Talk:Sally Struthers/Archives/2013

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

South Park

I agree, calling South Park's parody a 'crude stab' is not a neutral account.

Page needs some more descriptive text to convey the sense to the reader of just how corpulent Ms. Struthers has become.

Not really. In fact, that part of the article should be deleted.

That section has been deleted. What does her weight have to do with anything? It's offensive.

Is she on the advertisments about home courses such as "tv repair"?

Why is this important?: "In an appearance on The Mike Douglas Show in 1975 she showed the host and audience a piece of flesh-colored rubber that she was wearing in her TV movie, Hey, I'm Alive!, based on the true story of a young woman stranded in a snow bank. She explained that it was a make-up appliance to expand her nose, because she was portraying a Jewish girl." Kemet 6 April 2006

Can someone please note that she was parodied on south park.

My Piece Both the article and talk page need more organization. The part about her Mike Douglas Show appearance is alright, but it should have more contextual background. The statement about the South Park episode seemed of questionable neutrality. In general, the article just needs more. --Umma Kynes 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did some organization. I agree that the South Park reference should probably be completely removed. It was hilarious, but we don't need to write every detail of every satire or joke made about an actor or organization.Superdoggy 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it should definitely be kept. A lot of people must know Struthers exclusively because of the South Park reference. It's a major enough pop culture reference, not just a random joke Mad Jack 05:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IAWTC. --Neurophyre^(talk) 07:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think a South Park reference needs to be made. - Cgage22 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a South Park Parody section. If anyone wishes to make changes to it and make it better, please do.86.157.213.118 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the validity of the article's claim, "Sally Struthers is known to many exclusively through South Park." Upon what is this statement based? As far as I understand it, All in the Family had higher ratings than South Park ever did, thus making Sally Struthers known more for All in the Family, rather than her depiction on South Park. Pro tip: Just because you're fifteen years old and you get all of your pop culture from South Park doesn't mean everyone does. Brash 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I see no reason to be rude. I did not attack you, so why feel the need to insult me. I am not fifteen, though even if I were, that would be irrelevant. My point was that Struthers is known to many exclusively through South Park. I did not indicate in any way that she was known more for this, than anything else. Many does not indicate everybody or even a majority, as apparently you would seem to imagine. The fact is that many people do gain a substantial amount of real world knowledge from cartoon shows such as The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park. This section is designed to reflect that. Pro tip: just because you are fifteen years old and do not understand the intricacies of quantitative articulation, does not mean you need to be a brute. 81.129.194.186 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us put aside my fundamental problem with this entire section. Let us suppose that it belongs in this article. Which it doesn't. Even then, this section makes use of weasel words, which warrants an edit, if not an outright deletion. You should read more on Wikipedia's policy on Weasel Words. Brash 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the character in South Park with the actual person. The section describes exactly how the character is in the television show. This is what the section is for and I see no reason to change it. In fact, there are no indications of negative similarities between the character and the actual person being implied. I also do not see why this section does not belong in the article. It is a reference to Sally Struthers in popular culture. Something which appears on most celebrity pages and is an important aspect of Wikipedia and its relation to modern society. Really though, your opinion is irrelevant on Wikipedia as fact and verifiability prevail. You should read more on Wikipedia's policy on Neutrality. Also, well done on the retreat from your original complaints... Dale-DCX 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, you're right! My opinion doesn't matter on Wikipedia. However, I am not trying to insert my opinion into this article, so your point is irrelevant; I do, however, have an opinion about how this section was written, to which I am entitled. And my opinion is that this section is poorly written, unscourced, and does not follow Wikipedia:NPOV. Not only that, it contains no actual information - it just mentions the fact that Struthers was parodied, and summarizes "Starvin Marvin." It's utterly pointless. That is why I decided to edit the section so it is more coherently written, and actually contains relevant information. Go figure that actual information would be put into Wikipedia, instead of innane pop culture references. It's not as good as the South Park Episode section in the Tom Cruise article, but it's much better than what we had. Brash 08:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you recall, I only added the section and in fact encouraged others to improve it. Which you have done, thank you. I can see you are not trying to insert your opinion, rather remove it. Wishing to remove an aspect of an article because you have a "fundamental problem" is the same as placing something in the article. It is acting on your opinion of the situation. I would tend to agree that the section was not entirely well written and definitely agree that it was not sourced. Again though, I only added the section because the article needed it and so it could be improved later. Regardless, this was not your initial point. Rather, your personal opinion of Struthers and South Park deemed the section invalid and requiring deletion. For a section to contain no actual information, there would have to be no section at all. Any information is actual, regardless of how well written it is. There is a reason why pop-culture exists on Wikipedia. It is the popular culture of the time which is very important to modern society. Limiting this just because you happen to disagree is irresponsible and rather daft really. I must note again that you are very good at retreating from your previous concerns, though I am pleased you upgraded the section. Dale-DCX 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There's way too much information on the South Park parody here. It should be a bullet and nothing more. -- RoyLaurie

Please explain why. Dale-DCX 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this is not an article on the southpark episode. That she was parodied may be relevant, the details are not relevant to her article however, especially since it takes up so much compared to the rest. There should be a link to the south park articles in question. Epthorn 09:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact the South Park section is quite large compared to the rest of the article, is not due to any aspect of the South Park section. It is due to the rest of the article being rather limited. If one wishes to complain about the length of the South Park section (which is indeed relevant), they should work to improve the rest of the article.Dale-DCX (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This section concerning Sally Struthers being parodied by South Park should be part of a new section in the South Park Wikipedia article (titled "Celebrities parodied", for example). Sally's article would then simply refer to the specific South Park section following a short introduction.--Jazzeur (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Struthers has been parodied on a lot of shows. Shall we include a section for each? This stuff belongs in the South Park article. Proxy User (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an internal link to the South Article. --Jazzeur (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the section not be deleted just because people do not like it. If Struthers has been parodied on several shows, there should be a section on this, which would include the South Park segment. If someone is parodied on television shows, there is a good reason and makes this relevant to the popular culture.Dale-DCX (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So I take it we can now add separate sections for every program that has ever parodied Sally Struthers? There are quite a few, and I'll start work on it immediately. I trust the new sections will be accepted as the South Park section has... Proxy User (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you not read my post? I said: "if Struthers has been parodied on several shows, there should be a section on this, which would include the South Park segment". I do not exactly see how this means there should be a seperate sections on the different shows.Dale-DCX (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the South Park section was WAY larger that its actual relevancy for something that in fact is only a very tiny part of Sally Struthers.

What’s going on is that there are a few "editors" here who think South Park is terribly funny and witty, so they feel obliged to include a huge section on it. But the fact is that South Park has little to do with Sally Struthers.

Jazzeur has added a reference to South Park that is quite appropriate in size and scope. If people really want to know more about South Park, they can go to the South Park article. But having a whole HUGE section here is not appropriate. Proxy User (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

She was also spoofed on In Living Color, but we should really avoid trivia and such here.Sposato (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I know who she is, is because of South Park. This is true for many younger people. Put the information back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.62.226 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sign

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Neurophyre^(talk) 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule that requires editing with an account, nor signing comments. If such things are important, than lobby for a change in the rules. That there is NO rule that requires these things means that there is no stigma nor negativity with disregarding them. If they were important, there would be a rule. That there is no rule means they are not important.

Photo?

Another wikipedia page with no photo. That should be the number one priority for this page at the moment, getting a photo of this Struthers girl JayKeaton 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are various photos of her on Wikipedia. --TGC55 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are none HERE. I have a Clue Stick in my pocket...

Ummm... whose daughter?

The first sentence describes Ms. Struthers as "best known as Carroll O'Connor's and Jean Stapleton's daughter, Gloria Bunker Stivic on All In The Family". This is confusing the characters with the actors. I'm sure the author knows that, but the wording should be made more accurate. Better yet, just drop the refs to the other characters; they aren't needed at this point in the article. MrRK 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Character/actor ambiguity rectified. LorenzoB 08:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out several places, she was NEVER known as Gloria Bunker Stivic or Gloria Bunker, only Gloria Stivic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The transition from Gloria Bunker to Gloria Bunker-Stivic, or Gloria Stivic, was chronicled in the Flashback: Mike and Gloria's Wedding (Part 2) episode. --Jazzeur (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The summary says nothing about "Gloria Bunker-Stivic", though IMDB does say something about it: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0021604/. What's clear is it *was not* the name the character was generally known as. The summary at IMDB for that episode does not mention it either: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0509870/. Ironic that you would want to apply political correctness to All In The Family. Absurd. 75.172.18.73 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

True, and the Wikipedia article is titled "Gloria Stivic" as well. Proxy User (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The All in the Family article is full of references aimed at making this family fit in the real world. --Jazzeur (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What's in the article is irrelevant. What matters is how she was referred to in the TV series. Granted, I'm not an expert on All In The Family, though I did watch it all the time, but running AITF factoids through a modern day Politically Correct Filter doesn't make sense to me. If, 90% of the time, she was referred to as Gloria Stivic, than that was her name. Proxy User (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

With the first occurrence of her identity in that role clarified, future references to Gloria Bunker-Stivic do not pose a problem of understanding anymore. The character was not born Gloria Stivic. --Jazzeur (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's OK with me. But look, she may not have been born Gloria Stivic, but save one or two brief references an an episode or two, she was never known as Gloria Bunker-Stivic. You're projecting a fictional character against the reality of a politically correct naming convention. Calling her Gloria Bunker-Stivic in the context of a fictional character is just misleading and wrong. In the program, which is the only place she existed, her name was either Gloria Bunker or Gloria Stivic, but never Gloria Bunker-Stivic. It's just a reality of the character. Proxy User (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is dealing with a fictional character and it is important for those doing research, those reaching the page accidentally or without an in-depth knowledge of the «All in the Family» series to easily grasp how the character fits in the scheme of things and how it relates with the others. Jazzeur (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to step in to this long-dead discussion, however, may I point out that if simply referring to her character on Gilmore Girls as Babette is good enough, i.e. with no surname, then why not refer to her AITF character as simply "Gloria", no surname, and be done with it?

At the time that I write this, the article lists the AITF character name as Gloria Bunker Stivic. If you really must have the last name of the character, it would properly be given as Gloria Stivic nee Bunker.

If anyone really cares about the last name of the character they can easily look it up on the article concerning the TV show. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Consensus is quite clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Awful Truth?

Sally Struthers was not in the movie "The Awful Truth" with Cary Grant. Which is where the link under filmography takes you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarklm (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Awful Truth

Responding to my removal of the title The Awful Truth from the Filmography section by reverting it and adding a reference for the TV series is not helpful. I removed it from the Filmography section because, as I said in my edit summary, I thought it was a mistaken duplication of the TV series appearance and I could find no credit for such a film in Sally Struthers's credits at IMDb. If she did appear in a film called The Awful Truth, then a reference for that is what's needed. Otherwise, the title should be remove from her film credits.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Please see the correction I just made. --Jazzeur (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Too bad that film doesn't exist; it would have been interesting to see Ms. Struthers in a remake of the 1937 film... Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

everything points to 1947

Birthdate database and intelius list her born in 1947.And if you google 1947 and Sally Struthers you get a lot of sources.And lots of wikipedia articals site public records site and I included another source with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaudeville2009 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bunker-Stivic?

Her character was never called "Gloria Bunker Stivic on All in the Family. Perhaps she was known as this on Gloria. (What a memorable classic that was). The link to the article (of course) titled "Gloria Stivic" explains to readers that her maiden name is "Bunker". There is no need to, or basis for, creating a piped link o give this character a new name. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the edit summary that this character's "defining identity" was "Gloria Bunker Stivic", find one mention of her being called this (not merely a passing reference) in 200 episodes of All in the Family, and I'll withdraw my objection. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)