article with issues like the ones I've raised, I'd be bold, move around text, and delete or flag problem areas, but I feel that there are enough individual issues that it would be good to hear from others about how this article can be improved. --Zippy (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The most-obvious issue is that much of it belongs in Ed Sullivan Show, not here. Keep the parts that discuss Sullivan specifically (such as his wooden stage manner), but most of it needs to move (or be deleted for redundancy, as in the cases of the banned acts). YLee (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More about Elvis[edit]

It might be worth mentioning that Sullivan attempted to clean up Elvis by putting him in a tuxedo and removing his wiggling hips from camera range. 71.233.142.108 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Flipped picture[edit]

It seems that the picture of Mr. Sullivan is flipped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.169.144 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Death[edit]

I just heard that Ed Sullivan has died. Perhaps the article should be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.103.145 (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Education[edit]

According to the article, Sullivan moved from boxer to sports writer to gossip columnist to television host. How much education did he have? These days it's hard to become a professional writer without any college, but some have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talkcontribs) 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

health after boxing career[edit]

Doesn't it seem rather quite likely that the description of Sullivan as being block-headed, dull, and with eyes that bulge or recess &c., and his later descent into the mental fog of Alzheimer's disease, are both the result of the repeated punches to his head that he recieved as a boxer in his youth?

Should this be written into the article, or ought it not be included because it is original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.171.239 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stones info is false[edit]

The Rolling Stones appeared on the Sullivan show six times total. Their last appearance was late 1969---the Stones were superstars at this point and Ed Sullivan actually walked to Mick Jagger and shook his hand---the Sullivan Show was cancelled a year and a half later. The Stones were never banned by the show. Mick Jagger appeared on their first show (1964) without a jacket and it is true that Sullivan was annoyed but he was still allowed to appear without a jacket on the air. The Stones second appearance---the group complied---all wore jackets. The Nazi uniform thing is an urban legend--never happened. Despite their rebel image---the Stones were interested in making music and selling records and Sullivan had a huge audience.