Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Casey Kasem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kasem is not retired

[edit]

If he is still voicing characters, even if it's one, then he's still an active voice actor he may have intended to official retire but obviously he hasn't so until he stops voicing completely it should remain as "1969-present" due to this as it is part of his career. JamesAlan1986 20:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is retired, in fact sadly as of April 2014 Mr. Kasem is on his deathbed (From Parkinsons) and there has been in recent years specifically starting in 2013 an ongoing feud between his elder children and his Jean who refuses to let them see their father. This has gotten so bad in fact that the children have filed for conservatorship to take care of him. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Personal Life Section

[edit]

First I feel the ongoing dispute between his 2nd wife and Casey's children should be in a separate paragraph than the one detailing his family. I say this because the spat is separate from his previous marriage, and doesn't have any mention of the child he had with his 2nd wife (i.e. clearly its a new thought or idea and if one were writing a biography or article about them they would have it separate).

2nd The fact that the feud going on involves only people with the last name of Kasem, it makes no sense for any of them to be referred to as Kasem upon second reference. It looks like lines were taken directly from the articles they provide as references, which means the original lines probably were in line with AP Style in the original articles but wind up becoming confusing when grouped together with other lines. The whole concept behind using only one name upon second reference is to cut down on word count, and to make it easier to understand who the writer is talking about. Last names should only be used if it is clear who they are talking about (i.e. story is about 2 people with different last names, or you refer to one (usually more famous/well-known) person by their last name and the other one with a similar last name by only their first name). You can't get away with this style of writing when you glob together various lines from different articles, because you wind up referring to people by their full name, then reference them by their last and then return back to their full name, its very disorienting for the reader (if there was only one Kasem you could get away with that, but there are multiples in this case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.6.239 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section feels overweight

[edit]

There's a tremendous amount of material about the last six months, and while his health has been a well-discussed topic, I'd ask editors to consider keeping in mind both a sense of due weight, and care in discussing living people, both he and his family. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm in agreement that there's a bit much in the Personal Life section concerning Casey's declining health and the ongoing feud between his wife and his oldest children over his health care (and final days). Much of this material will very likely need to be deleted, or significantly summarized, upon Casey's passing. Please keep in mind WP:NEWSBRIEF as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

[edit]

Match first marriage data with IMDB, and include end of second marriage: spouse =

Linda Myers
​
(m. 1969⁠–⁠1980)​

(divorced)

​
(m. 1980⁠–⁠2014)​

Snbx (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:RS/IMDB. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Please express the change you want to make in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and provide reliable sources for any factual changes. IMDB is generally not a reliable source. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs ``end-of-life-care replaced with blue-lit ``palliative care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.176.106 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small military detail request.

[edit]

Does anyone know what was Mr. Kasem's rank when he was discharged from the Army?

STrRedWolf (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information missing and some information overly repeated

[edit]

There is not enough information for this bio: 1: Does not talk much about parents 2: Does not talk much about his military and ending rank 3: Does not cover much about his life style and health chose and his marriages.

Repeating information: It seems to me that the author talk over and over about our beloved DJ's hit countdowns, voice overs, and TV/movies in many sections of this articular.

Please take more time in writing and in your research. Casey deserves your best, a job well done is a job worth doing!

--108.120.187.27 (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Richard M.[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit. Perhaps you can help us improve this article yourself? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name spelling

[edit]

Numerous reliable sources list the subject's birth name as either "Kemal Amen Kasem" or "Kemal Amin Kasem". A survey of four sources:

  • The New York Times uses Amen in two articles (1, 2), and Amin in one article (1). It also uses "Amin" in a third-party database from All Media Guide that they include on nytimes.com (example).
  • Los Angeles Times has no articles that contain either version, but uses Amin in a database entry in a web project they call Hollywood Star Walk; I would not assume it was subject to their normal fact-checking process.
  • The Washington Post uses Amen in one article (1, listed as a "style blog"), and Amin in two articles (1, 2, both written by the Associated Press this week rather than the Post).
  • The Chicago Tribune uses Amen in one article (1), and Amin in two articles (1, 2; 2 was written by Variety, not the Trib).

A Google Books search shows 13 books use Amen, and 8 books use Amin. None deal with the issue of there being two popular spellings.

I don't think there's likely to be a definitive resolution to this unless someone tracks down a birth certificate, just arguments based on truthiness where people cite arbitrary facts to prove their case. ("One has more Google results than the other", "Fox News uses Amin and they're fair and balanced", etc.)

One approach is dropping the middle name. If one spelling is listed, I think both need to be listed, one way or another, and any approach I can think of is ugly:

  • Tack on "(some sources spell his middle name Amen)" to the end of the first sentence.
  • Kemal Amin (or Amen) "Casey" Kasem...
  • Kemal Amin "Casey" Kasem (listed as Amen in some sources)...

Agyle (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and now we're back to "Amen" in the article, based on this image of the death cert in this article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegans

[edit]

@Graham87: Is there a particular policy you can cite that prevents adding List of vegans to the See Also section? Before reverting, I verified that he was, indeed, not just a vegan, but an activist. Also, there is plenty of precedent for its inclusion in that section. From a list of links to List of vegans, I looked at each of the bio articles and they either had the link there or had the {{Veganism and vegetarianism}} navbox with the link in it. Examples of See Also links:

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: His veganism only gets a *paragraph* in this article ... it's only tangentially relevant to his notability, and it's undue weight to highlight in an entire section that generally isn't found in comprehensive articles. I've removed it from the articles you've cited where this is most strongly the case. See my user talk page for more discussion about my removals of see also links like this. Graham87 03:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: If his veganism gets a whole paragraph, which is about right since he was an activist, not just a guy that quietly doesn't eat meat, that says it is notable. Like you, I (and I'll bet lots of people) didn't know about it until I read it here, and then in the source. That doesn't mean it wasn't notable – just that we didn't spend time reading about the politics and activism of celebrities.
As far as List of vegans taking up an entire section being undue weight, it's a perverse solution to cut it. The solution is to add more links to other things. 100% of 1 being 1 doesn't have much meaning, other than the mathematical truth. It's like saying "100% of those surveyed..." when you only survey 1 person. I'm sure there's a name for this particular logical fallacy. Anyone?
As far as the purpose of a see also section, it explicitly is for tangential exploration:
"The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."
By their nature, I suppose you could call bio articles "comprehensive", and I've shown that they are routinely found. I think I went through the first 7 or 8 links to bios from that list of 253 links to List of vegans to find the 5 cited above (the other 3 had the navbox, removing the need).
Isn't it kind of WP:POINTy to perform similar edits on my examples while we're still discussing it? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit) and you're having a similar dispute with @Randy Kryn: at your talk page? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Randy Kryn here. Graham and I and a couple of others had a go-round because I added "List of vegans" to the See also's of everyone on the "List of vegans" (it took a good part of two days because I spent lots of time verifying and other reading on the lists, although lots of them went quick). Then, although I'd suggested a couple of pretty good compromises - adding the list to the See also of people who went out of their way to advocate or be publicly vocal about their diet, which maybe a majority of vegans on the list do - Graham removed every one. Hundreds of them. What was the benefit for readers of having the See also list? Look at the daily viewers of the "List of vegans". In the few days the See also's were up there were approximately 1,000 people a day who found the See also listing interesting enough to click on it. About a 250 to 300 percent increase of views a day. The reason I did the See also run was because in the 1990s (BW - before Wikipedia) I had an interest in seeing such a list. The ones I'd seen were just the same old tired names (Carl Lewis had his day in the sun). So when I found the list here many years ago it was nice to check in on it every year or so. I'd always thought it would be nice to include it in See also's, but my editing went in other directions, and it seemed a lot of work. This time, when my mind was wandering on what to do next, I thought "Ok, since nobody else is doing this, I'll do it", and then was surprised at the huge amount of interest it generated, both in additional readers and in the counter-effort of other editors who wanted the See also listing gone. It seems my action may have been caught up in something which I knew nothing about - the residual flack from the removal of Vegan and vegetarian categories last year - and editors may have thought I was trying to circumvent that. Nothing further from the truth. I didn't know about it. It just seemed time to do it. So is there some way of putting them back by going through channels (the English, to start with, channel that is)? There are an extra 1,000 people a day who seem to have an interest (and isn't it fascinating how views of a page almost always seem to be the same number of people a day? That should be a study in its own). Thanks for bringing this up, and please check out the number of views in the history of "List of vegans" (I only did a few "List of vegetarian" See also's when the listings were stopped and reversed). Block of print ended, Randy Kryn 11:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one paragraph in a two and a half thousand word article is really that much, but your mileage may vary. Another consideration I think should be made is: will the average reader of an article want to read the links posted in the see also section, and would the link in the see also section have more functionality than a wikilink in the body of the article? In this case I'd answer no to both questions, because anybody interested in veganism should really click on the "vegan" link in the "Personal life" section. I probably hate see also sections more than most, but here's one I like: Nix v. Hedden; all the links there are ones a reader is likely to want to visit after reading the article. Graham87 11:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no knowledge of any prior controversy until Graham pointed me to it, either. I have no opinion on veganism, one way or the other. As I said above, if someone was activist in their belief, it's reasonable to think people might want to read more about the subject when they discover that in the article. Whether that is better accomplished through just the inline link in the prose seems to have already been answered for us by WP:SEEALSO. If that policy is desired to be changed, then fine, let's discuss that with a wider audience, no?
FWIW, I'd suggest a link to the vegan article, not to the list. This still seems better than the added weight of a whole Navbox on the subject. Other links might be appropriate for the See Also section, too, covering liberal politics, Lebanese Americans, Arab-Israeli issues, end-of-life issues, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the extra one thousand people a day who found the link in the See also's quite useful is proof of the pudding. I usually look at See also's, it's one of my favorite sections of pages, and apparently is for lots of others. Graham, can't we do that compromise, to put the link in the see also sections of those vegans and vegetarians who are advocates and activists? Lots of them are, especially the vegans, who have to really be dedicated to keep to that diet (they can't eat almost any candy, cookies, or cakes, which are my downfall when I fall off the wagon). It seems a good everybody-happy compromise. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure ... everybody who is closely enough linked to veganism activism should have the {{Veganism and vegetarianism}} navbox on the page, negating the need for a see also entry. Responding to other points raised previously, the "vegan" article is already linked in the body of the "Casey Kasem" page, and "As a general rule, the See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". The guideline also says: "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I've sought more opinions about this dispute at the talk page for the layout guideline. Graham87 02:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Why is the added size and overhead of a navbox a better solution than a single link? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: It's not; I was just saying that we can't have a see also entry and a navbox linking to the same place, per the layout guideline. Graham87 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a note about this at WT:LAYOUT.
It seems to me that we have this BLP because he was a disc jockey and actor, not because he's an activist. It doesn't even say that he was an activist: There is one sentence that he held these views, plus one sentence saying how his personal beliefs affected his acting career. Given that, I'm inclined to omit the link to the list. Based on the text, there would be more justification for linking to a "List of Lebanese-Americans" or "List of political activists", and even greater justification for a link to the List of voice actors.
Having shared my opinion, I'd like to say that what you really need here is consensus, based on common sense and editorial judgment, not "rules". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A link to 'veganism' is different than 'List of vegans', which shows the reader more people who are active in the same 'cause' that he was. And the 'List of voice actors' seems reasonable as well, that sounds like an interesting list. I think if the list has relevance to the page, and would be of interest to readers (and 'List of vegans' certainly proved itself to be before it was removed from hundreds of 'See also' listings), what is the real harm or infraction? Randy Kryn 12:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: It may not say it directly, but supporting those causes and the story about quitting Shaggy for seven years in support is pretty clear. If that isn't enough, the source should be:
"In many ways, Kasem was a political activist first and a radio personality second. According to a 1990 report, he devoted 'four days a week to political and humanitarian causes' and just one to his radio show. He was also an anti-nuclear activist and an advocate for the homeless." from Casey Kasem’s Secret Legacy: How He Used Scooby-Doo to Advance His Values.
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight is determined by what the sources pay the most attention to, not how many days a week the subject spent on something at one point in his life.
Randy, I strongly favor a link to Veganism in the text to help people who don't know what it is, regardless of any other considerations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid legitimate?

[edit]

The source for Kasem's burial in Norway is from a tabloid. Is Wikipedis really allowing this as a legitimate source now? Just another reason why Wikipedia has frustrated me enough to stop being a regular contributor. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future semi-protected edit request

[edit]

In the near future new editors will be coming here since there's a burial issue and some gossip might spread among unregistered users. In the case of a new development of Kasem's burial or sadly any more family feuds I recommend having a semi-protected edit request at the time it happens. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casey Kasem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casey Kasem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Casey Kasem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casey Kasem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration to Filmography listing

[edit]

In the TV filmography section, you have Mr Kasem as a voice only artist in the Quincy, M.E. episode "An Unfriendly Radiance" whereas, in fact, it was a live action role. I've just watched it, and it's definitely him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:684C:0:DDD8:FE87:BEFD:948D (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting his name In Arabic.

[edit]

Kasem was an advocate for Arab-American rights throughout his lifetime. Shouldn't we add his name in Arabic?76.187.211.251 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this part, though its inclusion has been disputed (looking at the edit history) and needs to gain WP:CONSENSUS - unless there is a guideline or policy prohibiting it altogether (I'm currently not aware of any prohibition of this content). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Planets

[edit]

He voiced "Mark". Notably, there is an in-joke in the first episode where Princess says "Two heads are better than one", to which Mark replies "Not on the same body." Drsruli (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's his primary role - voice actor or disc jockey?

[edit]

There seems to be dispute about what his main role was in his life, with back-and-forth changes to what's listed first in the lede and infobox. I think arguments can be made about both voice actor and disc jockey. He was well known for voicing various roles in animated shows, most notably Shaggy in the Scooby Doo series, but his being a disc jockey and/or radio/television personality is not any less known, including his hosting the American Top 40 and Casey's Top 40 pop music countdown programs. For a long time, the disc jockey role has been first, but recent edits by IPs have shifted to his voice acting role. I don't know that there's a need to switch the primary role and this is why I'm bringing this up on the talk page: to discuss this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think actor should go first as the most well-known role, because disc-jockey seems like a small-time gig by comparison. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two popular, nationally-syndicated radio programs were hardly "small-time gigs". Perhaps millennials only know him as a voice actor, but the primary reason for his notability was his status as "America's DJ". General Ization Talk 03:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding his primary reason for notability. If someone could look at this article and come away thinking that "American Top 40" and "Casey's Top 40" which ran collectively for almost 40 years were but "small-time gigs" for a renowned voice actor, then I think the article doesn't sufficiently indicate notably where it ought to. We should probably make that clearer in the body of the article, but for the time being, at the very least it should be clear in the lead. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casey_Kasem&oldid=1194906218"