Talk:Norman Lear/Archive 1

Archive 1

South Park

Didn't he help write an episode of the popular animated series? I think that's worth mentioning in the main article. --M.Neko 13:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I see that they list citation needed for the fact that consulted for south park episodes. Matt Stone and Trey Parker both state this in the commentary for the episode Cancelled on the seventh season DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.194.118 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The introduction of this article is way, way too long

I'll work on it when I have time, but please feel free to tinker with the length if you see this message. The intro is more or less the meat of the article, which is not the Wikipedia standard. Moncrief 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Norman Lear

Can somebody Upload a picture of Norman? I'm Afraid of doing it.

Keenrich 22:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Article needs improvement

This article is in need of much work, including addition of an Infobox, heavy-handed copy editing and wikification (conformity to WP:STYLE), reorganization, references for the content (WP:CITE), and editorial balance (WP:NPOV). It reads like most it was written by the subject's PR rep, but one who is in serious need of a good copy editor.

Finell (Talk) 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where was he born?

The article used to say that Norman Lear was born in New Haven, Connecticut, but an anon IP who seems to live in Estherville, Iowa edited the article to say Mr. Lear was born there. Does anyone know the truth? Shalom ^Hello 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The IMDB and the Museum of Broadcast Communications both have him listed as being born in New Haven. I'd say they trump an anon from IA. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Jews are placeless and timeless. Whether it was New Haven or elsewhere it makes no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.237.53 (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

All in the Family

It was claimed that Lear's sitcom about prejudice and bigotry would give bigotry a bad name. If my personal experience is a guide, it's just the opposite: Archie gave lessons to generations of bigots. For shame, sir.

TV Productions

The list need to be shortened. Lear had nothing to do with Diff'rent Strokes as during that year, he was involved in feature film. Even Lear had nothing to do with the series by Embassy/ELP. King Shadeed 21:16, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

As a producer he gets credited on a show, even if he wasn't working in the day-to-day production of the show -- which is typical, especially at Lear's level. I don't think there's a way to extract his involvement by saying he was working on films during this time. If he's got the credit he's got the credit. That said, I don't see Diff'rent Strokes on his IMDb page so.... -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That part may be true, but you gotta pay attention to the credit "Production Supervised by Norman Lear". Look at this list right here. This will help. In '78, he stepped down to work on feature films (says right here) and was later replaced by Alan Horn. In 1982, he became co-chairman and CEO of Embassy Communications, Inc., but when it was sold in 1985 to Coke, Lear was no longer involved with Embassy. King Shadeed 13:48, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "production supervised by" is a non-standard credit, and specifically doesn't call him a producer. This will take some digging and citing. Additionally, this section needs a legend, since there is nothing that says what the difference is between the pink and the blue bars. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He still produced his shows until 1978, did he not?? And look at this. King Shadeed 23:56, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Norman Lear, a Ghostwriter?

Even though other people were credited with writing Martin and Lewis films, this Billboard magazine says both Lear and Simmons were writers of the films:[1].2601:447:4101:B820:3C42:B462:53A3:4C26 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Liberty Weekend

I removed the paragraph about Lear supposedly producing Liberty Weekend in 1986. The event was actually produced by David L. Wolper; see [2], for example. The section in Lear's autobiography was not about him producing Liberty Weekend, but about him organizing a celebration of his engagement for his family and friends, which he held on a boat in New York Harbor during Liberty Weekend. Lear wrote: "I was producing a truly memorable, no-stone-unturned weekend for close friends, family, and associates." (Emphasis added.)

I also removed a sentence that said, "Even before the special aired, it was revealed that I Love Liberty had obtained even more public hype than the CBS documentary Central American In Revolt, which aired the day before Lear's special and was meant to hype the Reagan Administration's policy surrounding the Central American crisis." The source cited discussed both shows, but didn't compare the two in terms of public hype; in any event, it should go without saying that a patriotic entertainment special featuring performers such as Robin Williams, Barbra Streisand, Kenny Rogers, and Dionne Warwick would receive more public hype than a documentary about U.S. relations with Central America. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture

I don't see how a quote from Lear is appropriate for a IPC section, even the information in the quote suggest "why is this here?" - FlightTime (open channel) 15:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

More recent photo

This black and white photo from 1975 (minus his trademark hat) is surely not the best photo available. The ones from 2014 and 2015 easily identify Mr. Lear, as he would be known to a larger audience. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:85CE:C8E4:F5C:EBC2 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

User 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:85CE:C8E4:F5C:EBC2 is right.

Looking at the available photos, 2014 and 2015 photos would be more appropriate. 64.141.54.166 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. Per {{Infobox person#Image}}, it's more appropriate to use a photograph of the subject in their prime. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Neveselbert Note - It is an ongoing standard here, when a famous person dies, the closest image of the person in their prime (most recognizable) image is used. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The current photo is NOT the most recognizable. People who will likely search Mr. Lear up on Wikipedia will not be ones who remember him from the 70s.

I include myself in this category, seeing the current photo means nothing to me. Also with a life as long as his, what is his prime really? That's debatable.

The 2014 and 2015 photos are not only more recognizable for those who would be looking him up, but they reflect his longevity.

I see many problems on Wikipedia, and this type of discussion on using old photos is one of them. If you want to keep this photo of Mr. Lear, it is my sincere view that it is a disservice. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:399A:5A8F:C08A:EC46 (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Google Norman Lear on images. What do you see?

Majority of photos of him in older age with his hat. That's how he was remembered. Not this obscure black and white photo of a bald man standing in front of cropped TV screens. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:399A:5A8F:C08A:EC46 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To add to my point, I just showed the current photo to my grandmother (who would remember his look from the 70s) and asked if she recognized who it was. She said she didn't, when I showed a recent photo with his hat (as the ones from 2014 and 2015 are) she said immediately Norman Lear.

I think my arguments are clear. If the current photo remains, I believe it is then a poor article that further reflects just how much the Wikipedia project still needs a lot of work. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:399A:5A8F:C08A:EC46 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with FlightTime, the 1975 photo is superior and more in line with policy. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it superior though? Please go in detail. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:AC47:C232:AFD7:7802 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This logic should also apply to Betty White articles or Sherman Hemsley for example. Those both for instance do not adhere to this "prime" logic, nor are they obscure photos.

What is really enhanced by having that cropped old photo of Mr. Lear? Seriously 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:AC47:C232:AFD7:7802 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, he is more known to a larger audience for his work in the 1970s. 2014 and 2015 was when he was less influential and not in his prime. 2601:447:4100:C30:8C11:A4C4:DAA2:D9FF (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a watcher of a talk page where this subject was discussed and I think the current picture is the better option. If we want to add a picture of his younger self to the article, within the article I think that would be most appropriate. We don't always show person's in their prime, especially for someone with a long and distinguished career or someone that has been notable for a long period of time. But I think it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I would like to know where I can find this "ongoing standard" that was referenced. A wiki-link to the policy, standard, essay, anything would be most appreciated. --ARoseWolf 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I've linked {{Infobox person#Image}} above. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I bring your attention to this quote from that page you linked, "When the subject of a biographical article has recently died, particularly those who have been publicly known for decades, editors may come to a consensus on the article's talk page regarding what image would best be suited for the infobox." As I read it, like with most content issues, consensus is a local decision about what we think is appropriate for this article and it does not apply to any other article without gaining consensus on that talk page. Your view is welcome, but so is the IP's view of the matter. --ARoseWolf 21:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Further adding to earlier comment, I think the use of the 1975 photo within the article is totally acceptable. But for a feature photo, a picture that is immediately identifiable and that further shows Mr. Lear and his long life would serve the readers better. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:883E:E2DE:B43E:63DC (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, however, regardless of your position or the other editors commenting here, the proper way, according to policy since it was mentioned, is to gain consensus, not edit war over an image. That's why the article was protected. It was not protected to give either side in this discussion an advantage. There was never any rush to force a particular image in the infobox and this is where that should have been decided after the first revert. --ARoseWolf 12:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Black and white image Articles about recently deceased subjects always have their infoboxes reverted to a black and white one/an image of them in their prime per Neveselbert. Not sure why we have the conflicting image right now when it should be reverted to it's original black and white image and then allow the discussion to continue. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Here is why the current image hasn't been changed. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

But really FlightTime, does the current photo disturb you so much? Especially after details arguing for it are clear.

You have yet to make any persuasive points for the 1975 photo other than this "in their prime" argument. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:D97D:43C:4CE:8E6A (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the image, it's the process and SOP I'm concerned about. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

See Betty White and Sherman Hemsley....... 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:D97D:43C:4CE:8E6A (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

See that's the issue with unwritten rules, they aren't written. Policy says that we determine it on the article talk page by consensus. It does not, at least from what has been provided, say, "Articles about recently deceased subjects always have their infoboxes reverted to a black and white one/an image of them in their prime.". It gives an example and explained it as an example of the discussion taking place on an article talk page and the results. What it doesn't do is say what is being described here. --ARoseWolf 18:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a Request for Comment or Third Opinion is needed. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:D97D:43C:4CE:8E6A (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

One more thing in response to this black and white and in their prime line of thought, if the editors really believe this they should rectify the numerous articles of elderly people whose pictures do not "adhere" to these "rules". They include Betty White, Sherman Hemsley, Robert B. Sherman, Estelle Getty, Olympia Dukakis, Vincent Gardenia, Jerry Goldsmith, amongst many others. I am not arguing against use of B and W photos, but in this case the one used for Norman Lear just is not the best one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:D97D:43C:4CE:8E6A (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How about we adhere to the actual policy of local consensus and not follow this fallacy that whatever is done on another article should apply to this article? We also have to be careful not to bludgeon the discussion. Nothing is rushed or has to be resolved right now. The article is protected to end the edit warring, not protect a certain pov, with the thought that both sides will cool off and allow further discussion. So let others talk. Both sides of this have made their points clear. --ARoseWolf 20:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The original photo was from his television prime. It should absolutely be the featured image. He was more pompous in 2015, and we should instead remember him for the revolutionary he used to be.2601:447:4100:C30:CDB2:194A:2570:2106 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

He was pompous?! This is not a legitimate point of argument.

Please more experienced editors, do not let this stand. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:1CA8:C9F9:25E2:218E (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I only think the Oscar montage exclusion would be relevant if other Wikipedia articles mentioned the other people who were excluded

Treat Williams, Suzanne Somers and Lance Reddick were excluded too, but it's not mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. One person gets no special treatment.2601:449:4582:B3C0:1CC2:7870:6BCB:ECDE (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not at all comfortable with a photo of the Even This I Get To Experience/Just Another Version of You era Norman

On the first page of his autobiography preface, he even praised Charles Lindbergh and didn't bring up how Lindbergh was someone who had some Nazi sympathy. Lindbergh even got a Service Cross of the German Eagle medal from Hermann Goering and once claimed "There is no escaping the fact that men were definitely not created equal...".[3]. The Norman who boosted Lindbergh's kid appeal and who even credited Lindbergh for inspiring his dad to fly to Oklahoma is not comforting to me.Speakfor23 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion regarding photo

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)

@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)

@ARoseWolf 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:787D:36D5:D807:DA1B (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.[4][5] I don't feel comfortable with a photo with the Norman who praised Lindbergh.Speakfor23 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

2014 Larry King interview was very uncomforting to me

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. [6] Speakfor23 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.[7]Speakfor23 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)