Jump to content

Talk:Ed Asner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Edward Asner)

Untitled

[edit]

Someone should mention his massive amount of voice over work for cartoons. He was "Granny Goodness"!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky (talk • contribs) 02:22, 18 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop deleting this? This is a notable and verifiable view she has, why are you deleting her views, and her apearance on a notable tv show? --Striver 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Mumia references edited. They happen to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.92.27 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a.) they are uncited, and (b.) as phrased, they repeatedly and clearly represent a point of view and are intended to influence opinion and as such are inappropriate for WP. If you wish to submit UNBIASED information, then word it so that your bias doesn't show and provide a citation. Until then, these repeated attempts to slant opinion one way or the other will be deleted. Monkeyzpop 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Asner - local relatives

[edit]

Ron Gold - cousin Labe Asner - brother ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.213.160 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzak/Yitzhak?

[edit]

This says his birth name is Yitzak Eddie Asner. Googling, I find there are many websites that support his birth name as either Yitzak or Yitzhak. Others, however, such as IMDB, say nothing about the Yitzak name, and say that Ed is not short for Eddie but for Edward. What's the truth? -- JackofOz 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list is now gone, but there are still multiple online refs to Yitzak or Yitzhak. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feuds with Charlton Heston

[edit]

Heard Charlton Heston died today and was reading a little bit about him and I noticed it mentioned many conflicting feuds with Ed Asner regarding his political views, thought it would be a good idea to maybe add something about it as I came here to find a little more information on it.--Papajohnin (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Grandma Knows This Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.146.233 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the 911ct template on the article's page

[edit]

Hi — I have included the following template on the article's page, because Ed Asner has been (and is currently) included in the list of "Notable proponents and supporters" of alternative theories on 9/11. In his letter addressed to peace and justice activists, which is cited in the article, he states:

  • "the 9-11 truth movement is the most pressing issue of the peace & justice movement today"
  • "I urge all to read "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin"

In the letter, Ed Asner urges an investigation into the possible complicity of high-ranking U.S. officials in the 9/11 event. As the template has just been deleted from the page, I'm starting this talk page discussion so that we can build consensus on whether it should or should not be included in the article.  Cs32en  05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asner's own words re his real name

[edit]

The citation of Asner's own detailed description of his birth and birth name in his on-camera interview with the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences is valid, despite the fact that the link goes to Youtube. The Academy uses Youtube as a conduit for its published interview archive. This is not some random clip copied from god-knows-where, it's the official archive of the TV Academy, intended to be the information of record on it subjects. To reject it because it links through Youtube is carrying Youtube discrimination too far. A cite from the subject's own words should carry more weight than contradictory information from a less reliable source.Monkeyzpop (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Asner

[edit]

He was also in KID GALAHAD. He played a detective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.185.177 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add under television "Hot in Cleveland" (2012)appearing with Betty White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.216.226 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved list to its own page

[edit]

As his filmography was three full pages even divided into columns, I moved it into its own article, Filmography of Ed Asner. If a better title makes sense, please move it. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a vandalism-only account moved this list back in. As it appeared to be uncontroversial for over a year, I'm going to be bold and move it back. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Asner → Ed Asner – Ed is what he is commonly known as - a search for "ed asner" on Google produced about 1,200,000 results, while "Edward Asner" gets significantly less (558,000). IMDB also shows he is usually credited as Ed Asner. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

unsupported claim

[edit]

I have removed claims that Mr. Asner is affiliated with the socialist party or a Democratic-Socialist type party. It is unsupported by a citation. The citation listed does not mention this claim. Furthermore, the citation itself has not been updated since 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinejarvis (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 March 2014‎

I have reverted your removal of easily verifiable information, and added references. Please don't make unsubstantiable claims of "BLP violations" before at least a cursory glance at available sources for the information you're removing. Also, there is no shame whatsoever in being a socialist, so I'm not sure how you would assume that this constitutes a "BLP violation". And finally, please sign your comments with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). --78.35.253.106 (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am once again going to remove this unsupported claim. The source is frontpagemag, and a simple view of its website demonstrates that it is not a reliable source; it's front page banner says "every liberal is a totalitarian." A reliable source (essential to Wikipedia articles) would be a print newspaper like the Los Angeles Times or Washington Post, or a national magazine like Time, Variety, Entertainment Weekly or People. Does Mr. Asner himself ever say he is part of this group? Even the group's website does not mention Asner as a member. Furthermore, the revert was made by an anonymous user who's only contribution to Wikipedia was on the Ed Asner site.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A claim under Personal Life says he was involved in the organization Autism Speaks, but the cited reference discusses his support of The Help Group, not Autism Speaks. I found evidence that he hosted an annual poker game to benefit Autism Speaks, and he's spoken publically in defense of them, but neither of these facts is mentioned in the cited reference. He was also involved with a lot of charities, including his own Ed Asner Family Center, which help people with autism, and don't have the same level of controversy as Autism Speaks. Perhaps the full scope of his work to help those with autism should be mentioned, instead of just a false citation tying him to a controversial organization? Donyana (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such movie exist

[edit]

There's no such thing as "The Nature Vacations of Pokemon, Animals, Friendship Ponies and Dinosaurs"! Who put that into this? CanidG on the ROCKS! 19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Ed Asner. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Ed Asner. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santa

[edit]

I'm opening this up so we can talk about this change.

Fact is, Ed Asner played (or voiced) Santa Claus four times. It says so on the IMDB link that I added, and also in the Ed Asner filmography.

There's no controversy over this being true and I don't think anyone has suggested that it's not notable. What's it going to take to get everyone to agree to keep it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.152.65 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and it backs me up. It says there's been some dispute about cast lists for released films, but only excludes the ones from unreleased films. So where do you think Ed Asner filmography came from? 24.47.152.65 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally cut off my edit comment, so I'll explain here. The interesting thing isn't that Asner played Santa in one particular movie, but that he's done it enough times in his career to have become associated with the character. That's why I reverted the change, which incidentally had a comment that was uncivil. It looks like Jesse is wiki-stalking me, which is creepy and weird. I'd report him, again, but it didn't have any effect last time. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an uncivil attack, harassment, and obvious gaslighting. I didn't even know this was the same IP who was in fact wiki-stalking me last month. It's easily verifiable that I've had this article on my watchlist for years, and had edited it several times recently before IP showed up and as long ago as 2011. More to the point, as multiple editors have pointed out, the information is not relevant the article as a whole. JesseRafe (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're projecting. I don't know you, but you've been reverting my changes on many unrelated articles while insulting me. Please go away, I'm trying to improve this article. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere attempts at article improvement are laudable, but when multiple editors disagree on the appropriateness of placing such content where you want, you should probably accept it and make improvements elsewhere (even if one of those editors is considered offensive). —ADavidB 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That turns out not to be the case. Multiple editors take issue with citing IMDB for this fact. As far as I can tell, exactly one editor opposes inclusion of this fact, for reasons not entirely clear to me. If you share their view, perhaps you could explain. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The top/lead section is for summarizing an article. Asner's filmography is a separate article. Lots of actors play Santa, some doing so multiple times. If this is particularly notable in Asner's case, I'd think a reliable source would write about it and we'd have a proper source citation. Otherwise, I see it as trivial information that has no place in the lead section, nor likely in this article at all. —ADavidB 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it was notable then he'd be in the International Santa Claus Hall of Fame or something. Oh, wait, he is.[1]. And if it was notable, it would be mentioned on List of actors who played Santa Claus, which it is. Or maybe TV Guide would have an entire article dedicated to how he's "carved a professional niche for himself by playing, of all roles, jolly old St. Nick". [2]
If his latest Santa job is worth mentioning in the lede, why shouldn't we add a couple of words to put it in context? It's not just that he played Santa this one time, it's that he's notable for doing so repeatedly.
You asked for a citation and I've provided it. Thank you for agreeing to the change. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jesse is edit-warring by ignoring the discussion here. And he's got an administrator who's willing to protect him at all costs, so I expect to be banned. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have posted this here earlier, before any other earnest editors waste their time trying to convince 24.47.152.65 how to edit constructively and what types of info go in the lede, they literally don't care about the article's topic or disputed content and are only adding it because I undid a different IP's edit of the same a week prior and they are only concerned with proving me wrong about anything, as laid out in the ANI here. Just wanted to give others a head's up. JesseRafe (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning"
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."
Enjoy getting me banned; it won't make you a better person. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary", guy, so that bit of Wikilawyering isn't going to do you a bit of good. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward/Ed and the article name

[edit]

An editor has unilaterally claimed that, because the related Encyclopedia Britannica article – which I will note is titled "Ed" Asner – provides Edward as another name by which he is referred, this article should be given the Edward name. No other sources are provided. While the Britannica article uses "Edward" in its photo captions, its article text merely states he is "also called Edward Asner". In reverting my revert, the editor wrote that "Asner has been vocal about his professional name being Edward, not Ed", yet provides no source. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it is one's common name that is to be used for an article title. Please further discuss/support this issue here so we can reach a consensus. —ADavidB 09:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the article being held in the Ed Asner namespace as well as disagree with the notion that "Edward" be given any special prominence due to a single source at the Britannica (which could be user error or a style guide) and it would be undue to let that one instance supersede the thousands of him using "Ed" as his professional name. Maybe there was a time earlier in his life when he went by "Edward" to make himself sound more formal than "Eddie", but that would need a cite. Further adjustments to how he names himself and how that's changed should go in the Early life and education section as the lede and infobox should only give common and birth names and he's had no other common names. JesseRafe (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will relinquish my position rather than get into a battle over this, despite the fact that out of 1,768 credits on IMDb Asner is credited as Edward in 1,713 of them; despite the fact that the first comment above quoting thusly "Per WP:COMMONNAME, it is one's common name that is to be used for an article title" does not answer the argument I made that commonly-called Jimmy Stewart is still listed in a WP article called James Stewart because that was his preferred professional name; and despite the fact that Asner has said on many occasions (admittedly uncited) that he prefers to be known professionally as Edward rather than the Ed he is commonly called. However, I admit the possibility that my familiarity with the subject (both as a WP subject and as a personal friend and colleague who has heard him rail against producers for accidentally billing him as Ed) has overridden my precise adherence to WP guidelines that it doesn't matter if it's true as long as it's published somewhere reasonable. Therefore, until such time as I locate more precise citation on the matter, I retire from the battlefield before it becomes one. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can compare Stewart. "Jimmy" was unquestionably simply an affectionate nickname among his friends (or to people who liked, or indeed still like, to pretend they knew him, as is sadly the case with many fans) and he was invariably known professionally as James Stewart. This is not the case with Asner, who has often been billed and credited as Ed Asner, whatever he may actually prefer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An ultimate example of the inconsistency in Asner's on-screen billing occurs in the credits of 1965's The Satan Bug. The opening credits depict his name as "Ed Asner", while the closing credits crawl depicts the name as "Edward Asner". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get this straight: This person's birthname ("Eddie") is already a hypocorism, but he was always credited as "Edward" or "Ed". Some IP (2.25.253.210) removed the "Edward" completely from this article in mid-July (over a month before Mr. Asner's death). Is it okay to re-insert the non-hypocoristic "Edward" right now, or would that be a violation of Wikipedia's hypocorism policy? There is just no understanding why a hypocorism like "Eddie" could be chosen as a person's birthname rather than the more conventional "Edward". Jim856796 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why add a name that wasn't really his? Naming doesn't have to be conventional. I'd have no problem with the 'early life' section spelling out the situation instead of just having it as a source, though it isn't a priority for me. —ADavidB 19:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source that gives reason to mention "Edward" and intend to add it to the article soon. —ADavidB 20:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content I mentioned is now added to the Career section. —ADavidB 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be noted that Asner's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame depicts his name as "Edward Asner". Also, here is a link to the 1965 film, The Satan Bug, which has it both ways by billing him as "Ed Asner" in the opening credits and as "Edward Asner" in the end credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

[edit]

Add after: Asner was a supporter of Humane Borders, Asner was also a long-time supporter of Heifer International, and produced a video in 2021 to support their fundraising efforts to reduce child hunger around the world. Reference: pic.twitter.com/adpoxoEcz8 Scicc (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Needs coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was an acquaintance of Alex Jones?

[edit]

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/1783276000521957473

https://tv.infowars.com/index/display/id/1837 ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ed_Asner&oldid=1255214843"