Talk:The Mary Tyler Moore Show/Archives/2013

Trivia section

Gone! I took care of it. Please let me know if I did anything wrong. I moved some stuff around and created a new category. Honestly, I am proud. Yup. Native Minnesotan. ronnycary 07:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Deal. Do You Want A Cookie For Being A Proud, Native Minnesotan? Too Bad, I Already Ate Them! In Correct (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I loved this site, Short but sweet. Told me just what I was looking for. THANK YOU!

season 2 on dvd

Q: Does anyone know when season 2 of the Mary Tyler Moore Show will be out on dvd?

A: Season 2 will be released in July 2005.

Mary's car

I have a question that I haven't been able to answer. I'm having to go on memory only. I need to know if Mary had a Mustang, Mack 1 - white! It was shown in the beginning of the show...........outside of her apartment, in the snow. If it could be posted what she actually drove.....that would be great....If it is a Mustang, then I now where my love for Mustangs began! Thanks, Linda

Yes, you have that right. It was shown in the first season opener - maybe a season or two after that too, but the whole bit of her driving her Mustang was in the first season opening credits. Moncrief 21:17, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

>Opening credits devised by Reza S. Badiyi show Mary departing from (the fictional) Roseburg, Minnesota, heading towards the Twin Cities in her white 1970 Ford Mustang.

from: http://www.jyanet.com/mtm/season1.shtml . See that site and click on different seasons' opening credits information for how the credits (and the use of the car) evolved. Moncrief 21:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The car is actually a 1970 Coupe, not a Mach 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.197.233 (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mary Tyler Moore Show

The name of the show is not Mary Tyler Moore. The syndicated reruns, the DVDs sanctioned by the production company, and the web listings are all in agreement on that, and so is the Complete Directory to Primetime Shows. Mike H 07:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't though. Cburnett 08:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

IMDB is edited by people, just like Wikipedia, and is subject to errors. Mike H 09:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The name of the show certainly is "Mary Tyler Moore," and voiceovers by the CBS staff announcer actually called it that, during the program's initial broadcasts ("'Mary Tyler Moore'... brought to you by..." "Because of the following special presentation, 'Mary Tyler Moore' will not be seen tonight") and if there's any further doubt, simply look at the title card photo posted with the article! The words "The" and "Show" never appeared at any time in association with the series. HOWEVER, it seems that people over time, including show co-creator James L. Brooks referred to it as "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," which has since become the norm, and was added to the program's video/DVD packaging which was the first "official" instance of that configuration. The point is, the show was called "Mary Tyler Moore" and became "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" in common reference after the fact. penpusher (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think this is a minor issue. It has always been referred to as "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." The only place it is different is in the opening credits, and even if that were originally intended as the name, it was not understood to be as such. During the show's original run, it was always "The MTM Show" and just because the opening credits were not changed, that doesn't mean that (possible) original name was still used. Personally I think it would be pointless and ridiculous to change the article's title. It is enough to simply say that in the opening credits "mary tyler moore" is shown rather than "The... Show." --Njsustain (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's name should be change for a very good reason: IT IS WRONG! John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I move that the article name be changed to "Mary Tyler Moore (1970 TV Series)"

• The on screen titles clearly say "Mary Tyler Moore".
• IMDB calls it Mary Tyler Moore. Yes, IMDB contains errors, but all submissions (including reviews) have to be moderated. IMDB is a site that is pretty much made by Hollywood, for Hollywood. ... instead of Wikipedia's structure that is similar to a site made By People, For People.
• The reason why people mistake the show is because there are idiots. Most of "civilization" are a bunch of idiots. They are also hypocrites. Do people call Roseanne "The Roseanne Show"?! Does anybody call it "The Roseanne Barr Show"?! Do they call it "Life And Stuff"?! NO! They call it by what is said on screen, which is "ROSEANNE". The name of the show on screen is "MARY TYLER MOORE".
• The Bob Newhart Show says on screen "The Bob Newhart Show". Mary Tyler Moore does not.
• What is said on the DVD does not matter. MTM Enterprises is a defunct company and did not release the DVDs. The people that made the DVDs got it wrong.
• Adding "The" and "Show" to the title is no different than adding color pictures of an all black-and-white show. Both methods are very misleading and Wikipedia should not support shady business practices.
• To be accurate, the actress Mary Tyler Moore was uncredited. And the show's title IS vague. All that is on screen is Mary Tyler Moore's name. It would be nicer if it said "The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Starring Mary Tyler Moore", similar to "The Dick Van Dyke Show, Starring Dick Van Dyke". But they never went back and Corrected this error. And neither should anybody else. Also, the Chuck Jones version of How The Grinch Stole Christmas omitted June Foray and Thurl Ravenscroft from the credits. But nobody is going to go back and edit their names into the screen. So people, just stop changing things. In Correct (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is not written by Hollywood alone. Much of the content comes from volunteers without any professional editorial oversight. IMDB has been discussed many times on Wikipedia and the consensus is that it is not reliable. For example, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96#IMDB.

Wikipedia policy on article titles generally prefers the commonly used name in reliable sources, regardless of whether the common name is the official name or not. For example, the article on Queen Elizabeth's country is entitled the United Kingdom, despite the fact that the country's official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

To me, it is clear that the common name in reliable sources. such as Time magazine and TV Guide, for Moore's show is The Mary Tyler Moore Show, not Mary Tyler Moore. Do you disagree about what the common name is? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good argument for the article being titled Mary Tyler Moore (series) and including a statement such as "also knowm as The Mary Tyler Moore Show" or perhaps "popularly known as The Mary Tyler Moore Show", but as with the content, the title should reflect reality, not popular misconception. John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In the last two paragraphs of my previous posting, I explained that the preference in Wikipedia policy is for the article to be called The Mary Tyler Moore Show. You replied that my posting was a good argument for calling the article something else. Please explain how your response relates to Wikipedia policy. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference removal

Article (Star Tribune) referenced for "costar" Hazel Frederick was erased (site says most articles are deleted after 3 weeks). Clarityfiend 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled

the music for the, Love is all around, seems to have two writers Reg Presley The other being Sonny Curtis, could anyone solve this puzzle regards

Last air date

The last original episode was aired on March 19, 1977, but the show was on CBS primetime in reruns until September 3, 1977. Shouldn't that date be considered the show's last? Opinions?

I vote for March. IMO, reruns don't count. Clarityfiend 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

article title

What's the source for the title "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"? The series title card reads Mary Tyler Moore. I would see this as the defining element in the name of the series, rather than the nickname people use for it to differentiate from the actress. I propose a move to Mary Tyler Moore (TV series) or some such similar disambiguate. —scarecroe (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence (most of it documented over at the related conversation on Muppet Wiki. It was the title used by MTM on all scripts, show tickets, in press releases, on every home video release, in TV Guide listings and articles (at the time and to promote its debut, not just retrospectives), in all Emmy submissions to the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (and thus it was the title used for the actual awards), and so on. In the 1991 reunion special hosted by Moore (Mary Tyler Moore 20th Anniversary Show), whenever the show is mentioned by name (they suually just call it "the show" or talk about "the experience" and so on), it's The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and the closing credits include a note that "The Mary Tyler Moore Show and its characters are fictional...." and so on. Music cues for the series are registed with ASCAP as Mary Tyler Moore Show Cues and so on. So it's not just a nickname. The on-screen title graphic, which also serves as Moore's credit, is the only exception, and so in this case, I think all the other evidence trumps it. -- Aleal (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to TV Land to Go ISBN:0684856158 "By the way, it is Mary Tyler Moore, and not The Mary Tyler Moore Show. The producers and Mary herself made that a distinct choice. They felt the latter title would imply the show was all about Mary, while the former implied the ensemble show they were creating." So the use of The...Show appears only to have been a promotional title. —scarecroe (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance through a variety of what would generally be considered reliable sources all style it as The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Even if the quote cited from TV Land to Go accurately describes the intention of the producers and Mary herself, it certainly does not reflect the reality of how the show is commonly known.The Museum of Broadcast Television, TIME magazine, TV.com and so on. older ≠ wiser 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely not just a promotional title. It was used on scripts, internal documents and things like the show tickets (which were *not* a means of promotion but the identification used by the studio and producers to determine how audiences for sitcoms taped live would be organized). The TV Land to Go statement is not a direct quote from anyone and no source. I'm working my way through a 1991 Mary Tyler Moore reunion (one of three such but the only one I have access to, and all differently titled) and so far, if they have to name it, Moore and the cast call it The Mary Tyler Moore Show. And again, there's the Emmy Awards which do *not* use promotional titles but those submitted by the producers or stars. -- Aleal (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew posted some hard visual evidence on the Muppet Wiki discussion linked above. I'm taking the move tag off this page. Thanks for the clarification! —scarecroe (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion amusing, but fascinating. See, I've never thought the show itself was ever titled. I've always assumed that the reason the opening credits say simply "Mary Tyler Moore" is because it's the credit for the actor herself. I mean, do you really need to say what the name of the show is if you've got Moore's credit at the front and the MTM Enterprises logo at the back? I think it's inelegant the way the announcer says, '"The Andy Griffith Show starring Andy Griffith". Well, duh. Who else is The Andy Griffith Show going to star? You can say one or the other, but do you really need both? I honestly think the stylistic choice here in the title sequence was simply to credit the actor and be done with it. It'd be cool to have some source to back that up, but if I were designing the title sequence, that's exactly the choice I'd have made. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE SOURCED. It is necessary because it is UNCLEAR what the name of the show's title is. Somebody gave a source on this talk page supporting that the name of the show is just "Mary Tyler Moore". Apparently the actress Mary Tyler Moore did not want to use the usual "The ... ... Show, Starring ... ..."

And so what if there are tons of companies and people that call it "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"?! They are all WRONG! Hollywood does not have any right to just change the name of a show just because they feel like it. AND TV.COM IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE.

In Correct (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bone Chilling Cold

Hey, I'd walk a thousand miles and back in the freezing cold up hill both ways for hyperbole, but describing Minneapolis in May as "bone-chilling cold" is a bit much.

Average early May temperature is 65 degrees F and while this day was unseasonably cold at 50, it was hardly bone-chilling. 12.202.209.46 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Premise Questioned

The first paragraph states the the "Mary Tyler Moore" show had "the first independent career woman as the central character." This is not so. "That Girl", starring Marlo Thomas as a single actress working in New York City ran from Sept. of 1966 until Sept. of 1971. Another program "Julia" starring Diahann Carroll as a single African-American mother and nurse ran from Sept. 1968 until March 1971. "The Doris Day Show" starred Doris Day as a widow and mother living near San Francisco (there were some changes made in the story during the shows run) and ran from Sept. 1968 until Feb. 1973. The Wikipedia article about this show discusses the effect of the new "Mary Tyler Moore Show" on "The Doris Day Show." These are just the ones I could remember off the top of my head. I loved them all. WLE68.46.251.36 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you! Yes, the Marlo Thomas character http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/That_Girl was under the wing of the Ted Bessell character, but the statement about MTM needs to be more nuanced! -- Laura Morland, my first contribution to WikiTalk, so I may be doing this incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.42.228 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The premise suggests this was the first woman independent not just that she was working, but that she was completely unattached. Though Mary dated sometimes, she was not under the wing, protection or shadow of a man. I admire the characters in the other shows, but I don't think they fit the bill. Ann Marie was clearly protected by Donald and her father. Julia was strong, but was a widow so not really in the same oevre. I don't remember Doris Day, but my understanding is the show's premise changed every year, so I don't think that was comparable either.Njsustain (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release speculation does not belong on this page

PLEASE do not put speculative release dates on this page. Put them on the DVD page for this show. Every other day different information comes out. When an editor actually has one in their hot little hand, that is the time to say that it has been released. Please, please, please stop adding information to this page about possible future release dates. This is an encyclopdic page about the show itself, not an advertisement for the DVDs. We have all been waiting obscenely long (longer than the entire original series run) since the first season was released, but please do not use this as a reason to put junk information on this page. --Njsustain (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Influence on pop culture demonstrates impact of show

There is no point in having a relevance flag on the "Cultural references and parodies" section within the article. This is a common section for TV show articles, and is especially apt for this show as it did indeed have a significant impact on pop culture for decades, which is demonstrated by parodies and references. Denying that these are relevent is nonsense... it's basically saying pop culture is irrelevent to pop culture, or that pop culture is irrelevant period, so why not just delete this and all TV articles entirely? Please. Requesting references for the text in this section is fine, but suggesting it is irrelevant is nonsense. No one commented on the tag (including the original tagger) since it was put up in 2008, so it was rightly removed and should stay removed.Njsustain (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If requesting references for the section is fine, then why remove the references flag?

As for the relevance flag, you're assuming that the flag meant that the whole idea of the section was inappopriate. If that were the case, there would be no use for a flag because the whole section could just be deleted. Instead, the flag noted that parts of the section are of poor quality. The current "Cultural references and parodies" section contains a lot of info that's too minor for a Wikipedia article, such as passing references to the subject. See WP:IPC.

In addition, your argument seems to imply that cultural references and parodies are one of the better ways to demonstrate the impact of the show on pop culture. It would be better to have discussions of the deeper ways in which this show influenced other shows. For example, how did the show impact the way that working women are portrayed on TV or how did the show's use of character-based storylines influence other shows? These deeper issues get obscured by long lists of very minor info. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so after a year and two months, could someone point out one statement in the section in particular which needs a reference or is of questionable relevance? It's fine to put up a flag to point out that the section is iffy, but as people have only been adding to this section (to my recollection... I don't really plan to do a dissertation level analysis) and no one has brought up any particulars, that isn't supporting the original flags. I don't disagree with the idea of using flags, but it is a lazy way of complaining, in my opinion, about the quality of the article rather than editing. After a year and two months, it's time to "(you-know-what) or get off the pot" as they say. If one thinks there are better ways of pointing out the impact of the show on pop culture, by all means go ahead. That doesn't mean that all other statements are not ways of pointing out the impact of the show, or are irrelevant.Njsustain (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is one statement of questionable significance in the section (and it's certainly not the only one of questionable significance). The quote from Romy & Michele's High School Reunion is a passing reference which says very little about the MTM Show and comes from a movie which isn't highly significant. According to WP:IPC, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." No such source has been provided for this quote.

You wrote, "If one thinks there are better ways of pointing out the impact..." No, it's not about my opinion. This is the Wikipedia-standard way of demonstrating cultural impact, as evidenced by MOS:TV and by the content of articles which receive the Featured Article rating, such as The Simpsons.

I would also say that the current "Cultural references and parodies" section goes against the fourth paragraph of WP:UNDUE. The current cultural section is the article's 2nd longest, and yet this section's content is not considered important enough to be in MOS:TV. --JTSchreiber (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Althought the MOS:TV shows an example of impact on Pop culture, that doesn't mean that is the only type of example which can or should be used. I also don't see anywhere else in MOS which indicates the MTM article is in violation (see the "what not to do" section). Further, the Simpsons article may be of featured article status, but that does not necessarily mean that its "impact" section is the exclusive gold standard, nor a key reason it became a featured article, nor that it is the only way to write (or size) such a section. Though the Simpsons does/had a large influence on pop culture, its popularity occured at a different time in a different type of media market... it had wide influence and the article could certainly suffer from too many examples easily. MTM's popularity occured at a time that allowed it to have a deeper though less wide impact on society. I feel that most of its examples show MTMs deep permeation into culture rather than the more widespread and superficial impact of the Simpsons. While that doesn't mean the section doesn't need work, claiming the whole section is of questionable importance is not the correct judgement in my opinion.

Regarding "Romy and Michelle", that is a classic example of the influence that MTM had on culture... that the use of the names "Mary" and "Rhoda" automatically conjure up an entire elaborate analogy of the personalities and interpersonal relationships between two women. If you want more references of that example it is fine to request it, but IMO it is a perfect and well known example of the show's influence.Njsustain (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the impact section in The Simpsons article was a key reason that it became a featured article. However, the impact section had to be FA (or near FA) quality. Otherwise, the article as a whole would not have received FA status.

I also never said that MOS:TV's examples are the only way of showing impact on pop culture that can or should be used. It is, however, the Wikipedia-standard way, and as such, it is generally preferred over other ways. While there can be exceptions, I see no need to make an exception in the case of the MTM Show, as MOS:TV-style and Simpsons-article style info is available for MTM. (MTM may not have created new words and phrases like The Simpsons, but it did impact other television shows in ways that are somewhat analgous to The Simpsons.)

You wrote that the "Romy and Michelle" quote is "a classic example of the influence that MTM had on culture... that the use of the names 'Mary' and 'Rhoda' automatically conjure up an entire elaborate analogy of the personalities and interpersonal relationships between two women." OK, but that's not at all what's in the article! There's no entire analogy in the article, just an argument over who's smarter and who's prettier...in one not-particularly significant movie...with no discussion whatsoever about what this might imply about culture in general. It would be entirely different if the article quoted a major TV critic as saying that the names "Mary" and "Rhoda" conjured up an elaborate analogy and there was a reference to back up the quote. Instead, what we have now is very weak. JTSchreiber (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with your assessment, and as there is no consensus, no additional comments from others, and no actual attempts to improve the article with edits, I ask that the flag not be created until such time as more opinions on the matter come forth.Njsustain (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's another opinion: Kill the trivia section. - 99.37.87.39 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, here are my thoughts:

On the list itself:

• Lists of trivia are discouraged in general, as documented by WP:TRIVIA. Try to rework this section into paragraphs of prose.
• Nothing in MOS:TV should be construed to encourage lists of random trivia, even under the guise of "impact on popular culture".
• These lists attract random additions from readers and tend to grow over time to encompass every show that did even the most minor spoof or mention of the subject. Prose requires a little more thought and discourages random additions.

On Sourcing:

• As WP:IPC points out, these popular culture references are often verifiable through primary sources. i.e. you want to verify it, you just go watch the episode referred to.
• When using primary sourcing, however, we must be very careful not to speculate or extrapolate a connection that may or may not have been intended. Doing so is original research or opinion. Statements should plainly document what the primary source said or did, without implying anything about deeper meaning.
• On documenting deeper impacts on popular culture... that would need secondary sources. Someone else needs to have noted that the MTM show had such and such an impact, and then we can report that they said that. This goes back to not publishing original thought. That said, such a deeper analysis would be much more appropriate than a list of trivia and is closer to what MOS:TV describes.

On Tagging:

• It's better to fix an article than tag it. I see no need to have a tag as a "warning" in a case like this. If there's a problem, find a way to fix it.

Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion! There is one part of your posting where I would appreciate a clarification. When you talk about lists of cultural references that "tend to grow over time to encompass every show that did even the most minor spoof or mention of the subject," do you have any guidance on how to determine which cultural references are significant enough to remain in a TV show's article and which are too minor to remain? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:IPC#Content is the primary guidance there. There is no black and white rule, but things like one off jokes and minor mentions should probably not be included unless those mentions drew third party commentary in reliable sources. Works that included the subject as a major theme would be more significant and could be included. Gigs (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been some errors introduced in the recent edits. I don't mean to remove your additions, but due to the errors I'm not clear what was meant to be where. Please re-edit carefully. Thank you.Njsustain (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's fixed now. I had made a fix for this yesterday and I thought I had saved it, but apparently all I did was look at the preview without saving. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Further Discussion

I removed the following references because they are not nearly as notable as the others that were left in, however another user reverted my edit since there "was no consensus." Most of these are anecdotal at best.

• A 1976 Saturday Night Live sketch had Ted Baxter, played by Steve Martin, unwittingly kill Mary Richards by pouring Drano in her coffee as a joke.
• On her 1995 debut album A Stranger to This Land singer-songwriter Barbara Kessler included a song entitled "Mary Tyler Moore", in which she sang about how she wished her life were more like that of Mary Richards.
• The Relient K song "Pressing On" from the 2001 album The Anatomy of the Tongue in Cheek contains a reference to the theme song in the last line, "We're on to something good here, and we're gonna make it after all."
• On The Simpsons, Marge's sister Selma gets her hair styled to look like Mary's circa the fourth season of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. In response to Homer's criticism, her sister Patty states, "Don't listen to him. You can turn the world on with your smile."
• On an episode of Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, Sabrina jokingly says she can "turn the world on with her smile", but then questions herself, saying, "Wait. That's Mary."
• UK sketch show The All New Alexei Sayle Show parodies the opening credits in its opening sequence, with Alexei Sayle dancing through the streets of London to the theme song 'Life's a Big Banana Sandwich'.
• The 45th episode of the animated series Animaniacs opens with a skit showing Dot going through strange situations to a parody of the song.
• MADtv featured a sketch based on the show set in the year 2003. Mo Collins played Mary, Frank Caliendo played Ted, and Paul Vogt played Lou; earlier in Season 2, MADtv featured a "lost episode" where Mary (Mary Scheer) admits she's a lesbian and Rhoda (Nicole Sullivan) is her lover.
• In an episode of the TV series Arthur, Muffy rides up an escalator and throws her hat in the air, while background music is playing that describes her, making a reference to The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Most of these are one-line or seconds-long VERY minor references to Mary Tyler Moore. Why should these specific references be included but the thousands of other sporadic references to the show in other media are omitted? "On an episode of Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, Sabrina jokingly says she can 'turn the world on with her smile', but then questions herself, saying, 'Wait. That's Mary.'" is merely trivia and fancruft – it is not indicative of the show's impact on pop culture. It's a one-liner. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

These are relevant, high profile examples, whether or not they are "one liners." While there doesn't need to be an endlessly growing list of every reference to the show that can be dug up, slashing and burning practically the whole section with the tired "XXX-cruft" excuse doesn't improve the article as there is now little or no demonstration of the show's impact on pop culture over the last four decades. Perhaps this section could be merged with the "impact" section to make something more coherent and reader friendly. Njsustain (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with Sottolacqua about removing the cultural references listed above. The Saturday Night Live sketch would probably have more detail about MTM than most of the others, so I would see that one staying in the article. As far as the one-liner cultural references, WP:IPC generally discourages the use of these and the third opinion above was to follow this guidance from WP:IPC, so please explain why you think that the one-liners here (such as the Sabrina example) are worth including. Please refer to Wikipedia standards if at all possible. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Njsustain, these are not relevant high profile examples. These are VERY brief references to MTM. An entire episode's plot revolving around something related to MTM would be a high profile reference. A character mentioning the name "Mary Tyler Moore" or being able "to turn the world on with her smile" in one sentence out of an entire show's dialogue is not a high profile example – it's an insignificant pop culture reference. "Clip Job," a season two episode of Duckman, contains a two-second soundbyte where Duckman morphs into Mary and exclaims "Mr. Grant!" before morphing into another television character. That reference isn't included here, but one line from a Relient K song – a group who has never even had a #1 song on the Billboard Hot 100 – is mentioned? Almost the entire list of "Cultural references and parodies" is indiscriminate trivia and random minutia. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's trivial fancruft. Mention that it's a recurring pop-culture reference and cite a few notable, high-profile examples (e.g. Rhoda) in paragraph form. Kill the "in popular culture" list; they're garbage magnets. - 99.37.87.39 (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Theme song as its own article

Per User:Njsustain's request, I'm initiating discussion on including the single infobox on the song "Love is All Around," which as issued as a single and made the top 40 of the Billboard Hot Country Singles chart. I think instead of debating the merits of including the infobox in this article, I'd like to know if the concensus agrees that the song itself merits its own article, where we can include the infobox as appropriate. The song was notable enough and became a part of pop culture; and I'm sure enough relaible sources exist that can back up the song's place in pop culture. I can see an argument made that "every theme song would need to have its own article," etc., but I think if we can limit our articles to those that were: 1. issued as singles and did well enough in at least one of the major three major charts (pop, country and/or R&B); and 2. were notable enough even without a single being issued or making the charts, we can keep such articles under control. Whatayathink? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)]]

I think that the entire opening of the show, including the song should be its own article. It deserves its own article, and is taking too much space on this page. A brief mention of the opening can be made somewhere on the page and link to the new article.Njsustain (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow — talk about taking the ball and rolling with it. Your idea is a good one, Njsustain, and I think it can be developed into a very good article. Still wondering about the song infobox's place in that article, if "Love is All Around" is included in a "MTM opening" article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)]]

If an article is created exclusively about the show's opening, then the box about the single would be more than just tangentially related, and could very well be included.Njsustain (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I had also been thinking that this section should be broken out into a separate article. The "7th Street and Nicollet Mall" subsection could then be copied into the new article, as this subsection is related to the opening credits only. After this copy is made, the new article would have three references to secondary sources, so it's notability would hopefully not be challenged. Also, the "7th Street and Nicollet Mall" subsection in the MTM Show article could be greatly condensed, since the Legacy in Minneapolis section is currently too long. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done The opening sequence is its own article now.

Briguy52748, feel free to add more sentences/references about the theme song, but I don't think that a song infobox would be appropriate for this article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening Title Locations

I agree that the scene on the highway with the Sheraton Bloomington is correct, (In fact, I believe that is the France Ave. overpass), the other location is not Highway 122 at Cedar. Noting the location of the Foshey Tower and the yellow "FREEWAY ENDS SIGNAL AHEAD" sign in the background, it is more likely an I-35W offramp going towards S 5th Ave near E 15th St. See Google map/street view: Garffreak (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Episode topics

I removed the following paragraph, however Njsustain reverted and is requesting a discussion here:

As in the successful All In The Family, in the third year of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, issues such as equal pay for women, pre-marital sex and homosexuality were woven into the show. In the fourth season, such subjects as marital infidelity and divorce were explored in characters such as Phyllis Lindstrom and Lou Grant, respectively. In the fifth season, Mary Richards refused to reveal a news source and was jailed for contempt of court. During the time she spent in prison, she met and befriended a prostitute who sought Mary's help in a later episode. For the sixth year, the show explored humor in death in the classic Emmy-winning episode "Chuckles Bites The Dust," juvenile delinquency, intimate marital problems, infertility, and adoption. For the final year, issues such as Ted Baxter suffering a heart attack while broadcasting the news, Mary Richards dating an elderly man, and Mary overcoming an addiction to sleeping pills were examined.

Mary Tyler Moore is in no way attempting to make the same social commentary that All in the Family did, and this comparison is not entirely applicable. The show was not exploring serious subject matter even remotely close to the level that AITF did, nor were these storylines "common" on MTM. Furthermore, the section is entirely wp:or. Discuss. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't simply "revert" it, as you simply deleted it. You are trying to disguise the fact that I edited the section (please see current version or history as applicable) to improve the article. I agree there was OR/opinion in the version you originally deleted, but that doesn't mean that the whole section simply being lopped off improves the article. While this or that in the text may not be entirely applicable, the section is in no way "entirely wp:or". These topics were discussed, and an edited version of this section (even if not exactly as I subsequently changed it) is not inappropriate, and is in fact necessary; a person wanting to learn about the show should be able to read a summary of some of the topics covered without having to read through all 168 episode summaries on another page. While the show wasn't exactly "All in the family," neither was it I Love Lucy or Three's Company or Laverne & Shirley... it was a show about adult lives, and sometimes covered adult topics involving adult problems and adult emotions. This wasn't entirely the crux of the show, but it is not "or" or "opinion" to show in this article that the focus of the show was not about getting stuck in elevators, tripping over ottomans, or getting hit in the face with a cream pie. Let's try improving the article through editing rather than through amputation. Njsustain (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disguise anything. Please stop assuming wp:bad faith whenever someone happens to edit something after you.

I'm attempting to remove a large paragraph of wp:or that makes the comparison that this television show had as much impact on sensitive topics as All in the Family did, which is not accurate or true.

Including a prostitute character in two comedic plotlines of two episodes is not something that sets this show apart from any other program during the era, nor does the discussion of divorce, adoption or marital infidelity. The episode in which Lars cheats on Phylis is not about dramatic character development and how infidelity can ruin a marriage; it's about the comedic situation Mary is forced into. The same can be applied to when Mary goes to jail for not revealing a source. The focus is not her standing up for the First Amendment...it's about the comedic adventure of a goody-two-shoes having to spend the night in jail. One episode's plot about death and black comedy is not an "exploration" of the subject. These topics were discussed on several shows. "Adult"/dramatic topics were not featured on this sitcom in any way outside of the norm for sitcoms of the era. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the entire paragraph is unsourced, and no published sources discussing this level of impact on television/culture (as presented in that paragraph) result from a Google search. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are the person assuming bad faith, and I am not the only person to have suggested so recently. As far as sources, the topics are from the primary source; your discussion and "proof" of your Google search is completely underwhelming and pointless, and is justification for nothing. You are attempting to use technicalities as a reason for cutting this section, but have not made any arguments as to why doing so would improve the article (see WP:Ignore all rules, and no I'm not the slightest bit interested in what an interpretation of that rule is or what aspects of it or other rules apply... I don't need lecturing to with a littany of WP "rules" being quoted... I'm interested on how changes will improve this article). If someone comes to this article, they want to know a little about what was covered in its seven years, and this is a succinct way of doing so. I am trying to compromise and move toward consensus, and all you are trying to do is justify your knee jerk reaction of haphazardly cutting, which obviously takes no thought nor effort. I'd be perfectly happy removing the comparison to All in the Family altogether, but suggesting that is the only part or point of the paragraph is inaccurate and just plain wrong. What are you suggesting other than continuing to insist, and devise excuses for justifying, your initial method of "fixing" the OR? You are basing the changes on YOUR opinion and conclusion,... in fact, does this sound familiar:

• " it appears I'm not the only one who thinks you're the instigator of this edit war, not to mention the complete lack of assuming good faith on your part. As if I don't care about the article I helped build? Did you even read the warning? It applies more to you than it does to me. LOL "

Yes, the show used these situations as devices for comedy... as did All in the Family... but it was still a topical show to an extent. This was an adult sitcom, and as with many sitcoms it uses current events as a plot device, that doesn't mean those topics were irrelevant. Your POV seems to be that you want to pretend this show was just comedy and nothing more, that the plot devices were utterly tangential and besides the point... well, that's not the case, the show didn't exist in a bubble. It wasn't pointless slapstick... I submit that in a good faith attempt to improve the article you may be (perhaps unintentially) pushing a subjective, non-neutral POV in which you are trying to hide the topics found in the primary source, and therefore have no justification for suggesting that this section must be deleted rather than edited. Njsustain (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem unjustifiably upset and perhaps have the impression that I am "attacking your work" based upon your accusation that I am "disguising" my edits with some ulterior motive. I'm attempting to use Wikipedia's stated policies to remove original research from an article. Presenting Wikipedia rules is not "lecturing" you. I'm using them to provide a basis and reference for my side of the discussion, and linking the rule within my comments helps those who are not familiar with them or are just joining the discussion.

Removing the reference to All in the Family accomplishes the point I am trying to convey—that this show is not specifically making a social commentary by referencing the adult situations or characters. I'm not pretending this show is "nothing more than a comedy;" I'm making a point that comparing this show's method of social commentary to that of All in the Family and saying they are similar is not accurate. Removing the AITF comparison also accomplishes your goal of providing a brief summary of topics portrayed throughout the program. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging of "episode topics" and "impact on television sections"

Njsustain merged the "episode topics" section into the "impact on television" section without providing a rationale. I strongly oppose this merge and have reverted it. I think that the merge introduces original research by making it sound like the episode topics had an impact on television. If there was such an impact, it needs to be documented with attributions and references.

The first paragraph contains "impact on television" information which is sourced and attibuted. The second paragraph contains "episode topics" information, which is neither sourced nor attibuted, and this second paragraph starts with "For example". This phrasing clearly says that the second paragraph expands on the first. Yet only two of these episode topics (homosexuality and pre-marital sex) are mentioned by the sources from the first paragraph, and the topics are not said to have made an impact. In the case of homosexuality, the topic is mentioned in a quote by Moore who makes it sound like her show was reacting to changing TV norms, rather than having her show impact the norms. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And can you please explain why you blindly reverted ALL of my edits? Inappropriate. I have restored it, included your "url=" edit, and also put the primary source topics before the secondary source evaluations of those topics, so that the episode topics stand alone initially rather than appearing to be WP editor "evidence" of the secondary source opinions, which seems to be what your beef was. Personally, I think it was a rather apt and obvious structure previously, but you have a valid point that it could nevertheless be construed as an editor making an opinion (however obvious) rather than a secondary source doing so. Still, there is no need to put them in totally different sections... that's not necessary and overkill. Njsustain (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did not blindly revert your edits. I oppose any structure that merges the two sections together, as any merge implies a relationship between the two topics and that is inappropriate. If you want to merge the "episode topics" section with something, I suggest the overview section. Both sections are related to the type of plot section mentioned in MOS:TV. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So, more specifically then, please explain why deleting my addition of Husker Du as a band which covered the theme song was necessary. Please assume good faith as well. Njsustain (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I took Husker Du out of this summary to condense the list, since they were not a very popular band. It's not that big of a deal. I had also been thinking about replacing the whole list of artists who covered the song with the Billboard ranking of the song, which seems more significant information. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidental justification for the edit that happened to be a 100% undo of my edit. Anyway there were, many, many other superflous things in the article that much more sorely needed "condensing," especially in the character section... some of which was repeated from the overview, and some which is miniscule detail covered in the individual characters' articles. I have made many edits, which I'm sure some people will have some disagreement with. Whatever changes people wish to make, please consider changing those specific things rather than doing blanket reverts.

The article still needs much more about the show's production. Also, more information about the opening sequence should be removed/moved to the separate article which was created for that topic. I left the character description for Mary blank because I felt her character was desribed adequately earlier in the article (the previous "description" was all production info, not a description of the character) but if anyone is so inclined to add an actual description of the character there I think that would be fine. Njsustain (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of discussing versions of theme song

The purpose of discussing the theme song is to show its significance. While almost all shows have a theme, this one had effects beyond the show. Its influence is seen not in its musical value, but as its representation of a beloved show. Sonny Curtis recorded the song as a single (its longer and different than the theme song) well after the show ended. It was later recorded by other artists of different genres because of the memory of the show, not because this was a particularly spectacular song. This is why it is discussed in the article, to show the notability of the theme song, the opening, and in turn, the show.

Regarding recorded/covered, anyone can "cover" the song by singing it in concert... that is not as significant as recording it for a single, album, or video release. Recording for release for sale is a more significant step and that is why that word should remain in the paragraph about the theme. Njsustain (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sue Ann description

I don't think the recent change to Sue Ann's description are appropriate:

• Georgette Franklin (Georgia Engel) (1972–77) is Ted's sweet but naïve girlfriend and eventual wife.
• Sue Ann Nivens (Betty White) (1973–77), host of WJM's The Happy Homemaker. Outwardly Sue Ann was cheerfully saccharin but this masked her true sardonic, lascivious, and promiscuous personality. She projected a sweet manner as The Happy Homemaker but was demanding and uncompromising when working on the show. She makes frequent jibes at Mary and Murray, and makes lewd remarks to Lou Grant, to whom she is sexually attracted.

This description has too many adjectives, the links are unnecessary, and it has an extremely judgemental/conclusive tone rather than a descriptive one. On the other hand, I think the changes to Georgette are taking away appropriate descriptions... she was *slightly* naive, not a buffoonish bimbo. I think the previous version of both should be restored:

• Georgette Franklin (Georgia Engel) (1972–77) is Ted's sweet-natured but slightly naïve girlfriend and eventual wife.
• Sue Ann Nivens (Betty White) (1973–77), host of WJM's The Happy Homemaker. Her demeanor is superficially cheerful, but she feels free to make frequent judgemental comments towards Mary, personal insults towards Murray, and obvious sexual double entendres, especially to Lou Grant, to whom she is particularly attracted.

I agree. Even changing sweet-natured to sweet is not quite right as they are not the same. I also think the description of Sue Ann is now too harsh. I would revert back to Georgette's original description, and I would change Sue Ann's original description slightly to: "host of WJM's The Happy Homemaker. Her demeanor is superficially cheerful, but she makes frequent judgmental comments toward Mary, personal insults toward Murray, and obvious sexual double entendres, especially to Lou Grant, to whom she is particularly attracted."

To sum up, I italicized the name of the show, I replaced "feels free to make" to "makes", and made "judgmental" and "toward" the American spellings because it's an American show.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. We'll integrate these into an "updated" revert pending any more comments. Njsustain (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For Sue Ann, I'd go with "While her outward demeanor is almost always superficially cheerful, off-air she makes disparaging comments about Mary, exchanges not so good-natured insults with Murray, and comes up with frequent sexual double entendres, especially to Lou, to whom she makes it quite clear she is strongly attracted." It's definitely a two-way street with Murray. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about Murray. However, I'd skip the "almost always" (the precision doesn't justify the wordiness). I'd also skip the "off-air" (comes out of nowhere and isn't really accurate anyway as she's cheerful on- and off-air), and I prefer judgmental to "disparaging".

So, here's another suggested wording: "host of WJM's The Happy Homemaker. Her demeanor is superficially cheerful, but she makes judgmental comments about Mary, exchanges personal insults with Murray, and uses sexual double entendres, especially to Lou, to whom she is particularly attracted."--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Off-air" comes after the comma, so it applies to what follows, not what precedes it. Also "especially around Lou" is more grammatical. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for all the input. I restored Georgette and wrote the following for Sue Ann:
  • Sue Ann Nivens (Betty White) (1973–77), host of WJM's The Happy Homemaker show. While her demeanor is superficially cheerful, she makes judgmental comments about Mary, exchanges personal insults with Murray, and uses many sexual double entendres, especially around Lou, to whom she is strongly attracted. Njsustain (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for taking the laboring oar.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why it's necessary to describe a fictional character as if you were trying to avoid a libel suit. The previous description of Sue-Ann as "man-hungry" was dead-on; to put it bluntly, she's a slut hiding behind a facade of sweetness. Her judgmental comments about Mary were often about Mary's lack of sexual attractiveness. And if I recall correctly, she eventually seduces Lou. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Title sequences/ song

The song form the title/ opening sequence Love Is All Around by Sonny curtis, was covered by many American/ Canadian punk bands at live shows in the 1990's. It was first recorded by Husker du, a 1980's punk/hardcore band form Minneapolis in their Eight Miles High/Makes No Sense At All [EP.]. Besides the band being from Minneapolis, the Mary Tyler Moore show deals with what became the main punk ethic "DIY", doing it yourself, going it a lone, which was the epitome of the entire series. Joan Jett recently seem to be covering the song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFyy3XB_3Y4&feature=related Husker Du - "Love Is All Around"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWQHhKrdtSA&feature=related Joan Jett & The Blackhearts: Love Is All Around (partial, live 2007 NYC)

I think this is good information to add ...as the title opening title sequence is so iconic, and will continue to live on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir, this should all be discussed at the article The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence to which there is a very prominent link in the "Title Sequence" section of this article.Njsustain (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

negative views

I've been watching Mary Tyler Moore reruns on Hallmark Channel, and am reminded of a number of things one might legitimately criticize. Though Mary Tyler Moore was unquestionably a significant milestone in American TV, it would be nice to have a few intelligent negative views.

By the way, anyone who's seen Network would never describe Lou Grant as "tough but lovable". Not ever. Lou is, in his own way, as lunkheaded as Ted Baxter. In spinning off his character to Lou Grant, he became a more-balanced, plausible, and sympathetic person. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

While it may be a good idea to have negative views represented, please keep in mind that such article additions must comply with WP:WEIGHT. Because this is one of the more critically acclaimed shows, any negative views will probably need to be very limited. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why Are These Pictures In Black And White?!

Every Episode aired in color, so there is no reason to have black and white still images. and I am almost positive that there are color versions of the promotional pictures. What is wrong with you bigots?! Do you have some prejudice against Color TV?! The black and white images on all the Mary Tyler Moore Wikipedia articles are biased and misleading. Get rid of all of those pictures. In Correct (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't unusual to have B&W promotional pictures for a series done entirely in color, many such pictures exist for Brady Bunch, for example. Still, you would think they could find some promotional photos done in color. John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 18:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)