Talk:Joel Surnow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
[edit] Criticisms
The Criticisms section is silly. If anything, it belongs on the 24 (TV Series) page. If you disagree or think it belongs here, I suggest it be cut back severely. Otherwise, I'll probably delete. 1Winston 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It's clearly motivated by a dislike of Surnow's politics, and that has no place in this Wikipedia article. I suggest the section be eliminated in its entirety.--TARDIS 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I eliminated the section per my assessment above. That section is already part of the 24 article anyway, where it's more relevant.--TARDIS 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many people have Criticisms sections on their pages. I merely summarized some portions of the New Yorker article. I notice that much of the info is on the 24 (TV_Series) page, and is redundant, but I see no reason to eliminate the entire section. The section was sourced and I don't feel it's libelous in any way. And I saw no mentions of politics in the section. I've reinstated it. I agree that some of the redundant info could be trimmed. I think the quote by Surnow and the quote by Tony Lagouranis are interesting. --Pixelface 09:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please. This page has been vandalized before, and this section was only placed (and kept) here by individuals who don't like Surnow's politics. The criticisms are of the show, and therefore, they belong solely on the 24 page, where they are directly relevant. The link to the New Yorker article at the bottom of the page is sufficient. If you want to keep the Surnow quote, then place it in the Career section and contextualize it as a response to the use of torture on his current series. But the entire section is unnecessary and too large for this biography as it currently stands.--TARDIS 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about Surnow's love for Joseph McCarthy? If I'm not mistaken, he said something along the lines of "McCarthy wasn't a bad guy, he was just misunderstood". I'll find a source to back me up on this. VTNC 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here we go: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer. From page 7:
VTNC 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)In recent years, Surnow and Nowrasteh have participated in the Liberty Film Festival, a group dedicated to promoting conservatism through mass entertainment. Surnow told me that he would like to counter the prevailing image of Senator Joseph McCarthy as a demagogue and a liar. Surnow and his friend Ann Coulter—the conservative pundit, and author of the pro-McCarthy book “Treason”—talked about creating a conservative response to George Clooney’s recent film “Good Night, and Good Luck.” Surnow said, “I thought it would really provoke people to do a movie that depicted Joe McCarthy as an American hero or, maybe, someone with a good cause who maybe went too far.” He likened the Communist sympathizers of the nineteen-fifties to terrorists: “The State Department in the fifties was infiltrated by people who were like Al Qaeda.” But, he said, he shelved the project. “The blacklist is Hollywood’s orthodoxy,” he said. “It’s not a movie I could get done now.”
- Please. This page has been vandalized before, and this section was only placed (and kept) here by individuals who don't like Surnow's politics. The criticisms are of the show, and therefore, they belong solely on the 24 page, where they are directly relevant. The link to the New Yorker article at the bottom of the page is sufficient. If you want to keep the Surnow quote, then place it in the Career section and contextualize it as a response to the use of torture on his current series. But the entire section is unnecessary and too large for this biography as it currently stands.--TARDIS 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many people have Criticisms sections on their pages. I merely summarized some portions of the New Yorker article. I notice that much of the info is on the 24 (TV_Series) page, and is redundant, but I see no reason to eliminate the entire section. The section was sourced and I don't feel it's libelous in any way. And I saw no mentions of politics in the section. I've reinstated it. I agree that some of the redundant info could be trimmed. I think the quote by Surnow and the quote by Tony Lagouranis are interesting. --Pixelface 09:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jewish parents
I don't object to a person being included in the "Jewish Americans" category. I question, however, the mention of "born to Jewish parents" in the second paragraph. Do other biographies,for example, routinely say, "So-and-So was born to Catholic/Episcopalian/Baptist/Muslim/ Presbyterian/B'Hai/Methodist/Buddhist/Hindu,etc. parents"? I don't think they do. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to mention religion within the biography if some activity, work, hobby or whatever—if known—is relevant to the person's religion or cultural background and is of significance in the person's life. If such information is not known, the person can still be placed in the appropriate religion or culture category. The mention of religious affiliation seems a bit gratuitous and odd. DonFB (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
