Talk:Zero Mostel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Musical Theatre Portal Zero Mostel is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks: Help out with one of the WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks below. You may add your name to the Participants list to the right. edit this Open Tasks template Collaborate and work on the Collaboration of the Month Articles needing a content fork Mainly, these are articles on films and either their source or subsequent musicals. There are a couple where the musical needs to be "forked" from the source material. Feel free to add or remove as necessary. Important: If you split an article, please make sure that you move all the relevant links from the first article to the new one. To find which links to move, click on "What links here" at the old article and look through the list to see which links should be pointed to the film related link (for example, articles on actors in the film). Then, click on those links and update them to point to the film article. Thanks! Don't Play Us Cheap Roberta How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I Married an Angel Lady in the Dark The Band Wagon - musical adaptation will to be forked after it opens in April.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 WPA or CCC? 2 A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to The Forum 3 Eighteenth Century Fox? 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Mostel producers.jpg 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Mostel producers.jpg 6 Beggar's Opera 7 PBS in 1959? 8 Emerson7 changes 9 Inconsistency in dates of marriages and divorce

[edit] WPA or CCC?

The IMDb article for Zero Mostel lists that he taught for the WPA's Federal Arts Project, not the Civilian Conservation Corps, which I'm inclined to believe. Do we have a source for the CCC "fact" noted in this article?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0609216/bio

[edit] A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to The Forum

The claim Mostel did not want to do the part of Pseudolus at first is questionable. It is a story his wife told, and may be self-serving. According to those who wrote the show, he was thrilled when he got the part, a grabbed it when it was offered. This makes sense, since it was a chance to make big money for the first time in years. He was not regularly offered major roles with large salaries until after he played this part.

Of course he was thrilled about the money, especially coming out of his blacklist years, but his wife’s account is consistent with Mostel’s behavior during that time – having done plays like Ulysses In Nighttown and being compared to Olivier, and having been offered roles in classic theatrical productions, he felt that light comedy was beneath him and ranted about it to his friends and family. The same happened with The Produces. Of course, it is possible that his protestation was no more than lip-tax to ease his conscience and appease his friends, who saw him as a wasted talent; it’s hard to say. During the 70’s things have changed, and he did begin to take any role that carried with it a good pay. This almost ruined his career.

Ron g 16:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eighteenth Century Fox?

his biography at IMDB says Mostel referred to fox as 19th century fox. But this article says 18th. Which one is correct?~ Feureau E.S.P. 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He said 18th. The committee objected to his "mocking a great American institution", at which point Mostel (probably anticipating this) said they should compromise on 19th. Ron g 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mostel producers.jpg

Image:Mostel producers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mostel producers.jpg

Image:Mostel producers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beggar's Opera

What is the source of the statement that Mostel attempted "serious operatic acting" when he appeared in The Beggar's Opera? The article on The Beggar's Opera characterizes it as "a satiric play using some of the conventions of opera, but without the recitative." My understanding is that contemporary productions are presented more in the style of a musical theatre, requiring neither an operatic singing style nor the rather formalized acting style usually seen in opera. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PBS in 1959?

The article says that Mostel appeared in a "series" called The World of Sholem Aleichem on PBS in 1959. The PBS article says that it's operations began in 1969. IMDB.com says that The World of Sholem Aleichem was a single episode of The Play of the Week that ran in 1959 and doesn't mention the network it appeared on. I changed the sentence. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerson7 changes

I understand that you like to help clean up biographies and appreciate your dedication. I’m sure that you’ve helped improve many pages. Some of the changes you’ve made To Mostel’s page do not seem to be helping this particular article, though:

1. “The Producers” is one of the movies Mostel is best known for. Not so “Ulysses” – that photograph belongs in the article, but not at the top of the page.
2. The titles “Biography” and “Career” are redundant.
3. Adding US before the dollar sign is redundant – we are talking about an American personality .
4. HUAC Testimony is an important part of the a subtitle as Mostel was well known for this particular part of his life.
5. The testimony needs to be read – the size of the image cannot be reduced in this case. The only reason we entered this as an image is to make sure no one tries to edit Mostel’s testimony.
6. “Personal Relationships” does not fit in the flow of the biography – this is why it is listed separately.
7. You have also removed information, such as the children.

This article has been painstakingly built over the years by a community who cares about Zero Mostel and his life. Contributions are welcome, but please respect us “regulars” and discuss such significant format changes before putting them in place.

To be fair, I’ve kept some of the changes you’ve made such as the first paragraph and the award, as these contributed to the article.

Ron g (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

i appreciate dedication and efforts you've put forth in this article, however, it is important that you understand that even in wikipaedia, there are pro-forma and defacto standards, formats and guidelines to be followed. i'm happy to address each of your concerns listed above:

1. The current publicity shot Image:Mostel60.jpg, as well as the previous image previously used are non-free/fair use images, and are not permitted for use in infoboxes. the van vechten image is free, and has no such restrictions. WP:NONFREE
2. The terms biography and career are not the same and are not redundant. per WP:BETTER and WP:Layout, well thought out sections and subject should be used and are particularly useful as articles grow and develop.
3. Per WP:NUM#Currencies the proper formatting for currency notation is US$.
4. There's no need to quibble over editor prerogative or creative license in what to name a sections...so i won't.
5. per WP:MOS and WP:IUP thumbnail image sizes should not overtake the page. should readers wish to read the document, all one need do is click on it. there have been several long drawn-out discussions regarding this point that you check out here.
6. The "Professional Relationships" section (i think that's what you mean) is absolutely part of his career. i'm not sure how you can separate the two, and it segues just fine.
7. The children were removed from the infobox, because the field has been deprecated and removed from the template two months ago.

there are also a few other items i'd like to bring to your attention. it is unnecessary and non-standard to use the "<br>" html elements within the text article when a simple carriage return will suffice. it and can be confusing and can cause problems. also, I noticed that you removed the {{trivia}} tag even though the mos is clear on the subject stating that the section should be integrated into the article and removed.

i'm not quite sure what you meant by “us regulars”, but it's clear that the intent of each of us is to make a good article, and i'm sure there will be no problem working it out as long we stick to guidelines and steer clear of wp:own issues. --emerson7

22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Response:

1. The van vechten image still has an unclear copyright status, but this is besides the point: that image is not typical of Mostel. The image you have removed has a valid rationale and may be used. I'd imagine that removing a good representation of the subject is not in line with improving the article.

2. I’m not going to waste time on trivialities so, fine.

3. I’m not sure this applies to an article about an American who is clearly paid in US currency but, again, fine.

5. This is not meant as an image. It is meant as text to be integrated in the body of the article, and the only reason it is formatted as an image is that it cannot be edited this way.

6. The "Professional Relationships" section has the format of a list, or line items. It doesn’t work with the body of the article, which is prose in nature. So that it doesn’t interfere with the flow of the article, it is added below.

7. I didn’t understand why the children have been removed. The items under “trivia” cannot be effectively integrated into the article without interfering with its smooth flow and greatly diluting it. This is why they are separated.

Thanks for pointing out wp:own. Please note the following paragraph from there: “When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article.”

Thanks

Ron g (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

although your opinions are indeed valued, your argument is trumped by stated policy.

Your interpretation of the policy is loose and these changes harm the article. Ron g (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My quick take:

1> I don't think you can use the fair use image Image:Mostel60.jpg in an infobox. You can use it in the article itself. Suggest you stick it somewhere else.

2> Biography should include his early years 'plus his career. His career is a subsection of his biography. Anything else personal, like his family life, can be another subsection of biography.

3> Agree it's over the top since the denomination is obvious. We don't use US$ in place of $ in every article. It's a bit pendantic.

5> Then put it in as text, delete the image, and put the article on your watch list. The use of an image for this purpose is a bit annoying.

6> I don't think I understand Ron g's point. His section on Professional relationships is prose, not a bulleted list.

7> You absolutely can weave the trivia into the main article. To do so, you usually need to do additional research and expand on the trivia points.

--Work permit (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to currency, how about you just remove that section completely? Is the trivia really necessary? Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in dates of marriages and divorce

Under College and early comic routines is says that he and his first wife, Clara Sverd "separated in 1941 and divorced in 1945." However, under Rise it states that he married Kate Harkin on July 2, 1944, the year before it says he was divorced. -- Kokopelli Jones

Good catch! They divorced in 1944 so that Mostel could marry Kate. Clara was reluctant and only agreed to the divorce in return to a percentage of Mostel's earnings for the rest of his life. Ron g (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)