Talk:Family Affair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Legacy and impact section

I removed the following paragraph from the body of the article, as it's largely OR/speculation and would need to be sourced (and to be honest, the last bit doesn't make much sense):

"Much of the show's popularity came from its simple plots and the avoidance of any controversial or suggestive material, which made it particularly suitable for family viewing. The Buffy and Jody characters are polite and well behaved early grade-school children, while Cissy is a high-school and later college student who is peripheral to most of the stories. The show avoids any verbal or plot theme reference to the changing social conditions of the time period. However, many episodes portrayed serious topics. Many of the early episodes dealt with the children's fear of abandonment. Also the character of Mr French was highly popular, and while the show suffered some criticism that the children were too perfect, it was the "Uncle Bill" and "Mr French" characters that often were featured and brought a touch of family to the show."

It would be good to have some more concrete data on the show's popularity and the reasons for it, though this probably belongs in a sub-section rather than the introduction. Gusworld (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cissy bisex ?

I've not understood what means these part on the cast list:

• Sharon James (Cissy's Girlfriend) — Sherry Alberoni
• Gregg Bartlett (Cissy's Boyfriend) — Gregg Fedderson

Is the carachter of "Cissy" bisex ? It talks about a girl- and boy- friens... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.127.114 (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In American English, a friend of a girl can be called a 'girlfriend', without any connotation of bisexuality. However, a 'boyfriend' is invariably romantic at least, if not sexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.212.23 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

French

Mr. French is NOT a butler. He's a gentleman's gentleman. Corrected in the article. PatrickLMT (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate Incidents

The text indicates that Sebastian Cabot died of a heart attack, while the main page for SC indicates he died of a stroke. I don't know which is correct, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.212.23 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done was stroke --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While any single occurrence which happens to the individual actors after the show ends is not necessarily relevant to the show, collectively they may become worth mentioning, as this encyclopedic observation (unfortunate/untimely deaths of 60% of the main cast) is not visible while looking at the actors' individual pages. The "where are they now" question is very common in popular culture and it is relevant, interesting, and valid to include such information on the show's page.--Njsustain (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the last time people, the collective legacy is not available on the individual actors' pages. There is a reference, and it is important enough to devote time to in the DVD documentary, so it is certainly relevant enough to put in this article. -Njsustain (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording of "unfortunate" and "untimely" in this section are both POV words and should not be restored. It is certainly not a matter of fact that any of these deaths were unfortunate or untimely. Both words convey an opinion. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the words "unfortunate" and "untimely" could not appear in an encylopedic article? Nonsense. Cathy Garver clearly discussed these incidents (in the primary source) because they were indeed untimely deaths. Of course everyone will die eventually. What made these notable was the fact that they were unfortunate. It is not non-encyclopedic to state that an 18 year old dying of a drug overdose or that a self-inflicted gunshot wound was "unfortunate," nor that a man dying of a stroke at age 59 was "untimely" in an age where the average life expectancy is over 70. I'm not sure what you think is so inappropriate about these words, but an encyclopedic article is more than just a list of facts and figures. These words are entirely appropriate, and denying so means you missed the entire point of Ms. Garver's discussion of those incidents on the DVD featurette.

Further, I really don't see the point of adding the caveat that it was Ms. Garver's opinion that these deaths were unfortunate or untimely. Who would argue against the fact that they were? Doing so would seem more to be arguing against the opinion because it is, technically, an opinion, rather than because it is somehow "detracting" from the article. I recognize and appreciate and thank you for the many improvements you have made to the Family Affair article, but I don't believe this particular change was one of them. Njsustain (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, an encylopedic article is just a list of facts and figures hence the WP:NPOV policy. Flowery/emotional wording has no place here. As I stated on your talk page, if this wording is Garver's opinion the current wording should reflect that. At the present, it does not which is why I originally removed it. There is no way to prove that any of these deaths are unfortunate and untimely. That is simply a matter of someone's opinion as you have already stated yourself. If this is not someone opinion, neither of those words need to be included in the article in this context. Anyone could argue against the deaths being "unfortunate" and "untimely". Something being unfortunate or untimely is purely subjective and can always be argued which again, is why I removed the wording. I'm not going to discuss life expectancy spans and other stuff as you have admitted that the wording is someone's opinion and the content should be changed to reflect that. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So, what is the argument that these deaths were NOT unfortunate nor untimely? I hardly think those count as "flowery" language in this situation. I don't see how removing those words would improve the article. As this language has stood for some time, please allow it to stand until/unless other opinions on the matter come forth. Clearly there is no consensus here.Njsustain (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you to comment on the content and not the contributor. I have made no personal comments about you and I expect to be treated with the same respect. Further, you can read WP:SILENCE in regards to your "this language has stood for some time" response. Any content can be challenged at any time and just because it has "stood for some" doesn't make it right. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how removing those two appropriate words is going to improve the article. Remember the "ignore all rules" rule. What is best for this article? And regardless of the littany of rules, there is still no consensus. And, yes, I know the rule about changing text on the talk page. Njsustain (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Starring John Williams"?

Though John Williams' replacement of the original Mr. French ended up being temporary, he was indeed given full unqualified opening credit billing for several episodes. I think this qualifies him to be listed in the "starring" section in the infobox. Any other opinions? Njsustain (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like additional opinions regarding the wording in the "Post-Family Affair" section of the article. The article currently reads:

As discussed by Kathy Garver on the final season’s DVD features, the show’s cast overall suffered several untimely or unfortunate deaths. Anissa Jones died of a drug overdose in 1976 at age 18. Sebastian Cabot died of a stroke in 1977 at age 59. In 1997, two months after the suicide of his daughter, and having lived with cancer for some time, Brian Keith committed suicide by gunshot.[2] In 2002, Gregg Fedderson died of cancer at age 53.

I removed the "untimely or unfortunate" bit because I feel that wording is POV in nature. Njsustain reverted stating that "All casts will eventually suffer deaths" (whatever that means) and maintains that the wording is not POV and, as far as I understand, also maintains that this is what Garver stated on the DVD featurette thus it is sourced and should remain. If this is in fact Garver's opinion on the deaths of her fellow co-stars, I believe the wording should be changed to reflect that Garver used that particular wording. The way it reads to me now is that the writer thinks these deaths are untimely or unfortunate which is subjective at best. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"All casts will eventually suffer deaths" (whatever that means)..." I hardly think you are showing the respect you demanded by ridiculing my text. I believe that this line of reasoning seems to be bringing up the rules for the sake of the rules rather than to look at the text in a reasonable manner and do what is best for the article. I don't think you are exercising the POV rule for the reason it was created. You are quoting rules left and right but have not said anything to indicate why it is not reasonable to state that these deaths were unfortunate and untimely, as the primary source indicates. The question remains, what is best for the article, not what a court case on contract law would uphold in this matter.

But hey, if one wants to make this one's hill to die on, fine, say that "It is Kathy Garver's opinion, and not the opinion of Wikipedia or its editors, that it was unfortunate that an 18 year old died from a drug overdose. Have fun. Njsustain (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying "whatever that means" is not disrespectful or ridiculing. I have no idea what that edit summary means because it is vague and doesn't explain why you restored the content. If you think that comment is on the same plane as commenting that I'm "obsessed" because I disagree with you, you're very, very mistaken. You commented on me as a person, not my words. You can try to turn it around but it's not going to work. As for you claiming that I have not stated why is not reasonable to state why the deaths are unfortunate and untimely, um, yeah I did. The wording is subjective. It is an opinion that cannot be proven. It is not a fact. I said that above and in the discussion before this RfC. The point can still be conveyed without those words and yes, I feel that is what's best for the article. Pinkadelica^♣ 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating "It's subjective" five different ways doesn't address the issue. It's simply repeating an unjustified conclusion without actually discussing the topic. What the "whatever" meant was that there is no point in simply saying that "there were deaths after the show ended." Of course there will eventually be deaths after the show ends. Eventually every cast member of every show will be dead. By eliminating the "unfortunate and untimely," the sentence became nothing but a pointless foregone conclusion. Incidentally, your statement was indeed an obtuse ridiculing of my text, even if it was not ridiculing of me personally, which, IMO, is splitting hairs. I find it hard to accept that the use of the word "you" as many times as was done in in your most recent post is part of an objective and impersonal discussion of the article. Njsustain (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't have to give you seventy-five different reasons why the wording shouldn't be in the article. Subjective wording has no place in an encyclopedia. End of. I'm not going to rehash this with you ad naseum because I already know why you reverted the content and why you think it's important to the article. To be blunt, I don't care what you find hard to accept or what your personal feelings are about me or whatever else. You appear to be making this personal once again and I'm not going to play a tit for tat game with you. If you can't refrain from making this a personal matter or making personal remarks, step back and let others work out a consensus. This will be the end of my communication with you on this matter until others weigh in. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone else who is interested in commenting, I would like to know what the point would be of including the deaths at all if they were not "unfortunate and untimely," and why space on the DVD was devoted to these incidents. If those apropos adjectives are not retained (and, IMO, it is hardly "subjective" to call these deaths unfortunate and untimely [end of]), then that whole section may as well be deleted, as removing them would be a de facto conclusion that the deaths were not notable and they would in essence be a collection of random trivia. I'm not advocating that at all, but that would be the outcome of that conclusion. Originally someone had wanted to say that the series was "cursed" which is of course non-encyclopedic and totally subjective, but we are human beings writing this encyclopedia, not automatons, and I really, really, really (repeat 75 times) don't see that it is the slightest bit subjective or simply arbitrary opinion to describe these post-Family Affair cast member deaths as "unfortunate and untimely."Njsustain (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, please do not tell me what I should address in my comments here. If one wants to add POV descriptive adverbial qualifiers, it should be in terms of what co-stars like Garver had to say about it and not add words that reflect a personal opinion. It's POV that begs the weasel word question of "to whom?" There is no good reason that I've seen for retaining this wording. It falls upon the person who adds it to defend the wording, not those who oppose to do so. Wording should be non-biased: "Kathy Garver discussed deaths of cast members in the years following the conclusion of the show. Anissa Jones died of a drug overdose in 1976 at age 18. Sebastian Cabot died of a stroke in 1977 at age 59. In 1997, two months after the suicide of his daughter, and having lived with cancer for some time, Brian Keith committed suicide by gunshot. Gregg Fedderson died of cancer at age 53 in 2002."

I can't reliably say that someone who was overweight and possessed high risk factors suffering a fatal stroke at age 59 is untimely, nor can I reliably say that someone who was suffering from cancer at the age of 75 is an untimely or sudden illness and a suicide following the suicide of his daughter with concomitant financial problems and suffering from depression could be termed unpredictable. It may seem sudden but how that qualifies as "untimely", I don't know. Gregg Fedderson died of cancer at age 53 - how does that fit in with sudden or untimely? These things happen. People suffer from cancer and die at much younger ages, people die from strokes at much younger ages. The qualifying descriptors just aren't entirely accurate, unless it is in a sourced opinion, nor are they unbiased. This isn't a memorial page, we don't do those. The article must be written in a neutral manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The words "unfortunately" and "untimely" are covered in words to avoid and I don't think it needs further discussion. Can anyone give an example of a death that is either "fortunate", "timely" or both? Some may say, given the circumstances, that Brian Keith's death was both fortunate and timely. He seemed to think so. We just don't use words like this. Why was it discussed on the DVD? Maybe so that viewers would understand that these cast members are gone, and as for Kathy Garver... the situation required that she express something emotional. The alternative would have been for her to breezily explain that she was the only one being interviewed because everyone else was dead. We do not have to mimic her. We need only the facts. Rossrs (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless this is used as a quote from someone on the DVD than these words aren't needed per words to avoid like Rossrs says. I think just removing the words the paragraph is fine. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems no one else wants to weigh in on this matter, it appears that the consensus is to remove the "unfortunate" and "untimely" wording. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.