Talk:Larry Keating

Birthdate

Two articles put Keating's age at death in 1963 at 67 years old, which would make his birth year 1896. Findagrave has a picture of his tombstone which reads 1899-1963, making him 64 when he died. And another article has him at 64 when he died in 1963.

• New York Times says he died at the age of 67
• L.A. Times says he died in 1963
• Findagrave says he lived from 1899-1963, with a picture of his headstone
• L.A.Times obit says he died at the age of 64, in 1963

Anyone with better sources to resolve this issue, please correct the article. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The LA Times IS considered a reliable source, and the grave corroborates it. It's far more unlikely that his family would get it wrong on his gravestone than that a newspaper would, given that its source could be no more reliable than the one for the grave. However, what matters is that from a Wikipedia point of view, the date listing can be attributed to a reliable source. The currently listed date fits the criteria. The source for the other articles wasn't anything carved in stone. 50.0.106.155 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

• • The New York Times is considered a reliable source as well. When you have 2 reliable sources that have contradictory information, just saying that one is a reliable source does not solve the problem. One thing that might resolve this would be to see if previous newspaper articles on Keating gave his birth date or age. Of course that might just show things are even more muddied, but it could help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Larry Keating in Mr. Ed 1961.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Birthdate again

A grave stone is not a reliable source. There are reasons people deliberately spread incorrcet information. The NYT and some other sources said he was 67, the LA Times and some other sources said he was 64. These alone go with 1895, 1896, 1898 or 1899 as the birth years. The grave stone is another source, but what were those making it basing it on? The evidence is probably a little weighed towards 1899, but for now I have gone with putting this article in Category:1890s births. A few examples like Gracie Allen, show the extent to which some mid-20th century entertainment figures created misleading and unworkable public information on their birth year. Some of that was deliberate comedy, but the official records saying she was born in 1902 are not squareable with her actually being in the 1900 US census, and her age of 13 in the 1910 US census, even considering how incurate the census was over time, is hard to square with her being born after 1900 as well. I am not sure that we can say 100% for sure when Keating was born. 1890s agrees with every single source, since no one proposes a date after 1899, and he could not have been even 64 if he was born in 1900. On the other end no one seems to have proposed he was older than 67 when he died, so that means no one is arguing he was born before 1895 at earliest. So I think 1890s is safe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)