Talk:Norman Lear

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norman Lear article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 60 days

A news item involving Norman Lear was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 December 2023.

Wikipedia

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance).

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screenwriters High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

More recent photo[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --ARose Wolf 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --ARose Wolf 21:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --ARose Wolf 12:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. --ARose Wolf 18:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --ARose Wolf 20:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]