Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Paul Newman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
VanishedUser sdu9asdsopas (talk | contribs)
113 edits
Line 192: Line 192:
::I certainly agree that a picture of Paul alone would be preferable but I find it difficult to look at the publicity shot. [[:File:Paul Newman Cannes 1987.jpg|This image]] would have been good if it didn't have other peoples' heads in the way. Maybe [[:File:Paul Newman 1954.JPG|this one from 1954]] would be better? -- [[User:Mrmatiko|Mrmatiko]] ([[User talk:Mrmatiko|talk]]) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
::I certainly agree that a picture of Paul alone would be preferable but I find it difficult to look at the publicity shot. [[:File:Paul Newman Cannes 1987.jpg|This image]] would have been good if it didn't have other peoples' heads in the way. Maybe [[:File:Paul Newman 1954.JPG|this one from 1954]] would be better? -- [[User:Mrmatiko|Mrmatiko]] ([[User talk:Mrmatiko|talk]]) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:I vote for "Paul Newman - publicity". It's a nice clear head shot and comes from the era when he was at his peak. --'''[[User:Loeba|<font color="#CC0O66">Loeba</font>]] [[User talk:Loeba|(talk)]]''' 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:I vote for "Paul Newman - publicity". It's a nice clear head shot and comes from the era when he was at his peak. --'''[[User:Loeba|<font color="#CC0O66">Loeba</font>]] [[User talk:Loeba|(talk)]]''' 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
*My position is fairly obvious; the publicity shot is awful. The lighting is utter garbage, and it makes him look very unpleasant. I cannot understand why people think that is an acceptable picture to use, given how poor the colours are. I'd be perfectly happy with the 1954 picture; the lighting is reasonable, he doesn't look like he's badly ill, and there's nothing wrong with black-and-white. The 1987 one isn't really that good, and he's quite a lot older in that one. [[User:Lukeno52|<font color="FireBrick">Luke</font><font color="Green">no</font><font color="Navy">52</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno52#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] (legitimate alternate account of [[User:Lukeno94|Lukeno94]]) 13:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:22, 30 December 2013

Template:Vital article

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newman article under attack from HarveyCarter IPs SP

Revert all sock puppet additions in this 92.8 to 92.12 IP range.

~ WikiDon (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewishness

He is in the categories Americans of Jewish descent and Jewish actors. Was he Jewish or merely of Jewish descent? He self-identified as Jewish. His father was Jewish, but his mother was not. Was he a religiously observant Jew and/or a convert? What religion was he raised in? If he is categorised as Jewish, he should be in the American Jews category, not Americans of Jewish descent. If he is not regarded as actually Jewish, but merely of part Jewish ancestry, he should not be in the Jewish actors category. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jewish law, Newman was not Jewish. To be Jewish, you have to have a Jewish mother. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people who self-identify as Jewish, yet were not born of a Jewish mother. These include people with a Jewish father and people who convert to Judaism. Whilst many matrilineal Jews do not consider such people to be real Jews, there are many people not born of a Jewish mother who are currently in Jewish (not merely Jewish descent) categories on Wikipedia. His father was a lifelong Jew and Paul self-identifed as Jewish. Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you convert, then it is not "self identifying", it's being Jewish - Jewish law is the first to say this. No "matrilineal Jew" considers a convert as anything other than another Jew. Now I've heard that Newman considered himself Jewish, but I can't seem to find anything concrete to put in the article - or even a good spot to throw it in. However, he shouldn't be put in any list that is specifically for categorical Jews.FlaviaR (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some fully-Jewish/matrilineal Jews do not accept converts that were not born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish. Jews in general do not seek out converts, and many discourage it. Many Jews view converts and prospective converts to Judaism with suspicion. Some people, who were not born Jewish, claim to have become Jewish, yet have never practised Judaism. Can such people really be regarded as Jews? Newman self-identified as Jewish because "it's more of a challenge". If that, along with the fact his father was Jewish, is all there is to his Jewishness, then he was of partial Jewish descent, but not a Jew himself. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Paul Newman hardly seems like the place to settle the age-old question of "what is a Jew?" If we have reliable sources where he considers himself to be Jewish, that should be enough for Wikipedia, especially if it's worded correctly. We don't need to try to settle the question...it may never be settled and that has nothing to do with Newman.  Frank  |  talk  00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Frank, above, and I made those points on Gilabrand's talk page. Epson291 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone really have a problem with saying "Paul Newman considered himself Jewish" & leaving it at that?FlaviaR (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a reliable source, no problem. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is already sourced by Time, which is as reliable as sources come. Second, I do have a problem with removing the categories which identify him as Jewish, I'm not sure if that's what you're proposing or not, as I said before, he identified as a Jew, had a Jewish father, and the largest Jewish denomination in the United States would regard him as a Jew, it is not right to remove the category. The definitions on defining Jewishness is not clear cut, and doing it only as Orthodox Judaism would see it would be NPOV (see Who_is_a_Jew#The_controversy). Other than that, unless there is anything more concrete on his Jewishness I would just leave what is already in the article, no need to make a big deal about it. Epson291 (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newman=Not Polish I think he should reconsider his ancestral roots, because that is either English or German.Davido488 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sentences in Jewish articles

What is the point of having the sentence:

Newman had described himself as Jewish, stating that "it's more of a challenge"?

This only seem to be added to make someone "more Jewish" (if by law, their mother isn't) as you never see it used with other ancestries. "Newman had described himself as Hungarian" or "Newman had described himself as Christian" Nobody ever bothers to search for and add that. There's a similar sentence in the Neve Campbell article:

Campbell is Roman Catholic, but also identifies as Jewish because of her mother's Sephardic Jewish ancestry, about which she has said: "I am a practicing Catholic, but my lineage is Jewish, so if someone asks me if I'm Jewish, I say yes".

Again, why was this dug up? It doesn't seem to be done with other ancestries, and it feels weird. We report their background, why not leave it at that? What significance do these sentences have other than to tickle the fancy of Jewish grandmas wondering if they're favorite celebrities identify with their religion? Bulldog123 00:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New image

New image on commons

Your image has been deleted. :( We really need to get a good picture of this important person. --Tocino 06:02, 08 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the picture of him is from 2007. Is it preferable to use recent pictures, or to use a picture of the person when they were in their prime? Is there a guideline or policy on that? I would certainly prefer the former approach. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's recommended to use a more recent image. And a free use one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't make sense to me - all public figures (alive or dead) need to look as old as possible? I mean, it doesn't seem to apply to people who died before Wikipedia started. The picture that they use for Jimmy Stewart, for example, is from the 1950s, not from the 1990s. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it's recommended to use the most current and valid image as possible. Newman was still making films in 2005 and doing voice work in 2007, the date of the image used in the infobox. It's as valid as any other image of him. I'm not sure that Newman would have considered his prime, at least work-wise, 40 years earlier. It's not a matter of "looking as old as possible", it's a matter of available free-use images, the length of the body of work and what editors agree upon. We can't replace a current free image with one that is non-free from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing your claim, but you have used the phrase "it's recommended to use the most recent image" several times in variation. Could you provide a cite where this recommendation occurs in WP guidelines? I haven't found one. My opinion, BTW, is that the image should be one in which the subject is most recognizable for the period in which he or she is best known. For example, film star Anita Page was huge in silent pictures, then practically disappeared from public view until she did a few TV interviews in her 90s. It seems strange (and, to me, silly) to insist on some image of her when she was a shrunken and unrecognizable little old lady instead of one from her prime. My opinion. I would appreciate that cite, though. Thank you.Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College

Paul went to Kenyon College (my grandparents were in his graduating class), not Ohio State. I'm not good at edits, so can someone add this? The source would be Kenyon's website - www.kenyon.edu. Thanks. 12.152.207.5 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't claim that he went to OSU. Nothing needs fixed. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalism

Newman was apparently a Unitarian Universalist. See [1]. I'm not sure where this should go into the article. Aleta Sing 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find examples of how he was involved in the church, you might be able to put it under Political activism, as the UU church is often fairly politically active. Or, if you can find proof that he was raised UU (as opposed to joining later in his life), you could put it under Early life. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, Politizer. I think he probably did become UU later in life; I read somewhere that he was introduced to it by Woodward. That was not a citeable source, however. So far I have not been able to find really anything beyond what I've already posted. I'm hoping some more about his UUism will appear in reliable sources so we can flesh it out a bit. Aleta Sing 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable source

I've deleted references to Paul Newman: The Dream Has Ended!: Part One by Jenifer Demers as a non-notable reference in the bibliography. The "book" is a 32-page pamphlet, apparently self-published, written in a manner more reminiscent of something from a not-very-literate fan than of a reliable source. For further information, see http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Newman-Dream-Ended-Part/dp/1440433232/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228018882&sr=1-9. I appreciate the writer's devotion to Newman, but this work has no place in an encyclopedic bibliography. Comment invited. Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning

In what movie did Paul Newman's character's brother drown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.208.204 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a Great Notion Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer

Does anyone know when he was actually diagnosed? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons dedication

The Simpsons episode Lost Verizon has a (seemingly sarcastic) dedication to the memory of Paul Newman at the end. It depicts a bottle of his salad dressing. 86.131.89.40 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or later, every celebrity/actor gets mentioned on The Simpsons and/or South Park. It's not unusual. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelity claims

An open secret has recently emerged casting doubt on his claims of fidelity. See the following link. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1176388/Dark-heart-Mr-Sundance-A-new-book-claims-Hollywoods-golden-boy-Paul-Newman-drunken-philanderer.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.207.43 (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing

Does this, "and auto racing enthusiast.", merit inclusion alongside his other occupations in the intro sentence? I've never seen someone's recreational hobbies included like this in a WP article. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit more that a recreational hobby. See the other sentence "He also won several national championships as a driver in Sports Car Club of America road racing, and his race teams won several championships in open wheel IndyCar racing" and the entire section Auto racing. He placed second in the 1979 24 Hours of Le Mans, was the oldest driver to be part of a winning team in a major sanctioned race in his class at the 1995 24 Hours of Daytona, co-founded Newman/Haas Racing, was a partner in Newman Wachs Racing and owned a NASCAR Winston Cup car. It was a business venture that was notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Newman finish his Yale drama studies?

I read recently bits of a chatty bio of Newman. The author states that Newman did not complete his course of study at Yale Drama School; rather, he resettled in New York City for paying work after spending some time at the Drama School. I'll research this point, and edit accordingly this and the Yale Alumni entries. Anyone know more than I do now on this point?SLY111 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)SLY111[reply]

What bio is that? There have been a couple released that are less than accurate and reliable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newman, artist

I have come across a pen and ink pix of a young robert redford. It is signed Newman. I am curious because he was a multi tallented man and one of my favorite actors. Personally, I don't think he did any artwork, but I would kike to know for sure. My curiosity is peaked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.83.241 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. You'd be better asking an autograph dealer about the signature, but you won't find that here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a pen and ink portrait of robert redford in his 30's. Is it possible paul newman did this. It is signed Newman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.83.241 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. You'd be better asking an autograph dealer about the signature, but you won't find that here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage date(s)?

Comparing Paul's and Joanne's articles:

"Newman married actress Joanne Woodward on February 2, 1958."
"Woodward married Paul Newman on January 29, 1958."

Why did they marry each other on two different dates? Maybe there is a missing fact which should be mentioned?

PRR

Actually, you go with the date that has a sold reference with it, which was on February 2, 1958. ("Remembering Paul Newman." People. September 27, 2008.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early works

Perhaps more detailed research should be done to include a more complete history of Paul Newman's acting career. I have recently viewed an episode of Suspense (TV series) in which he appeared briefly (as Captain Radetski) in the second act, and more prominently in the third act. The episode: "Woman in Love" (episode #160) aired August 26, 1952; [ref: http://www.suspensetelevision.com/episodes_1952/ ]. 75.94.142.89 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last work

Was in 2005 in "Empire Falls" mini-series. A real appearance in most episodes, not just a voice. Macaldo (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul-Newman-portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paul-Newman-portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Newman meeting Woodward

The article states that Newman met Woodward on the set of The Long Hot Summer. Newman met Woodward while working as understudies in New York on the play "Picnic". By 1958, Newman was already separated from his wife, he and Woodward were living together in California, and married this same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.27.48 (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

confusion about children

The children in the article and the children listed on the side bar are not the same. Who is Jack Newman and where is the second daughter from the first marriage?66.19.144.8 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political Activism and Gay Rights not verifiable under citation quoted

The link to the "Actively supported gay rights" contains absolutely no reference to being a supporter let alone an open supporter. Further, there is no mention of "gay" anywhere IN the article. I believe this allegation should be challenged and opted to voice concern here first in case I have missed something?NunyaBitnes (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)NunyaBitnes[reply]

Second paragraph of Military Service

This is a confusing paragraph. Looking at reference 13, I can understand some of what happened, but our paragraph is badly phrased, at best. The squadron he was assigned to was sent to an unknown carrier, but his aircraft was grounded from that assignment because of the pilot's ear infection. The others (all?) in the squadron were killed on that carrier. He then performed further service. If I knew more about it I'd try to fix it, but someone should. htom (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

There seems to be conflicting info about his birthplace. I see Shaker Heights (1, 2, 3), Cleveland Heights (1, 2, 3), and Cleveland ( 1). Does anyone have sources of official records or cities claiming him? Given the sources, I'm most inclined to believe it's Cleveland Heights (as noted by local newspapers and historians), but felt it was worth discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

There seems to be a dispute about the infobox image and I think it might be a good idea to discuss this rather than continue to revert each other. My personal view is that the image of Newman and Woodward is a better image because the alternative image proposed looks like it was taken while Newman was on the toilet and the lighting makes it harder to look at.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're both good, but I'd go for the john shot. His eyes and face are lit better, with more color and depth, where the other one is in shadow. It's also a bit distracting to have two people instead of one. --Light show (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that a picture of Paul alone would be preferable but I find it difficult to look at the publicity shot. This image would have been good if it didn't have other peoples' heads in the way. Maybe this one from 1954 would be better? -- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for "Paul Newman - publicity". It's a nice clear head shot and comes from the era when he was at his peak. --Loeba (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position is fairly obvious; the publicity shot is awful. The lighting is utter garbage, and it makes him look very unpleasant. I cannot understand why people think that is an acceptable picture to use, given how poor the colours are. I'd be perfectly happy with the 1954 picture; the lighting is reasonable, he doesn't look like he's badly ill, and there's nothing wrong with black-and-white. The 1987 one isn't really that good, and he's quite a lot older in that one. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 13:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F588366134