Talk:Martin Landau

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  departure from mission impossible 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ok, if your good with footnotes that is a good idea. ta. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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's Wraith (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Turning Down the Role of Spock 

message: :::::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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Is the  career photo better than  the 2010  event candid for the lead? Discussion above. --Light show (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: --Light show (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is four years ago actually recent? MarnetteD | Talk 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: --Light show (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: RfC: Is a career image better for the lead?

message: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: RfC discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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|Talk 01:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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|Talk 05:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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|Talk 14:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cause of death

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did Martin Landau smoke?