This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
I hate to be a grump, but there is an anonymous IP who keeps expanding this article to make it sound like a biography written by a fan, with loads of stuff like this:
Fred Allen was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1988, but his truest epitaph may have come in the final entry in Fred Allen's Letters---by a one-time member of his radio writing staff. "He was without peer and without a successful imitator," wrote novelist Herman Wouk (The Caine Mutiny), in a letter to The New York Times the day after Allen died. " . . . In Fred Allen, the voice of sanity spoke out for all Americans to hear, during a trying period of our history, in the classic and penetrating tones of comic satire. Because he lived and wrote and acted here, this land will always be a saner place to live in. That fact is his true monument."
That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. A tribute Web site, yes; a magazine article, probably; a biography, perhaps. But not an encyclopedia article. Please keep out the hyperbole, the excess laudatory adjective, the casual chat. - DavidWBrooks21:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the opening sentence that proposes a "truest epitaph" in editorial/essayical style (and perhaps a touch of conversational voice), I don't see the problem. Hall of Fame, and a letter to NYT from a Pulitzer novelist (and early collaborator) about Allen's contribution to culture and satire. One or two sentences could be removed, and it would be perfectly at place. This could have been moved to either the death section or a welcomed "critical reception" section, for someone who was one of the biggest entertainers of the day. For my part, I thought the observation about the dearth and importance of satire was very interesting, and is missed.
But it's beside the point, as this was 18 years ago, and the quoted section was (probably?) thrown out along with 5000 other characters David excised from an anon contributor. But it's certainly a bad example, because most of the cited paragraph was a direct quote from a NYT letter, with was blamed on the user who quoted it. And was much more in line with proper content guidelines than most what exists 18 years later.
And there were indeed "loads" of better examples available, as David seemed to be contending (for years?) with an anonymous user (or several?) who was convinced that Wikipedia is a forum for personal opinion...often deleting David's factual conciseness in favor of rambling essays replete with I-statements, personal evaluations, and rants about what's wrong with society today (c.2003). For example:
Another problem is political correctness. Naturally, old-time radio and early TV are filled with political incorrectness. The stereotypes make 90% of the American public today cringe and this has unfairly given Fred a bad wrap...In an era where ethnic and racial humor was tolerated and accepted as "just a joke, no offense meant", has unfortunately grown into this national disease called political correctness where nobody's feelings are to be hurt and the slightest stereotype is lashed out at by the public. I can just imagine Fred Allen coming into contact with political correctness and he shrugging his shoulders and simply saying: "oh well, i guess some people will be offended but that's life.'
I bring this up not to be petty, but because it probably explains much of what is still wrong with the article 20 years later. See my new comment below. Chronometric (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
