Jump to content

Talk:Red Skelton/Archive 2

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


Pledge

[edit]

The section for Skelton's performance of the pledge is factually incorrect and possibly WP:INUNIVERSE. Skelton stated in a 1981 Q&A session at Clemson University[1](youtube 7:23) that "Mr. Laswell" never existed and that performance was instead a speech written entirely by him; one he struggled for years to be broadcast on air. The fictional Mr. Laswell is a plot device to present his message to youth of the era. -- dsprc [talk] 13:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we can't use the YouTube clip as a reference. Second, if you read the section, it says that Skelton was the author of the monologue and that he attributed it to a Mr. Laswell, who he referred to as a grammar school teacher of his in Vincennes. We have book and newspaper references that indicate Skelton wrote it and said that Mr. Laswell was his inspiration for it. The article doesn't say anything except that Skelton wrote the monologue and said that Mr. Laswell was his inspiration for it. While it's possible this was what Skelton had done, we will need more than YouTube to consider adding this to the article as a note. We hope (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Columnist Hy Gardner contacted Skelton about the "Pledge" speech in 1969. Skelton provided him with a copy of the entire monologue and permission to print it in his column. The link to Hy Gardner's column with Skelton's description of Mr. Laswell has been added to the article as a footnote. We hope (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources

[edit]

Please stay with the style of references in the articce. We hope (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length of article

[edit]

I am reverting most recent changes made to the article. It was just under 150,000 K at the end of July; it now stands at over 156.000 K. The article went through a peer review and FAC one year ago. The additions made are of minute detail which would suit a book. It's not possible to detail like that for any encyclopedia article; we provide citations and links for the convenience of those who would like to do further reading. To me, the article has become unencyclopedic with all the additions and doesn't meet FA with them all. Sorry, but I'm just about done here. We hope (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely: the bloating was not necessary and had downgraded the article. If it had gone through FAC in the larger size, it would not have been received so positively. Cuts would certainly have been recommended have bring it down to a more encyclopaedic state. – SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were all the changes reviewed before reverting them en masse? Some of those were corrections / clarifications to factual errors in the existing content - with citations from reliable sources to back them up. Given the concern about what was already a lengthy article, are the factual corrections the only ones to address? This includes adding specific dates and locations, and correcting events that are out of sequence chronologically, etc. Limit the update to the factual corrections? Include clarifications as notes? Rosalina523 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse too. Fully support the revert.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed summary was what this needed all along. What will make editing efforts difficult will be the paragraph after paragraph of newspaper stories that have been added over the past year, including more than 300 citations. I agree with the group's concern on that score. Tough to remove them now that they've been added. Onward. Rosalina523 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your suggestions on how to correct the inaccurate information that this article already contains? Rosalina523 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not had a vast amount of newspaper stories added to it in the past year, so that's not an accurate claim. This is the article after it passed FA; you can see the bulk of the newspaper citations were there at the time. This is the article when it became a good article--the citations are there. Peer Review.
I also see that you've been at WP since2012 and that during that time, have made 2 edits to the article; one in October 2012 and one in November 2012. No edits or input from you during the time the article developed enough to become a GA, no comments at Peer Review or at FAC regarding issues with the article and its information. Yet a flurry of editing of it began recently along with claims of its inaccuracy. You were working here at the time all of this was going on, but didn't participate in any of these if you felt something was wrong. We hope (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple, I hadn't had much experience working on lengthy articles like this, so I stopped; others were already working on it. I've been looking at its updates off and on for over a year, collecting resources to verify the content, but didn't have time to work on it until this summer. Chris Woodrich, above, is right, what the article really needs is more summary. I'll post a sample of what a summary section would look like on this talk page. Let's see what the consensus of the community might be; no further updates on the article until there's agreement on a summary format. Rosalina523 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Crisco 1492 is suggesting "what the article really needs is more summary": he has, to my mind, said that it doesn't need bloating out—entirely a different point—and that the already pared down article (the extant version) is the right sort of place to be. Chris, Could you clarify your "We need to keep WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in mind" comment on this? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got it, Schro. I wouldn't have supported this article if I had thought it too bloated during FAC. 55k characters or so feels appropriate for someone with as long a career as Skelton, and the article avoids unnecessary detail. The extra 5 or 6k didn't add anything particularly useful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I think those who worked with the article during its progression to FA need to be made aware of this discussion: We hope (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc:, @DoctorJoeE:, @SchroCat:, @Cassianto:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Crisco 1492:

The way I see it is there's 4.5 million odd other articles badly needing expansion or improvement. I don't see the point in this. Work on something which actually needs the work Rosalina.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dr. Blofeld. The article passed FAC in essentially its current form. If there are any provable inaccuracies, fix those. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rosalina, I would, as Dr. Blofeld suggests, invest your time in other articles which could do with improvement. I think your efforts here are wasted. CassiantoTalk 17:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage advice; end of discussion.Rosalina523 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Red Skelton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Tube videos

[edit]

Aren't able to be used as citations most of the time due to copyright restrictions. Many of them were not uploaded by the copyright holder. We hope (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skelton death

[edit]

Sources does not have to consist of news storys. In this case it's pretty ironic since Daily Mail over all is considered as not a reliable source. I would say that the Red Skelton Museum is just as, if not more reliable. That's not only a website. http://redskeltonmuseum.org/about-us/ and if that wasn't enough the book A Criticial History of Television's The Red Skelton show 1951-1971 by Wesley Hyatt (ISBN 0786446862) also gives the cause of death as pneumonia. https://books.google.se/books?id=nxIkCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=red+skelton+pneumonia&source=bl&ots=lQX0UueVfI&sig=uIxfOmyptQFzB3QOr0kOcC1rb7Y&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_tIiTnaLUAhWGhSwKHRAbAD8Q6AEIWjAI#v=onepage&q=red%20skelton%20pneumonia&f=false DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a US newspaper using an Associated Press news story; perhaps you would have known that if you had read it. The museum would be considered a primary source. While we've used the Hyatt book for citations for a lot of other information, it seems news stories are very good for information for events such as deaths, etc. They're written at the time the event occurred. We hope (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Daily News, not Daily Mail. My Misstake. The exact cause of death may have not been known by Daily News the day after. However, it seems to have been by LA Times http://projects.latimes.com/hollywood/star-walk/red-skelton/ but there are no reason to disbelieve that it may have been known later, by Hyatt among others. You can't say that he is reliable in one case but not in another for the same subjekt. So, now we have both a book AND a news story that gives the cause of death as pneumonia. Reliable enough? DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual LA Times news story which appeared in the paper. I see no mention in it of pneumonia. The source you cited is coverage for the Hollywood Star Walk. It says he had been ill for some time prior to his death but it doesn't give a cause of death-that actual subject isn't mentioned there. We hope (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe we've used enough of Hyatt regarding some of Skelton's early years and for discussion of the television program; can't continue to draw on one source continually and have a balanced article. We hope (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one source is better than no source at all, don't you think? Since he died before Internet broke trough, the few archived articles about his death probably are not updated with current information. And besides, since sources don't have to consist of news story I see no reason to disregard a perfectly good book source for which we have used for other information in the article. It's not as all the other info except for the death info only consists of the Hyatt source. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that we're discussing newspaper stories-stories which appeared in physically printed newspapers? The non-existence of the internet had no effect on whether newspapers were printed and sold. Here's another story printed in the newspaper in 1997 which also says the illness was not disclosed-this from an official spokesperson. The story of his death was disseminated to various newspapers via national/international news agencies like Associated Press linked above. Other large newspapers like the Los Angeles Times also disseminated their story to other smaller newspapers.
We need the Hyatt sources for the other things mentioned earlier but there's plenty of newspaper stories from 1997 we can use and are using regarding Skelton's death. There's no need to add Hyatt re: the death to an article with 300+ citations. We hope (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here is an archived source from People, from October 1997 which specifically says that he died from pneumonia. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources did not give a cause of death-New York Times gave none, as did the LA Times, this is now a footnote. We hope (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who really cares? CassiantoTalk 19:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as important to add this but hope it closes the books here with the editor and no more time needs to be spent on it. We hope (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are disregarding People as well? A source that is well respected and recognized everywhere else on Wikipedia. This is what I was talking about before. The NY Times, LA Times and Daily News article were published the day after his death and it's possible that the cause of death wasn't known that early on. But the People source were published 3 weeks later when more info were available. But even if the Ny Times and the LA Times found out the cause only the day after they published the article the lack of internet made it impossible to update unlike today. I have now give two reliable sources and here is another book source https://books.google.se/books?id=MyTdAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=red+skelton+pneumonia&source=bl&ots=oPu4_afrnO&sig=CezbeuS5iVG8Fqft19z_V_rNdEk&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqmO2WsaLUAhXKhiwKHfUTCQ04HhDoAQg7MAM#v=onepage&q=red%20skelton%20pneumonia&f=false. Sorry, but I consider the cause of death to be clear enough by reliable sources to be more than a footnote. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by saying that you don't care and that you don't think it's imoprtant it just states where your agenda really lies. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if you would READ the citation in the footnote, you would see that it is from People magazine. When you originally added your information to the article, you did so without adding a citation of ANY kind-RS or non-RS. You simply added your changes-the changes didn't agree with the citation. We spent some time here having a reliable source class here until you brought up People magazine.
You're so interested in adding sources to this FA, what about the other changes you've made to other articles like this? You've added information saying he died of prostate cancer without sourcing that. Why not get concerned about the other articles you've added unsourced information to and work on sourcing them, instead of continuing to make complaints here? My agenda is in keeping this article factual and not inflating it with non-vital information, thank you for asking. We hope (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I simply thought it was a miss that it was not already included in the article just like in the case with Hume Cronyn, which was already included in the info box. But if anyone had questioned it I would have added this source http://www.cbsnews.com/news/versatile-actor-hume-cronyn-dies/. After that I have given you source after source, beginning with RS Museum, and ending with People but you have disregarding them all, for diffuse reasons, which I read your fotnote but I think it's worth more than that and should be added as the actual COD on the death section. What you regard as "non-vital" is probably not the same as I do. I'm sure that I can find information in the article I regard as non-vital as well but as long as there is a reliable source for it I do not remove it or spending time to argue about it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but I find it disturbing that someone who edits Wikipedia articles and participates in Talk pages either doesn't know or doesn't think it's important that the plural of "story" is "stories." We're talking about a basic level of literacy, here, and it seems to be absent. rowley (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Skelton 1960 rebalance.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Red Skelton 1960 rebalance.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 18, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-07-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Skelton
Red Skelton (1913–1997) was an American entertainer. He was best known for his national radio and television acts between 1937 and 1971, and as host of the television program The Red Skelton Show. Skelton also appeared in burlesque, vaudeville, films, nightclubs, and casinos. He has stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his work in radio and television, and many of his personal and professional effects are part of the Red Skelton Museum of American Comedy at Vincennes University in Indiana.Photograph: Unknown; restoration: Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...

Army service

[edit]

Skelton served in the army roughly about a year. He entered as a private and left as one. His time in the army is of interest to the article from the standpoint of his leaving his radio show for it and for the nervous breakdown/stuttering problem as a result of that service. His stuttering problem could have meant the end of his career. This has been covered in the article for some time; 500+ more words about it really aren't necessary--this is a large enough article without that. We hope (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) His army service was about 18 months where he was away from the media; what did he do
    2)Mr Skelton attempted to be a regular soldier but found out that if he had he'd have to pull "double duty" a very interesting point when looking at other entertainers in the military.3) Mr Skelton only was in Italy for three days
    4) There is no such thing as the "entertainment corps"; quite false
    5) An important point, Mr Skelton did not even reach PFC that may explain what type of soldier he was. In his memoirs Roger Corman writes that he spent his navy service getting an engineering degree as no one imagined the war would end as soon as it did. The CPO doing his paperwork told him he was going to promote him up one rank from Apprentice Seaman (buck private) to Seaman 2c as people would think he had a discipline problem (unlike non American military units where people enter and leave as a private as other ranks are NCOs).
    I think the paragraph should stay (yes, it's a long article but highly informative, millions of people like myself were brought up with him) for both his biography and those interested in celebrity military "careers". Or should we take this to an "edit war" to be resolved by the staff?Foofbun (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a threat-to keep adding the information as an edit war. Where were you when this article went from gutted by copyvios to GA to FA? Never heard a word from you that I'm aware of during this time.

Agreed with WH, this has been an FA for a long time and we don't need to go into excessive detail on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Foofbun, if you start an edit war, you will be blocked. Simple as that. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I remember how much work We hope put in this FA, it's fine the way it is, also, in my opinion, to blatantly threaten to edit war is the same as any other threat and Foofbun should be blocked out right. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you're not thinking I don't appreciate the hard work put itnt and the wealth of information put into an article on a true giant in the entertainment industry. I only want to place some of the same information stated in two separate parts of the article into one paragraph as that was a period where he was out of the public's eye and give information to readers interested in entertainer's military service. What was he doing during his enlistment? I found it fascinating that he initially wished to be a regular soldier but the double duty of both regular soldier 'and' entertainer exhausted him. I accept the verdict but as I said I corrected the erroneous "entertainment corps". Foofbun (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Skelton's middle name

[edit]

Red Skelton's middle name is Red he made up Bernard to so a teacher would stop asking him about his middle name she did not believe it was really Red He talked with Johnny Carson about this one night on his show Red Skelton Carson Tonight Show 1983 - YouTube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.146.86 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone look at the "External links" for trimming or possibly integrating into the article. 12 links are excessive for even a "Start-class" article prompting concerns of link farming, possible tagging (Template:Too much further reading or Template:Further reading cleanup), or lowering of classification. Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Skelton

[edit]

Just finished watching Red Skelton on Johnny Carson circa 1983 (on you-tube) where Red gives Carson an explanation of his name. Turns out that Red is his real second name. The name Bernard arose when a teacher asked him his middle name. He said Red. The teacher scoffed and instructed him to ask his mother for his real name; she assured him his real name is Red. He returned to school the next day telling his teacher once again his middle name is Red. She was not happy instructing him not to return to school until he could share his real name. He discussed the problem with his mother and he decided on using Bernard as his second name so he could be re-admitted to school.

His name should read Richard Red Skelton.

Thought you would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.18.214 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>[reply]

Television (1951–1970)

[edit]

The photograph from the 1952 Willie Lump-Lump sketch (in which Willie is tricked into thinking he woke up on a wall) is displayed incorrectly. It should be rotated clockwise once, so that Shirley Mitchell will be shown standing correctly on the "wall" and Red Skelton will be shown sitting in such a way that his coat will be hanging straight down. That is how the scene appears in the show. At the moment depicted in the photo still, Skelton asks Mitchell if she isn't going to come down here and get some breakfast. (I verified this last night, 24 April 2020, when viewing my DVD copy of "The Red Skelton Show: The Best of The Early Years 1951-1955," copyright 2014 Timeless Media Group.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PekinReferenceDesk (talk • contribs) 03:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Skelton's middle name

[edit]

I cannot judge the veracity of Skelton's anecdote on The Johnny Carson Show (previously mentioned), but I thought I'd point out that the Social Security Applications and Claims Index 1936-2007 gives Skelton's legal name at the time of his death as "Richard Bernard Skelton," with no mention of "Red." That is the name on the address to which his last Social Security benefit payment was mailed. That means that was the name he (or his legal representative) gave when he signed up with Social Security.

However, on his World War II draft card (he registered for the draft 16 Oct. 1940), Skelton wrote and signed his name "Richard Red Skelton." No "Bernard," and the "Red" does not have quote marks around it to suggest it was only a nickname. It may be, however, that he wrote his name that way simply because he was best known as "Red Skelton."

The earliest record I've found is an entry in the Indiana WPA Birth Index 1880-1920, which calls him "Richard B. Eheart." This index was created by the Works Projects Administration using Indiana county vital records. This indicates that Skelton's middle name really was Bernard, not Red.

Here is the WPA birth index entry inicating what was then Skelton's legal name:

NAME: Richard B Eheart FATHER: Joseph E MOTHER: Ida Fields COUNTY: Knox SEX: Male BIRTH DATE: Jul 18, 1913 REFERENCE: Knox County, Indiana -- Index to Birth Records -- 1882-1920 Inclusive -- Volume I -- Letters A - G Inclusive BOOK: CH-21 PAGE: 150

All of these records may be found at Ancestry.com.

As for the anecdote he told on The Johnny Carson Show (and previously on another show), assuming he wasn't just telling an entertaining but slightly fictional story for the benefit of the audience (as celebrities often do on talk shows), and assuming his memory of the incident was accurate, he could have believed that "Red" was his real middle name. Even so, in light of the WPA Birth Index entry and the Social Security index, the evidence indicates that his legal middle name was "Bernard," and that "Red" was his nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PekinReferenceDesk (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Skelton/Archive_2&oldid=1137118264"