Talk:William Frawley

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sschlo1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ALOT OF INFO LEFT OUT
In the book, "meet the mertzes", there is so much information about how Frawley was a good guy, a sweet guy, a nice guy, a warm guy, a funny guy, and the list goes on. I mean the book quotes so many people that worked with him on "I love lucy" and "My three sons", and has alot of information that gives u a good understanding about the kind of guy William Frawley was......and yet.....this article barley has any of the info or quotes written down....And I think thats very sad.....I would put type the info here myself, but it seems like there is somebody that keeps erasing stuff ARYAN818 23:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop censoring everyone!
To "Diligens": Why do you keep deleting important information? Just because you're a WP:ATTACK? It's part of the man's life story; who are you to decide what everyone else gets to read? Hardly in the wikipedian spirit. Don't cut stuff out just because you find it personally offensive; hat's not a valid criterion. As an open source project, Wikipedia depends on contributors' willingness to tolerate subject matter they don't like. You don't have the right to arrogate for yourself exactly which information others will have a right to view.--bamjd3d


 * What do you mean stop censoring "everyone"?
 * There are many WP rules that result in censorship. Did you know that?
 * encyclopedias are supposed to be a form of reference, education and facts. The article said that Vance and Frawley "despised" each other. Okay. Why the need to give examples as if the reader doesn't understand what "despise" means? Brevity and removal of redundancy is in the Wikipedian spirit. Did you know that?
 * cuss words are not appropriate, especially for minors.
 * the spirit of Wikipedia is not to post negative things in biographies, especially tearing down characters of a wholesome show. This isn't the National Inquirer or the Oprah show.
 * verifiable and reliable sources must support things, and those things don't have them.
 * One of these reasons is good enough for the edit.

--Diligens 09:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem with me, but explain your edits, just don't blank parts of the article.--RWR8189 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Let's start with "Why the need to give examples?" This reminds me of Bernard Shaw's adage that no question is as difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious. But I'll give it a shot: In any kind of expository piece of writing, when one makes an assertion, claim, point or argument, it is incumbent upon the writer to provide, to the extent possible, examples to substantiate said assertions. Sometimes that's impossible, of course, or the evidence is sketchy. In many instances, however, there is plenty of information at hand, and invoking "brevity" hardly justifies excising it. For example, suppose I said, "Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal instituted a number of new reforms." Would it be inappropriate to add, "These included the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Social Security," and so on? No. But you feel this way because in this particular case the subject matter offends you.

Which leads me to the next issue, the appropriateness of foul language. Like it or not, foul language is part of our culture and our life experiences. If you have children whom you wish to shield from it, that is entirely your affair, but it does not entitle you to censor an Internet forum for your convenience. This is, I suppose, an updated form of the age-old battle between those who support full free speech and those who wish to be what Dick Gautier called "SAMGs," Self-Appointed Moral Guardians. If William Frawley used words that you don't like, your disliking them neither changes that fact nor justifies your efforts to deny others access to that information. The Internet culture supports free speech.

"Not to post negative things in biographies" Why? Should a biography of Hitler simply discuss his artistic proclivities and intermittent charm? What kind of sugarcoated feel-good, have-a-nice-day stance is this? There is an awful lot of negativity in this world; indeed, one of America's abiding problems is an unwillingness to face unpleasant facts. It does not detract from the quality of I Love Lucy to discuss some of the facts or stories concerning its principals or production. Trying to ban everything negative or unpleasant would make Wikipedia essentially worthless.

Finally, I notice that a lot of people hide behind that "verifiable" shield. How verifiable must a source be? Do you require a tape recording or a court transcript? I didn't make those things up, nor did I hear them from friends or read them in The Enquirer. They came from Desi Arnaz's own autobiography, and I think I stated that fact. This disclosure should be more than enough to allow the reader to assess the validity of the remarks and to be able to decide how much weight (or not) to attach to them.

May I suggest that if you are concerned about your children, get a filter or supervise them more closely. If you are concerned about the children of others, well, not to put too fine a point on it--mind your own business.

--bamjd3d

I disagree with "Dilegens". Wikipedia is all about giving information. The more information you have about any subject, the more useful it is to those who are looking for the information. You cant pick and choose what you like or think is best because most people disagree with you. This is not a dictatorship. This is an open website that allows for information (backed up) and if you have a problem with kids reading this info then filter it out, or, teach them right from wrong. But dont hold back information from the rest of us who WANT IT just because you THINK its bad for kids. Thats your opinion, so please dont force it on us. If you dont want kids reading it, then tell them not to. ARYAN818 07:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole "I Love Lucy" bios read as one hot mess. It was obviously written by a fan of the show but they didn't understand that they were writing encyclopedia entries which need their sources stated. These things read as excerpts from True Hollwood Stories.

Copyvio
This is a mess...various text from seems to have been introduced into the article at different times (based on my very brief examination of the page history). It is now intertwined with whatever content truly belongs to Wikipedia, so the article needs a major rewrite. Ardric47 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IMDb often copies us. Michael 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to information about the episode which has his last appearance on TV
http://www.tv.com/the-lucy-show/lucy-and-the-countess-have-a-horse-guest/episode/45708/summary.html

"Lucy and the Countess Have a Horse Guest" title does show up in Wikipedia list of Lucy Show episodes. (Vivian Vance was no longer a Lucy Show co-star by then, and does not appear in that episode.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Monsieur Verdoux
His character in Monsieur Verdoux is not a police detective. He's a friend of the bride in the wedding scene.Lafong (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of unsubstantiated material here
A lot of this article either has no citation or has citations that do not pan out when checked. The notes refer to websites that do not link to info about Frawley. Parts of the article about his difficult behavior and his relationship with Vance are unsourced, or cite a source that does not mention the claim being made.Argentine84 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Death
You can't die of a "fatal heart attack" if you die five days later. He had a heart attack and died five days later. A "fatal heart attack" kills you instantly. 2601:8C0:801:460:AC73:D436:916F:2BB5 (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

william frawley
was in Professor Beware 1934 with Harold Floyd 107.77.200.70 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)