Talk:Eddie Albert/Archive 1

Eddie's birthdate

The news stories say he was born in 1906 but his mother moved the date to 1908 because she wasn't married. So rather than start an edit flip-flop, can we just discuss the issue here and then do it? Does anyone have any better information? Thanks. Spalding 11:35, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I put the date and age to 1906 and 99 as per the second external link on the article page as well as every other media article I have read. Spalding 21:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Promoter of natural gardening, vegetarianism, organic food?

The article should include information on Eddie Albert's work as a natural gardner, and a promoter of vegetarianism and organic food. I'll try to find some references. JesseW 20:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Note on categorization

I came to this article, in the process of checking articles categorized as American male singers, to see that individual articles were also categorized with a style per American singers by style. In reading the text of the Eddie Albert article, from checking his bio on IMDB, and from my own memories of his career during the 1960s and 1970s, although the article states that he was a nightclub singer during his early career, I don't believe he is widely known, professionally, as a singer. Some questions to ask - did he ever make any recordings as a singer? did his film and television career involve singing? (not counting the Green Acres theme song? :) So, for now, understanding him to be someone who earned his living as a singer at some point early in his career, before he was widely known, but not noted for contributions to vocal music, I have removed the singer categorization from the article. If I am mistaken, please feel free to add it back in, with, also, the appropriate American singer by style categorization. Respectfully, LiniShu 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I discovered myself that I was mistaken. When I looked at this earlier, I was focused on "nightclub singer", and I completely skimmed over the mention on IMDB of his role in Broadway musicals, such as The Boys from Syracuse, and The Music Man. The mention of Music Man, however, did register somewhere in my subconscious, so to speak, and some time later, it occurred to me, wait a minute, didn't it say that he was in musicals? So, I checked again, and he was indeed. So I am correcting my earlier edit, adding Category:American musical theatre actors to the article, and adding mention of his Broadway role to the article. I am sorry and embarrassed about my earlier mistake; usually I try to be more careful than that. LiniShu 04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing needed

I don't want to point fingers but some people seem to feel that the quality of an article is improved by adding to its quantity. I believe the consensus is otherwise. This article needs some heavy editing to eliminate the bad writing, remove the redundancies, clear out the NPOV, and generally tighten up the whole article. MK2 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The last few sentences of the last paragraph of the section on "Green Acres" is really in need of some tidying up. It doesn't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.13.53 (talk • contribs) (22:44, 2 February 2007

Most of the nonsense in the Green Acres section was put in there by Gcollinsii on 21 January 2007. This contributor evidently has a track record of bad edits and adding superfluous information to articles. I reverted the entire section to the last edit by Susanlesch on 19 January 2007. —Quicksilver^{T @} 09:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Only one marriage

The article erroneously states that "Albert was married twice: first to Mexican actress María Marguerita Guadalupe Bolado, and later to Castilla O'Donnell (better known by her stage name Margo)." In fact, his only wife was the actress Margo, born María Marguerita Guadalupe Teresa Estela Bolado Castilla y O'Donnell. I'll fix it. Camillofan (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Emmy nominated?

The article describes Albert as "Emmy-nominated," but I'm unable to find evidence of this. The Internet Movie Database, which generally lists actors' Emmy noms, gives none for Eddie Albert. I searched at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences website (here- http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/awardsearch.php) and also came up dry. Shall I remove the phrase? Camillofan (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it if it hasn't already been. You're right. The ATAS database is quite complete and has no mention of a nomination for Eddie Albert in any category. Monkeyzpop (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Albert as "Environmentalist

Albert's record of activism and advocacy for the destruction of forests is very clear.

I am re-naming this section and highlighting his anti-environmental work.

I'd encourage further editing that might be based on any citable sources.

Would discourage, of course, the removal of cited material regarding his anti-environment record.

Calamitybrook|Calamitybrook]] (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts are great. Editorial contextualizing is POV. DavidOaks (talk)

Despite the fact that there has been editorial disagreement over the content of this article involving User:Calamitybrook, I have rolled back all of his edits today for flagrant abuse of WP's policies on POV. It is clear from today's edits that objective reporting is not this editor's goal. Inappropriate cite calls, rampantly POV edits, uncited OR additions, and sarcastic remarks within the edits verge, in my opinion, on vandalism, and perhaps qualify as such under WP guidelines. I invite the opinions of other editors, but for now I'm reverting all such material. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Weyerhaeuser Film

I'm okay with DavidOaks edits, but I don't favor completely removing references and sourcing for the Weyerhaeuser film "Touch the Sky."

Environmental groups in Washington State would often screen it in 1970s purely for its humor.

Albert's making of "Touch the Sky" may or may not contradict the notion that he was great humanitarian, but it may remain his most widely-known work as an "activist."

Interestingly, the NYT obituary carried not a word about his accomplishments on behalf of the environment and social causes.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The references and sourcing for the Weyerhaeuser film were not removed. They are 50% of the citation for the statement that some environmentalists disagreed with Albert's position on forestry and DDT. Your edits, if you'll forgive my presumption, appear to be more agenda-driven than fact-driven, however true your points may be. WP calls for due weight to be given to various aspects of a: biographee's article, and you are, in my view, overemphasizing the one point, about Weyerhaeuser, by an effort to reduce as much as possible (and to ridicule by faint praise) Albert's extremely well-known reputation as an environmentalist (even if one you disagree with). Albert's obituaries were jammed with references to his (cited) activism, and to pretend otherwise (even if the NY Times omitted it--which I don't concede, having not yet seen the article) is disingenuous. I am calling for a consensus on this article as soon as my time permits. I don't doubt the truth or the good faith of your edits, but I feel them to be heavy-handedly biased and seem to suggest that your point is more important than WP's Due Weight guidelines. This is my opinion and is not offered antagonistically. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed Driscoll isn't 'Environmentalist'

Ed Driscoll is a highly obscure blogger, apparently with right-of-center views, who almost never writes on the environment. He is not an "environmentalist" per se, and his personal opinions/views probably aren't at all "notable."

To cite him as source for statement that "some environmentalists disagree with Albert's" unremarkable view that DDT harmed bird life, is incorrect. The actually notable WSJ opinion writers have been harping on this point for quite a while, and I don't think one would call them "environmentalists" any more than this Driscoll fellow. However, Driscoll does appear to refer to Green Acres star....

The other citation in related to logging portion of statement. But the cited source (am not quite so sure about this) seems to refer primarily to content of film without highly explicit comment. It's also unestablished whether this source is an "environmentalist" or that his/her views on content of film are notable.

More importantly, I think the entire point is a little redundant relative to brief and wholly unadorned fact of Weyerhaeuser film. It creates slight WP:Weight problem, and needs either different sources or perhaps recasting or more simply, permanent deletion.

For the moment, it's gone.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which side of your argument you're taking at the moment. I only inserted the reference from Driscoll because it's the ONLY citation I could find that calls into question Eddie Albert's actions or motives re the Weyerhaueser film.

You seem to want Albert excoriated for participating in the film, yet you want to remove the only evidence of a published citation of anyone feeling that way. So which shall it be? I can't find a WSJ article excoriating Albert for his participation. If that's what you want to achieve, you must provide a citation that does it for you, otherwise it's OR.

And as I stated earlier, Albert is extraordinarily well-known as an environmentalist, whether he was one by your lights or not. To delete or ridicule that reputation (especially when it is cited scores of times, as opposed to the almost total lack of verification for his being anti-environmental) is, as I said, at best disingenuous and counter to WP's best interests.

Can you provide citations that CLEARLY support your opinion that Albert was anti-environmentalist or anti-good forestry? Citing the film does not suffice. For all anyone knows, Albert may have taken that job under misdirection or misleading by Weyerhaueser. His simple participation does not BY ITSELF mark him as an anti-environmentalist. Let's see if we can truly back up your claims. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

---

But the article's two sentences about the Weyerhaueser film are narrowly factual and don't characterize Albert's views.

Driscoll, in the citation we're talking about, wrote (favorably) about use of DDT, not the Weyerhaeuser film as you seem (?) to suggest.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Significance of April 22

I'd suggest removing the assertion that Earth Day was planned for April 22 because it falls on Albert's birthday.

Excerpt From wikipedia Earth Day:

• Senator [Gaylord} Nelson chose the date as the one that could maximize participation on college campuses for what he conceived as an environmental teach-in. He determined that the week of April 19-25 was the best bet. It did not fall during exams or spring breaks, did not conflict with religious holidays such as Easter or Passover, and was late enough in spring to have decent weather. More students were likely to be in class, and there would be less competition with other events mid-week, so he chose Wednesday, April 22. Asked whether he had purposely chosen Lenin's 100th birthday, Nelson explained that with only 365 days a year and 3.7 billion people in the world, every day was the birthday of ten million living people. “On any given day, a lot of both good and bad people were born,” he said. “A person many consider the world’s first environmentalist, Saint Francis of Assisi, was born on April 22. So was Queen Isabella. More importantly, so was my Aunt Tillie. " (ref Christofferson, Bill, "The Man from Clear Lake: Earth Day Founder Gaylord Nelson",University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 2004, p. 310.)

• April 22 is also the birthday of Julius Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day, a national tree-planting holiday started in 1872. Arbor Day became a legal holiday in Nebraska in 1885, to be permanently observed on April 22. (ref web http://www.arborday.org/arborday/history.cfm.)

---

I think Sen. Nelson was in error about the date of St. Francis' birthday. The quote is from this book:[[1]].

The notion that Earth Day has something to do with Eddie Albert's birthday is from two anonymous bloggers. I hear from Talk:Earth Day archive that Eddie Albert's son got the idea started in a bio he wrote about his father.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material can be removed

There's loads of unsourced material about Albert's record as an "environmentalist," which I've had flagged for a fair amount of time. Somebody recently tried to remove this flagging.

Shortly, I expect to remove all of the unsourced stuff, as should be properly expected.

Personally I find it weird that a tiny number of editors want to create some sort of saintly aura around an insignificant and long dead actor who made a truly lousy television show, and a few mostly insignificant films, and who accepted probably a substantial amount of money for a propaganda film from Weyerhaueser about why the last gasp of old-growth logging in the United States was virtuous activity.

I've seen this sort of thing with small-time retailers in little towns. They gave a couple of bucks to like, the boy scouts or whatever, and want to be seen as "community leaders" or philanthropists, or something.

But they spend their lives stealing from their customers. THIS comment is definitely MY POV. But it's not part of the "Albert" article.

Calamitybrook (talk)

The material on Albert's environmental activism is actually quite well sourced. I know, because I provided a great deal of the sourcing as a direct response to your attempts to paint Albert as some kind of rabid anti-environmentalist. Your POV is blindingly obvious, and I will now call for a consensus on this material. Your attempts to subvert known, sourced, and provable material has, I believe, lapped fully into vandalism, and I will revert where I see it. I hereby call for a consensus report, and will ask for one through standard WP channels. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Highly peculiar edits

As I mentioned, one might find it extremely peculiar that a particular editor wishes to include much unsourced material aimed at making an obscure actor into a saintly environmentalist. A "consensus" regarding this actor certainly won't be meaninful as it will probably include a couple of the guy's relatives and somebody whose father was supposedly friends with the guy or who was highly impressed with meeting him once.

Whatever. I'm sticking to policies regarding sourced material.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Then try sticking to policy about sourced material by not changing sourced material to reflect information that is not in the source. I have reverted your deliberately inaccurate change and your POV quotation marks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'm responding to the request for a 3rd opinion. I've reviewed the article changes back to 25 March, as well as this discussion, both of your talk pages, and some of your recent contributions.

Calmitybrook it appears that you feel that Albert's participation in the making of Touch the Sky renders him unworthy of the title "Environmentalist." I don't think that you've provided references that demonstrate that. Albert seems to be regarded by several sources as an environmentalist. I would suggest in terms of the article that his sourceable environmental credentials be presented along with sourceable criticism. The edit war seems to have moved the article in that direction, and to have placed an emphasis on citing sources, which is good. I would remind both that fact tags are more polite than stripping a statement out if one can wp:agf that the statement might be true and just need sourcing. Blatant POV pushing can of course be removed.

It may be that Albert was an environmentalist who thought that tree farming would be good for the environment. It may be that he held some of the environment in high regard but wasn't concerned about cutting down old forests. Calling him an environmentalist does not necessarily mean that his ecological record is spotless - it is appropriate to state whatever criticism and praise can be well sourced, the article does not have to be all or nothing. That said, all you have to go on for the anti side is that he helped make Touch the Sky. We aren't given any context on why, what his intentions were, whether he perceived this to be an anti-environmental action, and so on. It may also be that in 1970 his position was understood differently. I don't really know or have strong opinions because I'm not knowledgeable about the history of our evolving understanding of logging and how to best support both the ecosystem and our demand for wood - but more to the point you need to cite the criticism from a good secondary source. You cannot, within wiki policy, just cite that he narrated a logging company documentary and thereby reject all other claims that he was an environmental activist.

I'm going to go further and say, Calmitybrook, that I think you could do a better job at being a constructive and cooperative editor. Joining the article by calling Albert a Grade B Actor [2] was not a good start. In this edit [3] you not only added unsourced criticism but removed the sourced positive material that was present and renamed the section from "Activism" to "Anti-Environmental Record". Sarcasm is unhelpful [4][5] If it is your intention to make a point, please know that there is a policy, wp:point, against editing wikipedia for that purpose. It's better to simply state your point in clear and calm language on the talk page.

Unrelated to this article, "Dunno." [6] is pretty obviously not a good edit. It will be easier for people to continue assuming good faith if you do not engage in this kind of thing.

If both of you make efforts to only add statements that you can source, particularly when you know they will be contested, then I think this article will continue to head in the right direction. If there is some other specific point that I didn't address please say so and I will do my best. Cheers. Mishlai (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, please use edit summaries for all but the most minor of edits. Mishlai (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw this article on the WP:3O page and had a look at it but didn't have the time to offer a properly considered third opinon. However, I can safely say that you are very lucky to have an opinion from Mishlai. I'm new to this 3O thing but the advice he has provided above is a good lesson for me in how to provide a third opinion and has the added side benefit of being really useful for this article and the dispute itself. Everyone involved should take note of it.

The sources I did a quick Google of suggest Albert was indeed a very active environmentalist, but there is merit in questionning whether his logging video was his company making a quick buck or pure 70s-based mis-understanding of tree preservation/environmentalism. Either POV needs to be cited to a reliable source to support it. Furthermore, he seems like a really interesting character, so I'll keep an eye on this article and try to help as time allows.

Finally, Calamitybrook, every single edit you make is marked as minor and very few of them have summaries. I would personally consider that uncivil and you should consider your fellow wikipedians when you continue to create edits with such an unhelpful summary. Make it easier for everyone to work with you by only marking edits as minor when appropriate and including an edit summary 99% of the time.

Good luck! Bigger digger (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

-- Current version --

I reverted it again to include material on Touch the Sky, which amounts to several fully sourced sentences containing information about the film, and no opinion.

There's really no objection to including these facts. Thanks for being so reasonable.

I'm sorry I called Eddie Albert a Grade B actor. I won't do it again. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "educational" in quotes is inappropriate. Referring to the company as a major logging interest or something similar sounds reasonable - isn't that true? (though I haven't checked sourced - short on time right now). Why is the quote from the film being removed? I think that conveys what is being said well.

You two need to stop edit warring in the article and hash proposed changes out on the talk page. Reverting over and over will never accomplish anything. Mishlai (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this source [7] does not describe the company as a logging interest. I believe that they are, but you need to cite that. I would be agreeable to putting the text in with a fact tag because I think it's reasonably clear from the context that they are a logging interest. "Major logging interest" is probably too strong without citation. The source does say that it was produced under Eddie Albert's production company, so that can clearly stay. The article refers to it as an ecological film, but it might be ok to call it educational or some other term (but not "educational" - that would be sarcasm, inappropriate in an encyclopedia.) Ecological film would also be fine, even if the film advocates practices that modern environmentalists would not agree with, the topic of the film is still ecological. I don't yet have a strong opinion on which adjective (or perhaps just "film" would be best?)

Please use edit summaries to describe what you are doing, and please do not mark your edits as minor unless they are completely uncontroversial - spelling fixes & such. I'm sure that a passage can be written that is well sourced and that everyone would agree is a fair description of existing coverage on the matter. Mishlai (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's hammer out this passage

I've reformatted the references to avoid duplicates, but otherwise pasted the text from each version unaltered. I've also created a 3rd version, one which I believe will be a good starting point for compromise. Each of you please review and comment, make additional suggestions etc. Once we've reached a consensus on what to put in the article we can make the edit (and who physically makes it at that point won't matter because it will be "everyone's" version.) You can also create a whole new suggested version, but I think it's easier to reach consensus by instead addressing specific changes to specific passages - otherwise there end up being 3 conversations over 3 different versions, etc.

Monkeyzpop's version (for reference, not for editing)

Albert also narrated a film on behalf of the Weyerhaueser company, called Touch the Sky. The film called for replacement of old-growth forests with tree farms. In this film as described by Audubon Magazine, Albert, standing beneath old-growth conifers, proclaims: "This forest is dying. The enchanted forest of yesterday is being replaced [here the camera pans one of the company's clone plantations] by the fast-growing forest." Albert then effuses about "remarkable" machines that fell a tree with "one bite" and explains that each American consumes a ton of wood products per annum.

Calamitybrook's version (for reference, not for editing)

Albert also narrated an "educational" film produced by his "Eddie Albert Productions" on behalf of the Weyerhaueser Co., a major logging concern based in Washington State. The film, titled Touch the Sky. , called for replacement of old-growth forests with tree farms.

In this film, as described by Audubon Magazine, Albert, standing beneath old-growth conifers, proclaims: "This forest is dying. The enchanted forest of yesterday is being replaced [here the camera pans one of the company's clone plantations] by the fast-growing forest." Albert then effuses about "remarkable" machines that fell a tree with "one bite" and explains that each American consumes a ton of wood products per annum.

How about something like this for a start? (please add comments and suggestions below)

Albert also narrated a film on behalf of the Weyerhaueser Co., a timber company. The film, titled To Touch the Sky, was produced by Albert's company, Eddie Albert Productions. To Touch the Sky called for the replacement of old-growth forests with tree farms. In it, as described by Audubon Magazine, Albert stands beneath old-growth conifers and proclaims "This forest is dying. The enchanted forest of yesterday is being replaced [here the camera pans one of the company's clone plantations] by the fast-growing forest." Albert then describes "remarkable" machines that fell a tree with "one bite" and explains that each American consumes a ton of wood products per annum.

Thoughts? What do you like? What do you not like? Language can be strengthened, weakened, or removed as sources for that are found (or not found.) Mishlai (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done a remarkable job. The problem I see is in getting User:Calamitybrook to accept anything less than his version, as there is little about your compromise version that hasn't been suggested in essence by me in the past, with quick reversion and ridicule Calamitybrook's typical response. The only problem I have with this compromise is the appearance of undue weight given to this apparent "anti-environmentalism" on Albert's part by including such a lengthy "quote" from the quoted article ostensibly from the film itself. Nowhere else in the WP article are such substantial and weighted quotes included, nor is there any source for the quote but from an extremely unobjective and antagonistic (to Weyerhaueser) source article. The quote proves nothing about Albert other than the implication that his interests completely coincide with the logging firm's. I'd prefer the reference to the source lead people to this quote rather than to validate it with undue weight by including it in the WP article. But I can live with it, since people visiting the source article will see the strenuously subjective viewpoint and can judge for themselves. I'm troubled that not even Calamitybrook seems to have seen the actual film, and thus the quote cannot be verified except by this heavily biased source. But I am relatively happy with the compromise. The real problem will, I suspect, remain getting Calamitybrook to "allow" anything less than his original version. I should mention, as I've been ridiculed as some sort of Albert-worshipping bleeding heart that I never heard of any of this stuff, nor cared about it, till I happened on the article while looking up Albert's war record. As far as Eddie Albert is concerned, I don't care if all the trees or none of the trees are saved. My agenda, as far as this article goes, is to have valid sources and ZERO POV. If Calamitybrook felt the same way, none of this would be under discussion. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing the article, and not the editors. Calamity's response to my post leads me to assume good faith that a reasonable effort will be made by all to reach a compromise. As far as the publishing company, I think you missed the sentence in the boxoffice source, possibly because I forgot to insert it in the "discussion version." Here it is [8], and I've added it now to the discussion version. In that source it states "The picture is being made under the banner of Eddie Albert Productions, with Albert serving as executive director."

As far as the quote, I don't feel strongly either way. I think it gives a feel for the nature of what's being said, and his phrase about "remarkable" machines gives a sense of wonder concerning new technology and so on that I think generates images of an innocent 1970s idealism about what they were doing. It was in your version that this text kept getting put back in, so I thought you wanted it. If neither of you want it then by all means take it out. Thanks for working to find consensus. Mishlai (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught my own dumb error moments after posting that. As to the quote, I included it in one of my edits as a sop to the other editor in hopes that it might satisfy his desire to portray Albert a certain way without actually being a blatant accusation. I've always preferred it not to be part of the article, for the reasons I just gave. But if it allows Calamitybrook to feel his point is being made without making the section all ABOUT his point, then it can stay as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I have no dog in the societal/environmental fight, insofar as this article is concerned. It is, I might add, so helpful having your participation. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If Weyerhaeuser is "a company with logging interests" then GM is "a company with automotive interests."

Audubon Magazine is the well-respected journal of the 105-year-old National Audubon Society.

The quote is a good alternative to offering an intepretation of the film that might contain POV.

As for weight, there's probably more stuff that could be included about Albert's "Honorary Trusteeship" for the National Arbor Day Foundation, a group that in Albert's day at least, was largey sponsored by logging companies. Consider this in context of the 1970s history of the logging industry's relationship to environmentalism.

Incidently I don't think it matters, but I've seen the film (30 years ago) & have no opinion on the acting. It was shown as a joke by an environmental group at my college. Calamitybrook (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The "logging interests" statement can certainly be made stronger, just provide a source describing the extent. I worded it that way because I don't know, not because I want to water it down. This source describes them as a "timber company" [9] so I'll add that in. If you're looking for something stronger I need you to dig up the source for it.

I'm unaware of the context of logging & environmentalism in the 1970s (I was born in the mid-70s), so you have a perspective there that I'm not aware of. Further explanation/sources/links would be welcome, and possibly useful to the article as well.

Sources on the film appear to be hard to come by, probably because the 1970s documentary isn't very relevant these days. The Audubon article is clearly editorial in nature, so we have to be careful there. I think quoting them quoting the movie is probably ok.

I can't find sources describing the film as having advocated for anything because there aren't many sources on the film. Assuming that you don't have such sources either, I'm going to remove the statement concerning old growth replacement (which was taken directly from here [10]) and just let the film quote stand on its own. Please let me know what you think. Mishlai (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact wording is also duplicated here [11]. That answers.com entry makes the statement that "Also in 1970, Albert starred in a documentary film sponsored by Weyerhaeuser Co. highlighting the benefits of old-growth logging and so-called high-yield forestry." and cites this obit as the source[12] which has no hits for any of the following: "documentary" "weyer" "forest" "logging" "touch" so I think the statement is in fact uncited at the place where it appears to have been copied from. That doesn't make it untrue mind you, just unverifiable - which is the standard we need to meet.

It also cites the statements from the audubon article and cites them here [13] which contains no information on the paragraph at all. I don't know where these statements came from, but it appears to me that someone made them in an editorial fashion and then cited them weakly (or not at all) and that others have been copying that text around since then. We need to steer clear of repeating that mistake. Plus, these other places are answers.com and another source which appears to be some kind of wiki - not reliable sources to get text from. Also, just for future reference, we should not be copying text directly, that creates copyright problems and the material can be stricken out on that basis alone.

The only source we have that Albert did the film for Weyerhaeuser is the Audubon article, where it refers to the flick as "a piece of Weyerhaeuser ecoporn" - obviously this is a very weak (and biased) reference. I think it's important to contextualize the film as being done for a logging interest if that's the case, because it fundamentally changes our understanding of the range of possible motivations for making it - can you provide a better source on Weyerhaeuser's involvement? I'm shaky on making the connection based only on "a piece of Weyerhaeuser ecoporn" Mishlai (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

from wp:rs "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." We've done the in-text attribution of Audubon for the description of Albert's quote, but using it to connect the film to Weyerhaeuser would be relying on it for a statement of fact. You could, perhaps, go on to say that Audubon describes the film as "a piece of Weyerhaeuser ecoporn" and then state simply "Weyerhaeuser is a timber company." but I'm concerned that this is giving undue weight to an opinion piece (that isn't even generally about Albert or the film) and it's characterization of a film that Albert worked on. In the context of his whole biography, I think we're approaching wp:undue by relying too much on the Audubon characterization. Perhaps if another source connecting Weyer to the film cannot be located then we could just strike that connection out and let the description stand on it's own. That wouldn't be too much IMO because it's the only description of the film we can find, and the film itself is an interesting event in his life given the context of environmentalism, etc. If we were dealing with a BLP I'd say the whole thing needed to go (except that he narrated and produced a film with that title) because it's poorly sourced.Mishlai (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Audubon article connects the film to Weyenhaeuser, a timber company." would be more neutral than giving publicity to their ecoporn slur. Mishlai (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an updated the article based on this discussion, but that certainly doesn't have to mean that we're done talking about it or making improvements. Mishlai (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---

There's been a footnote all along from trade press which identifies the film as being made "in conjunction with" weyerhaeuser. (Really, if one can't bother to read footnotes, then consider not editing)..... I restored the content, modifying language to conform with trade press report. It is, I suppose, obvious enough that "in conjunction with" is polite terminology for "sponsored by." I also added a little context regarding Weyerhaeuser's environmental record which is useful to understanding the "conjunction."

Also, I added the fact that the Audubon article was republished in a book (by a mainline publisher btw). This adds some slight perspective to the content. Perhaps, however, it's necesssary to spell out that its author is among the most well-regarded of conservation writers?

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the footnote in question, could you be more specific? Footnote 12 is an article with no online link. I have no idea what it says because I don't have that copy of the LA times. Please discuss changes on the talk page rather than making edits which may be controversial. The whole point here is to achieve consensus, not to resume an edit war. Mishlai (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

---

What's the "controversey" about including simple, brief, relevant and fully cited facts?

The footnote I intended to refer to was #17, I think. But what ever --- it's right next to the pertinent facts regarding the film's orign. So what exactly is the trouble??

Fortunately it's a reference to online material. If it were a book, like the one cited for the republishing of the Audubon article, I guess you'd have to go buy the book, or look it up in the library. Calamitybrook (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry, I missed that somehow. How is the version above looking? Are you happy with it? Mishlai (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Or the one in the article for that matter, they're basically the same. Mishlai (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

---

A bit about Weyerhaeuser's environmental record would provide useful perspective on the film.

~

I think adding "a bit about Weyerhaeuser's environmental record" risks placing undue weight on this section, as well as risking diverging too far afield from the point of an article on Albert. Such material rightly belongs, if anywhere, in an article on Weyerhaueser, to which this article can link. Placing such information here risks pushing a POV, since the context available in a Weyerhaueser article would not be present in this paragraph. (Also, could you please be more diligent about signing your posts? It's a little hard to tell who the unsigned posts are from, otherwise.)Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The point of this section of "an article on Albert" is his record as an "Activist." This subtitle itself (not mine) already implies a point of view which may be unnecessary.

Suppose there were a Wikipedia article on the actor Josef Blowenweider, that described him as a prominent Austrian liberal and award-winning human rights activist -- and also a member of the Freedom Party of Austria.

Shouldn't the article briefly mention, without POV, FPA's anti-immigration and general far-right policies?

Why expect the reader to know FPA policies -- or Weyerhaeuser's environmental record?

If one doesn't want reasonable context for relevant info, then why bother with the article at all? Calamitybrook (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It simply seems to me that "major logging company" makes it clear where Weyerhaueser's sympathies lie, while "Freedom Party of Austria" would not have the same effect. It's an opinion I offer in response to your suggestion. Since we're in the middle of a Third Opinion discussion, I offered the second of (I hope) three opinions on this specific. I'm merely pointing out a concern, not issuing orders. It may be that I'm overreacting in light of past edits which were pointedly POV. In the spirit of seeking consensus, I offer my opinion. That's all. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's inferred that Given Albert's ardent environmentalism, he would only work for logging companies with an extraordinary environmental record.

No? Calamitybrook (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that going deeply into Weyerhaueser's record creates a problem with wp:undue. Just saying that it was done with a logging company provides context. If Weyerhaueser's record is noticeably worse than the record of other logging companies then that might bear mentioning, but otherwise I think the tension between environmentalism and logging interests is clear enough. If someone wants to know more about Weyerhaueser then they can look that up - it's not like Weyerhaueser is central enough to Albert's life to make a big deal about it in his article. This isn't the encyclopedia entry for Weyerhaueser, or for To Touch the Sky, and we need to keep that in mind.Mishlai (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Activist section?

I'm maybe okay on leaving Weyerhaeuser as is.

But I'd suggest re-write of section to reconcile the contradictory information.

As it stands, the section goes on at some length regarding various information in what I'd characterize as a fawning tone regarding Albert's supposed credentials as savior of humanity, followed by contradictory information about his work promoting the views of a logging company.

A reader can't be expected to "process" this information.

I'd suggest an opening sentence or two for the "activist" section summarizing the fact that his record has contradictory elements.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary. The section describes his activities across his lifetime. Already, this one documentary covers a large portion of the section. I don't read the tone as being fawning at all. It's a dry list of factual descriptions of things that he did, and it's actually quite terse and without description. The one compliment he receives is that someone called him an ecological Paul Revere, and even that is stated dryly in "X said Y" form.

Other documentaries such as Human Growth and Human Beginnings have to share a sentence, but we have an entire paragraph on To Touch the Sky. It already carries inappropriate weight, and I wouldn't support taking that any further than we already have. In a description of his activism that covers 12 different activities and 4 documentaries, To Touch the Sky takes up fully 1/3 of the Activism section, while the remaining 12 activities and 3 documentaries must share the preceding 2/3 of it, and are simply listed without description, elaboration, or context.

I get the impression that you have a strong bias against Albert, and that it's affecting your concept of what his entry should look like. Please consider that this may be the case. I don't know Albert. I'd never heard of the man before I responded to the 3rd opinion request, and I certainly don't have any opinions of him. I do think that you need to do a better job of leaving your POV behind while editing, however.

The other point here is that you're trying to provide the reader with your own interpretation of Albert's action in this regard. That isn't our job. Some other editor may take issue with the sexuality video he did, or think that the Boy Scouts are inherently anti-gay and resent his participation there, or have some other axe to grind. It doesn't give them the right to impose that viewpoint on the reader. If someone doesn't already form a question in their mind based on what is presented from reliable sources, it isn't our job to club them over the head with it.

The amount of article real estate that has been given to this one issue is excessive. That's been accommodated in order to try to reach consensus, but there are limits to how much wp:undue weight can be given to this one documentary, and we are - if anything - already past them. Mishlai (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

______

You may misunderstand my proposal. The contents of this section need to be objectively summarized in a lede graf.

This needn't be an expansion. In fact could result in a somewhat shortened segment.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I have misunderstood. Post the proposal here on the talk page? Mishlai (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential re-write

(sources not included here, but to remain unchanged)

This is notably shorter than existing text, yet immediately gives full context in lede:

---

Albert promoted various human rights and environmental causes, particuarly in his later career. Yet Albert also served as on-camera narrator and producer of a 1970 film promoting the views of its co-sponsor, a major international forest products company that was highly active at the time in the destruction of old-growth temperate rain forests in North America. (stuff the relevant existing notes here).

In the 1940s, his Eddie Albert Productions produced instructional documentaries such as Human Beginnings (a for-its-time controversial sex education film) and Human Growth.[5]

He served as special world envoy for Meals for Millions (now Freedom From Hunger) and as a consultant for the World Hunger Conference.[6] He joined Albert Schweitzer in a documentary about malnutrition in Africa.[7][8] He was particularly active in the fight against environmental pollutants, particularly DDT.[9]

Along with promoting organic gardening, Albert also founded City Children's Farms, a program for involving inner-city children in farming.[10] He spoke out for eco-farming and tree planting[11] and served as national chairman for the Boy Scouts of America's conservation program and as founder of the Eddie Albert World Trees Foundation. He was a trustee of the National Recreation and Parks Association and a consumer advisory board member of the U.S. Department of Energy. TV Guide called him "an ecological Paul Revere."[12] He was involved in the creation of Earth Day,[13] which coincidentally falls on his birthday. Albert also served as director of the U.S. Council on Refugees.[14][15]. Albert was also active with the National Arbor Day Foundation, a tree-planting group sponsored by major corporations-- and whose goals have been opened to question by environmental advocates.

No response/ Go?

Lacking response, maybe I'll go with something like this revision before very long.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it gives undue prominence to the Weyerhaueser documentary, and also colors it a fair bit more than what we've already worked on. It just isn't that significant, I don't think the contrasting statement in the beginning of the section is warranted. Mishlai (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I cut out a lot of info like most? on the Weyerhaeuser film. It now gets a very brief mention.

But I moved the reference to near the top. The information adds a crucial, if somewhat perplexing and mysterious perspective to Albert's environmental activism.

One might consider as parallel, Sen Jos. Lieberman and his illustrious career as Democrat. To ignore his endorsement of John McCain would be to miss and misunderstand a critical point regarding his career.

I don't pretend to know anything about Eddie Albert's politics, but the fact that he flogged Weyerhaeuser's views in a full-length film in 1970 certainly sheds important light on Albert's record as an "activist," which is after all, the topic at hand.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)]