Talk:Martin Landau

"Born to a Jewish family?"
"born to a Jewish family" is a racial stereotype. If the person is Jewish, just say it. me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.180.63 (talk • contribs).
 * 1. Please do not remove text from an article without leaving a summary remark. 2.  A person can be born to a Jewish family without being a praticing Jew him or herself.  -- Dcflyer 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can be born to a Jewish family without being a practicing Jew, but this is just perpetuating a racial stereotype. What is the motivatation for promoting this racial stereotype? Are you obsessed with this? How about adding "born to a Christian family" to other articles? I don't understand what you mean by leaving a summary remark. My rationale should be clear. me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.180.63 (talk • contribs).
 * Providing factual information in an encylcopedia is far from perpetuating a racial stereotype. Also, what racial stereotype is being perpetuated?  By saying "racial stereotype" do you mean Anti-Semetism?  Take a look a some other Wikipedia articles:  List of Jewish Americans, List of Jewish American actors, and List of British Jews.  Do you think these promote "racial stereotypes" as well?  This article is already tagged with the category, Category:Jewish American actors.  Finally, let me address your point about not having "born to a Christian family" on other articles.  The subjects of biographies on the English Wikipedia are overwhelming from the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Australia.  The majority of individuals from these countries are Christian.  In the minority are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others.  Pointing this out is simply providing factual information to the reader and cannot be at all compared to attaching a Star of David or a Red Crescent to these articles. -- Dcflyer 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed racial stereotypes about Jewish families, just as there are stereotypes about Asian families and black families. Why don't you start adding "born to an Asian family" and "born to a black family" to articles, Dcflyer? Why is there an obsession with promoting a stereotype about Jewish families? There's nothing wrong with saying someone is Jewish, if they are Jewish. Just say it directly, don't promote the "Jewish family" stereotype. Signed, me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.180.63 (talk • contribs).


 * To start, unless someone's being identified as something other than human, it's possibly an ethnic stereotype, not a racial one. I also think 67.187.180.6 has a different definition of what that is.
 * An ethnic stereotype is a generalized representation of an ethnic group, composed of what are thought to be typical characteristics of members of the group. The use of ethnic stereotypes is usually demeaning even when the characteristics might be considered positive because it tends to discount the importance and uniqueness of the individual.
 * &mdash;Ethnic stereotype.
 * Saying someone was born to Jewish parents acknowledges a fact, it doesn't promote a stereotype. As to a lack of citation, since converting to Judaism is a difficult process, it's highly likely that, since Mr. Landau is Jewish, he was born to Jewish parents. I don't see anything in the article that is trying to attach stereotypical behavior to Mr. Landau or his parents.
 * I don't understand your apparent belief that saying someone is Jewish is okay, while saying they were born of Jewish parents is perpetuating a stereotype. What stereotype would that be? How is "born to a Jewish family" a stereotype? Based on your reasoning, it would seem that saying someone is Jewish is perpetuating an ethnic stereotype. I don't understand why the former is a stereotype and the latter isn't. Also, please start identifying yourself on your posts. It's really easy, just type ~ at the end of your comments it's right under the editing pane after Sign your name:. Chidom 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide more info on his friendships with Steve McQueen and James Dean? Mmortal03 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with the remarks by the original commentator. This is a common problem on Wikipedia. It is always promulgated by non-Jews who have no conception of what it means to be Jewish and how sensitive the "labeling" otherwise can be. First and foremost, Martin Landau IS Jewish, was born to a Jewish PRACTICING AND OBSERVANT family in Brooklyn, NY. The family was very much a part of the local Jewish community. Mr. Landau has never renounced his Judaism. Why would he? Therefore, there can be no question of his ethnic/cultural and religious heritage- He is Jewish. Let this be the end of a ridiculous and convoluted argument. I will further add that this specifically and only arises as it pertains to those of the Jewish faith and heritage; we never see such bickering of ethnic persuasion attributed to any other race, creed, religion, culture or ethnicity. The same convoluted argument has arisen on Wiki pages of similarly famous Jewish names- Stanley Kubrick is just one example. It is always and only raised by non-Jews who, for some reason, insist on marginalizing and/or diminishing the identity of a Jewish individual. We can conclude from such accusations, and that is exactly what they are, that these comments border on antisemitism and certainly qualify as utter ignorance. "Born to a Jewish family" IS marginalization and outrageously inappropriate. It would only be appropriate if the individual had outwardly repudiated his Jewish heritage and was publicly known. Perhaps Dostoevsky is not Russian but only of "Russian descent"? And Jesse Owens is only of "African origin"? Maybe JFK was not Irish Catholic but only "born to Catholic parents"? This is an affront plain and simple. M.P. Landau (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding your statement, Martin Landau IS Jewish, was born to a Jewish PRACTICING AND OBSERVANT family in Brooklyn, NY. The family was very much a part of the local Jewish community. Simply add those details with a source to the article and then remove "born to a Jewish family." If you don't know how to do that, then add the source here and someone else can do it. --Light show (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to cite an 'article' or 'source.' I AM the source. I am a member of the Landau family and have known through personal experience the facts to which I attest. Mr. Landau grew up, if I recall correctly, in the Canarsie section of Brooklyn. It is ridiculous that one would have to argue this point. Beyond that, my reasoning stands unto itself: the entire argument is an affront to Jewish people and to the Landau family. I will attempt to correct the article as you note. Thanks for your assistance. M.P. Landau (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, per WP:BURDEN and WP:OR you do need to provide sources for any info that you wish to add to this article. You cannot use yourself as a source. Please read through the WP:BLP and WP:COI where this is gone into in detail. MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia avoids asserting someone's religion unless some published material states that they practiced their religion. In that case, their religion is also noted in the infobox. But for someone born to Jewish parents, without published proof that they practiced their religion, it's still understood by most readers that they're Jewish by ethnicity or race. There's no implication that they therefore "renounced" their religion, nor is their identity "diminished." It's understood by most people that while he is Jewish, Wikipedia can't state that he practiced Judaism, the religion. This overlapping of religion, race and ethnicity really doesn't pertain to the examples you listed: Blacks, African Americans, Catholics, Irish or Russians. Obviously, "antisemitism" is totally irrelevant to any of this, and thinking that adding such family details is "only raised by non-Jews" is also inaccurate. --Light show (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that neither of you can see calling a Jewish individual Jewish is proper and right, and that you would look for reasons otherwise to not call them so, speaks to your ignorance. Sandy Koufax? Jewish. Philip Roth? Jewish. Albert Einstein? Jewish. Woody Allen? Jewish. Larry David? Jewish. Are you really going to insist on calling every Jewish individual "born to Jewish parents" unless a citation on the internet can document their religious practice? That is not only faulty in logic, but it IS in fact treading on antisemitism, or at the very least a coarse and insensitive read on the topic. It marginalizes the individual's origins. And it DOES infer a distance from their Jewish identity, which is the crime herein: 'downplaying' (diminishing) one's identity is re-writing history. My examples are congruent and to the point; the fact you cannot see it speaks further to your lack of understanding. Being Jewish is far more than practicing and observing the Jewish faith; in fact, it often has little to do with faith and belief and has much more to do with family heritage and ethnic culture. It has as much to do with a sense of place in society and one's orientation to the population. Additionally, your "requirement" that I provide an internet source is beyond ridiculous; I could provide numerous links to demonstrate Donald Rumsfeld is a space alien, it wouldn't take much searching...I challenge your allegation that I am inaccurate in stating that only a non-Jew could possibly come up with such a convoluted 'requirement'. Tell me please, are you Jewish? I didn't think so. And may I add Jewish people are NOT A RACE. In fact, Jewish people encompass numerous races, most of which are Caucasian. Martin Landau is Jewish and nothing you can say changes that fact. M.P. Landau (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No one said he wasn't Jewish. Your trollish argument is simply a play on words. Since you can easily provide links to prove that Donald Rumsfeld is a space alien, feel free to add a few about your relative. --Light show (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You infer a distance between Mr. Landau and his Jewish identity. That's enough to conclude you are indeed marginalizing his Jewish identity but hey, it's your set of excuses, and you have to live with them. Better you than I. I prefer the truth, which is what we should all be seeking equally here. As for "trollish", if an attempt to enlighten would be deemed "trollish" then yes I am a troll. It's funny you would create a hyperlink for "trollish", which further speaks to your robotic, limited understanding of what it means to seek truth. Truth doesn't need a hyperlink, or a reference. This is not a court of law, this is an encyclopedia compiled by anyone and everyone, and thus, we must take the wise with the narrow-minded. We must accept that, given the nature of Wikipedia, any page, and indeed most pages, contain partial truths, pure untruths, omissions, redaction and every form of subjective fiction one can imagine. M.P. Landau (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

departure from mission impossible
The Leonard Nimoy biography says that he joined the show "mission impossible" when Martin Landau left the show. However, this biography fails to explain why Landau left the show, which was one of his most most acclaimed roles in movies and T.V. It would be good to explain why he left. SystemBuilder (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be great if WP were an independent source of knowledge, but it isn't. It is just a summary of reliable facts that people have found notable. If there is no reliable source for an alleged fact, then it can't be stated in WP. David Spector (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Birthdate
iMDB, grandmas, people you know are not reliable sources. The Washington Post lists his DoB as 1928. You can't view the entire article but an excerpt from the Boston Globe also lists 1928 being the correct date. These I would consider reliable sources. Q T C 08:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at this book now. The International Television and Video Alamanac is a thick book. It lists his birthdate as 1930, not 1931.

Someone is lying. 1928, 1930, 1931. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigerrorhere (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1931 reference is space199.net, not the best resource. It's also an interview so the guy may be trying to look younger. My book is the best source and it is 1930. We must look like a joke and laughing stock if Martin is reading this and see's that we bought his fiction, lock stock and barrel. So 1930 should be it unless we can show that 1928 is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigerrorhere (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't a big deal imo, one year out, or there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy, but hey...so what. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One way to be really accurate is to use the 1930 date since it is the best reference, then put a footnote with the 1928 and 1931 source. I have a feeling that Mr. Landau is making up some fiction.Bigerrorhere (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if your good with footnotes that is a good idea. ta. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's Who which is based upon the biographee's submission says: Brooklyn, June 20, 1931. But the 1988 article "Martin Landau Rolls Up in a New Vehicle" said: he refuses to disclose his exact age because he says it would further limit the roles offered to him. So my best guess is 1928. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Though it has been awhile since anyone has posted here all I can say is "UGH'. This doesn't look like it is going to have an easy solution. The New York Times and the official TV Guide site  and Hollywood.com  list 1931 as the birth year. I don't know how reliable the last one is but it should be pointed out that the other two usually can be relied on. I sure wish that we had someone in NY who could run down to the records office and settle this. Until then I think that we should leave it blank or go back to the footnotes suggestion made in Nov of '09. MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As for User:Off2riorob and his "It isn't a big deal imo, ... but hey...so what": This is not Approximopedia or Goodenoughopedia or "She'll be right, mate"-opedia. If you're not interested in getting to the most accurate version of the events we chronicle here, then what on earth are you doing here?  Go off and write novels or comic strips.  Or shopping lists. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Although Off2 can speak for himself it should be pointed out, in fairness, that the post that you are commenting on was made almost two years ago. Off2 has not displayed the same attitude in recent dealings that I have had with him on biography articles, indeed it has been much the opposite. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very glad to hear it, Marnette. He must have been having an "off" day.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

MarnetteD asked me to chime in here since I have some experience hunting down birthdates. The databases I usually use list his birthdate as "June 20, 1931?" so they are obviously unsure about that date. Googing reveals that less reliable sources are all over the map, from 1928 to 34. I've searched in various places but haven't had any luck. Since the Boston Globe is the only reliable source that discusses his birthdate - as opposed to just dropping it in passing as a random factoid - I think we should go with that source until it is answered definitively by a biography, a journalist digging into the matter, or an obituary. Gamaliel (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, its long ago but I imagine I was commenting in regard to notability and his exact date of birth is not a part of his notability, but I agree it is an important part of his persondata - One recent solution has been to add circa to the birth year but personally I didn't like that option. User:Gamiel has some good research tools and if he/she can't ascertain without doubt then I accept that there is doubt. I also like the Boston Globe source and date as that is accessible online and also explains that there is some variance in the reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Landau was born in 1928. I have been able to locate him on the 1930 U.S. Census with his parents in Brooklyn. Dated April 14, 1930, it states that he was 1 year and 9 months old. I've never updated a Wikipedia article before, but I'll work on adding a citation shortly. Editrix71 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: It is unclear to me whether including this information would be a privacy issue. Does Mr. Landau actually want his birth year to be private? Advice welcome. Editrix71 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MarnetteD: When you reverted my edit, you said I needed to "provide definitive proof this is the consensus version." I'm not sure how to go about building or proving the consensus you're asking for. Would you be willing to at least review the document I cited? Editrix71 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The census clearly lists Landau as 21 months old in 1930. So, if we're talking about facts (most important to me), then he was born in 1928. If we're talking verification, an article from The Boston Globe dated October 8, 1989 states that he was then 61 years old. Don't see what else can be said. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin Landau the actor was born in 1928 in Brooklyn, NY. End of controversy. M.P. Landau (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no controversy. The correct date has been in the article with reliable sources for almost two years. And your saying something is so without providing a reliable, verifiable source wouldn't carry much weight. Meters (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the exact ref for the census entry since someone ignored the inline comments and changed this again. Meters (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Turning Down the Role of Spock
Landau discussed this with Bob Costas on "Later with Bob Costas." It is not a legend. He auditioned for the part but decided the role was not of interest to him, although he indicated that "Lenny Nimoy" did a great job with it.96.231.121.135 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * References? If you can find any reliable references that you can cite, please add it. See WP:RELIABLE for what constitutes a reliable reference. --Manway (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a classic case of an inherent, and I guess unavoidable, weakness in Wikipedia's citation policy. (This particular issue has been brought up on Leonard Nimoy's page as well.) The problem is when you have multiple sources that are "referenceable" that have contradictory information on a particular issue. This particular issue has many referenceable sources from "back in the day" that state it is true. Hence, you then also have modern-day sources that cite those sources that state it as being true. As I understand it, it has been refuted more recently by some who were actually involved with the situation (e.g. Fred Freiberger). So, depending on what you read and what you want to believe, you can find proof it is true, or proof it is not true. imho, the right answer is to say something on the order of "Sources have reported that the role of Spock on Star Trek was initially offered to Martin Landau; however, more recent interviews with those involved cast doubt on that story." As a side note, a good example of a often-referenced-on-Wikipedia book that states this Landau-offered-Spoke-first story as fact is Patrick White's otherwise dependable book The Complete Mission: Impossible Dossier. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo from his prime
Can we include a picture of him from his prime rather than all of them being from his later years. Followed here from another article which mentioned him; trying to put a face to the familiar-sounding name. This article didn't help, so a quick Google Images check, and my reaction was "Oh! Him?!" I am sure I am not the only person. Sometimes a "he played xxx character" is not enough when memories of character names from old programs are not as clear as they use to be (OTOH, faces have sticking power, and may be recognized by people even if one has never seen any of the works the person has been in). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and restore a prime career-related image. It was removed based on MOS rationales that may be questioned: a) that an image of a person relevant to a character they played does not belong; b) that recent photos are preferable. However, I don't see any of those details in the MOS for living persons.


 * In any case, the image is a publicity photo used to promote a TV show, and was not taken of him acting. It's also of a prime early career period when he achieved notability as an actor and was nominated for several Emmy Awards, per the first paragraph in the lead. As such, the earlier photo would likely be more practical than a recent photo when he was in his eighties and playing only minor roles. --Light show (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about Martin Landau. It is not about the character he played over 40 years ago. You are perfectly free to place that pic in the career section of the article although you should make it a bit smaller. BTW we always try to have a recent pic in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 03:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no guideline preference for a recent photo of an actor for their infobox. From this talk page and one at biographies, there is a consensus to use an earlier career one. --Light show (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A} How nice of your to start a thread regarding my edits without informing me. B) I am working off ling standing consensus (and i mean from 6+ years ago) from the Actors and filmmakers project and C) there is no consensus at the thread you have started. There is a brief discussion which three other editors replied and only one of them addressed the issue of how recent the pic is. I also note that you did not mention in that thread the fact that the pic of his role in MI is actually in the article. One other item from that thread you will want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF before making the argument that because something is in one article that it should be on all of them. If that were the case I could link to dozens of actor articles with pics that are the person and not of them in one of their roles. MarnetteD | Talk 14:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2014 discussion

 * The phrase "peak career image" is as POV as it gets. Who is determining when this actually occurred. His early 60's film career is as notable as MI. Are you saying that all the years after MI that he was on the downside of his career? As before the Pic you adore is still in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The career image, (peak or not doesn't matter,) is more relevant to his notability, especially in that particular role, for which he won his early awards. That award-winning role is even mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. Having two similar recent public event candids is not needed and adds little to a brief article, and throws off the balance. Your earlier claim that "we always try to have a recent pic in the infobox," lacks guideline support and implies a desire to emphasize more recent facts and images. Hence, I'd prefer his career image by far.--Light show (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

He has won numerous awards for other performances so which do we choose from? In fact our post is fulll of WP:POV and proves my point. Once again your picture is in the article at a spot where the show is mention which is a much more appropriate spot for it. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which other acting photos are you referring to? I see none available. You've pretty much skipped over all my points, so I'd suggest a RfC, unless you're able to accept the mini-consensus to use a career image.--Light show (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously you are not reading what I am writing as I did not make any reference to other acting photos in my posts today. Your points are all POV (said for the third time today BTW) so you are skipping over the points I am making. Though you wont read it you should take a look at WP:UNDUE since you are claiming that a role performed for TV over 40 years ago somehow defines his career. BTW he did not win any Emmy awards for his portrayal as Rollin Hand so you haven't even read the lede properly (the only award I can find is a Golden Globe which were not considered as a major award in the 1960s) He did win numerous awards for his performance as Lugosi so using your criteria that would take precedence over one from MI. Another BTW "notability" applies to the creation of an article not to the items in it since we always stress WP:NPOV and "recetism" does not apply in this situation at all. We want a picture of the person in the infobox not one of a role that they played as it is not representative of who they are. There is no consensus mini or otherwise in this thread for moving a pic, that is once again already in the article, to the infobox. FYI WP:3O is the next step not RFC. MarnetteD | Talk 00:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One other point WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote. MarnetteD | Talk 00:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is a career image better for the lead?
Is the career photo better than  the 2010  event candid for the lead? Discussion above. --Light show (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support using the career photo that's currently in the body to replace  a 2010 event candid, and also removing one of the two other public event candids. --Light show (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose A) No sourcing has been provided that the pic is of a career defining role. B) The pic in question is in the section that mentions the role which is more useful to the reader. MarnetteD | Talk 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW we aren't discussing the lede here we are talking about the picture in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 02:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This guy's career had two peaks. His MI years in the 1950s and 1988–1994 when he won a lot of film accolades. The reader today is more likely to remember him for the second peak in his career. Thus one, could argue that the picture of him in 1996 is more representative of him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment In your summary for this RfC could you please provide the links for the two photos that participants are choosing between? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Light show (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is four years ago actually recent? MarnetteD | Talk 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Light show (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose It seems appropriate to use someones most current photo for their wikipedia biography. Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 05:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose For living people I think we should use the most up to date photo freely available to us to show what they look like now. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the photo were unclear or far away I may think otherwise, but it seems like the candid photo is fine. Obviously, both should remain in the article in some form. --Precision123 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC discussion

 * This is a request for comments, not for votes. 4 of the votes don't make a case except "I think".
 * They are both great photos and I wish every lede could have an image like them.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your post. A couple of points: 1) If it isn't a vote than what difference does it make whether an editor says "I think" of not? 2) This RFC is about the pic in the infobox not the lede and there is no way to put put two pics in the infobox MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Martin Landau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100306075547/http://www.totalfilm.com:80/features/the-23-maddest-oscar-moments/landau-let-down to http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-23-maddest-oscar-moments/landau-let-down

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death
To the various IPs you must present WP:VERIFIABLE reliable sourceing for the edit you are trying to make. The current version does have a source. Your claim of "death certificate" does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that all of the technical jargon of the unsourced edit still boils down to "Abdominal hemorrhage" - which IMO still makes the use sourced info referable. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is technically incorrect. Hypovolemic shock is the direct cause of his death. The hypovolemic shock was caused by the blood loss. Read the death certificate and you will see that what I'm saying is accurate. It is available online. Your source that you quote The Daily Mail is a tabloid the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer. I set up the edit so that when you click on the one it would say V the source is his death certificate. If you would like I can put the link directly to it. comment added by Adamsapple3041 (talk • where your body can use blood in the same manner that a car uses oilcontribs) 07:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is virtually meaningless to the average reader. BTW the certificate is a WP:PRIMARY source. Wikipedia policy is to use WP:SECONDARY sources and that is what is in the article at the present time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is meaningless to any reader. Saying that hypovolemia was caused by blood loss is a tautology.  Unless the suggestion is that Ant-man  technology was at play, the only way for the volume of blood in the circulatory system to become less is for some of the blood to leave the circulatory system, in whole or a component of the blood.  It is necessary to exercise some editorial discretion in choosing the information to include from a death certificate, because it can be misleading or superfluous.  Klaun (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The MOS also supports minimizing jargon. --Light show (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, TMZ, the source for the so-called death certificate (it may not be legit given the visible alterations to it), is also a tabloid, just of the web/TV variety, so your argument about the Daily Mail is a push. Most legitimate media won't invade the family's privacy by accessing his death certificate, and splashing the details of his death around the web.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  19:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong, it is not a tautology, no Science fiction. There are various ways for a blood count to drop without blood leaving the system. There are conditions in which your body can use blood in the same way a car uses oil, thereby losing volume without a leak. It is definitely possible to go into hypovolemic shock without internal bleeding in his case it was preceded by internal bleeding but his cause of death was hypovolemic shock as I stated. There is an image of the death certificate which is more than the Daily Mail has on its site. I am striving for accuracy and you are quoting a tabloid website. At least TMZ backs up their statement with a copy of the death certificate that one can view. And no one has ever disputed the accuracy of these death certificates when they have posted them where the Daily Mail is regularly challenged and not at all considered accurate.

Death certificates are a public record here in the United States. I am quoting a verifiable public record and you are quoting a tabloid website. The information was neither misleading nor Superfluous it is 100% accurate. Stating that he died of abdominal Hemorrhage is not close to accurate. And I am sure that the powers that be at Wikipedia wish their pages to be as accurate as possible. I suggest you do a little bit of research on Google before making arrogant inaccurate statements that make you look as ridiculous as you are. Adamsapple3041 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

See: Hemolytic Anemia could be the cause. This is an autoimmune disorder whereby your body begins to attack and destroy its own red blood cells. This could be caused by tumors but often the cause is unknown. After transfusions to raise the count to normal, patients are treated with steroids and immunosuppressant medications. What do you know that is a condition in which you can lose blood volume without bleeding it seems you don't know everything after all you are far too arrogant for your own good. Adamsapple3041 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And to be crystal clear this is only one example of many that exist. You could go into hypovolemic shock from this condition which proves that you are wrong. It is not a tautism, as you say. If you were going to Levy and insult of any kind at least be accurate in your statement otherwise you come off sounding arrogant and misinformed. I quoted a verifiable accurate legal source. I still do not understand what the issue is in that respect you insist on putting something that is connected to a tabloid of dubious distinction in the Daily Mail. TMZ backs up their facts with legal verifiable documents Adamsapple3041 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * However, TMZ, even if a poor secondary source, is sensible enough to state their headline in plain language: DIED FROM MASSIVE INTERNAL BLEEDING. --Light show (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Formatting makes content more readable. Also Hemolytic Anemia does not cause hypovolemic shock.  (In fact, it doesn't seem to cause death by any way )  That is however, a side issue.  The main point is that if one loses a large volume of one's blood (for whatever reason) one will suffer hypovolemia -- because that is literally the definition of hypovolemia.  Massive bleeding is perforce going to cause one to lose massive amounts of blood, which in turn is hypovolemia.  A hemorrhage that can be characterized as massive necessitates hypovolemia.  I did not say that hypovolemia necessitates massive hemorrhage, I said it necessitates blood loss from some cause.  Hypovolemia = loss of blood (volume).    Your arguments actually prove my point, that saying hypovolemia is ambigous (multiple causes) and unnecessary because massive hemorrhage already implies hypovolemia.  Saying massive bleeding and hypovolemia is just repeating the same thing.  Also, please WP:FOC. Klaun (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Did Martin Landau smoke?
In the opening credits of Mission Impossible, they show Landau with a cigarette in his hand. Did he smoke in his personal life?, or was that simply a stage gimmick for Mission Impossible? If he smoked, it may have contributed to his heart disease, although he lived a pretty long life. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. Betathetapi454 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)