Talk:June Lockhart

Comment

I find the statement that Lockhart was the only actor or actress to have starred in three hit series during the 60s to be implausible. Are we talking first-billed (she wasn't first-billed in LIS), second-billed, or what? Define "hit" series. However, off the top of my head, I can't come up with another actor to be in three shows ("hit" or near-hit, or not), though I'm sure there is. Sir Rhosis 04:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That statement is also an example of "lying with statistics". In that era, producers generally felt they needed at least five years of series episodes in order to be able to successfully syndicate the show and (in some, if not many, cases) make a profit. From that perspective, any series running less than five years could not be considered a "hit". "Lost in Space" ran only three years, and "Lassie" was a success before Lockhart joined the cast.

Indeed, the shorter a series runs, the more series a performer might appear in, a statistic one would hardly be proud of. This is an ultimately meaningless observation (who really cares?), and should probably be removed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthday

June Lockhart will be 82 years old on 2007-06-25—Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniethomas68 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

removing unsupported material

The following material seems unsupported (as well as strangely worded in this day and age):

"Lockhart is something of a free spirit, was known for driving around in a fire engine, and has been known to cohabit with boyfriends. One employer did not renew her contract when he found out about this." I have thus deleted it. The material needs to have a specific source and concrete facts if it is to be re-included in the article. Su 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the first part, with citation. The second part was added by someone else, and I have nothing to do with it. User:BruceDLimber—Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceDLimber (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the content (the bit about the fire engine) once again because you did not add a citation. Saying it wasTV Guide at some point in time is not a sufficient citation and that type of sourcing is not in line with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. That means we need information about the issue in which the article was featured along with page numbers, etc. Aside from the lack of sourcing, the content itself is unencyclopedic. Lockhart is notable for her acting career, not for being a supposed "free spirit". Pinkadelica^♣ 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cult?

I find the use of the word "cult" to be POV, likely from someone whose knowledge of Lassie and LIS is from reports and not first hand experience. Lassie was anything but cult - it was a mainstream ratings winner that survived the departure of its "human" star, lasted about 20 years, and won an Emmy and a Peabody. This was a significant show in the early history of television, not a "cult classic." LIS was closer to that - but even so, had moderately good ratings at the time, was notable for its cost in production, and is often credited (correctly or not) with helping to launch the more enduring Star Trek franchise. I'm removing the word "cult" consequently - that's a writer's POV unsupported (and probably unsupportable) by facts.Sensei48 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes photo is fair-use legal

14-Nov-2007: You might be wondering how such a real photo could possibly still be on Wikipedia: that top photo is described, within the article, as a "publicity photo" not an image identifying a person. The legal caption has been restored (after infobox was added):

Publicity photo of June Lockhart and Guy Williams
from 1965, for the sci-fi TV series  Lost in Space 
(note the silver spacesuits & red trim).

By treating and mentioned the image as a "publicity photo" (not just a picture of June Lockhart), the image meets the criteria for legal fair-use licensing. Few people understand fair-use licensing, so be sure the wording about a "publicity photo" is preserved. This concept could be quite difficult for some people to comprehend: the image is here as an example of a "publicity photo" not an image of June Lockhart. Comprende? -Wikid77 07:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Husband or husbands?

The article states, "In 1951, Lockhart married Dr. John Lindsay (a.k.a. John F. Mahoney)...." However, her IMDb bio page indicates these to be two separate men, that Mahoney, not Lindsay, was the doctor she married in 1951, that within a month of obtaining the divorce from Mahoney ("1 April 1959"), she married Lindsay ("April 1959"), and they divorced in "1972." Anybody got a better source for this? BTW, her "official site" has no bio material whatsoever. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody added this account to the infobox, which is good enough for me. I've altered the text to match. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm getting very tired of the individual who keeps removing material I've inserted into the article even after I gave the citation. Kindly have the courtesy to let it alone!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.51.96 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Twasn't I, but do you think that "according to a "TV Guide" article" is sourcing? Best read guidelines under WP:RS. At a minimum, you need to cite the volume, year, date, and page. Sensei48 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

'Twas not I either, however I agree with both Sensei48 and Tide rolls who did the removal. Sensei48 gives the minimum for inclusion, but I wouldn't even point you to WP:RS for a basis for the opinion, but simply to WP:CITE. That's really all I ask: As Sensei48 is pointing out, we other editors and readers need to be able to verify the info somehow, and there is this minimum for cited info (I thought we all learned this way back in grade school?). Note also that there's a really big banner at the top of this Talk page that says more about the issue. [Section refactored for chronological order] —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The fire engine claim sounds dubious but after looking for sources, I found two that appear to be reliable that state that Lockhart is an antique car buff and has owned a 1923 Seagrave fire engine. As for driving one, the only mention I've found of that online is what appears to be a Lost in Space fansite which mentions Lockhart drove to work in a 1913 antique fire engine. A fansite isn't considered reliable so it can't be used to source that particular bit. I could possibly see mentioning that Lockhart is an antique car buff or whatever, but the stuff about riding around in the fire engine has yet to be supported by a reliable source. Even with a reliable source, I'd have a hard time justifying its inclusion. IMO it seems like hokey trivia that would be better suited to IMDb. As for the non-conformist/free spirit content, that shouldn't be in the article at all. It's unenyclopedic and subjective which is the main reason I removed it once before. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Once again, some self-appointed censor keeps removing other peoples' posts from the text, even when a citation is provided for it! Kindly have the minimal courtesy to STOP DOING THIS!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.51.96 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, new comments go on the bottom of the talk page. You also need to learn to start signing your posts with four ~~~~. Second of all, you were told several times that the content needs a reliable source which you have failed to provide so this nonsense about a citation being provided is false. Considering you (your IP anyway) added the content two days ago and you already complained about it being removed two days ago, I've no idea why you're on about this again. Crying censorship is not going to make anyone here ignore Wikipedia policy. There's already a conversation about the content and its importance at the bottom. Try participating in that convo instead of attempting to shove unsourced trivia into the article repeatedly. Pinkadelica^♣ 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1) The material has been uncited and removed since at least early 2007, as the history here on the Talk page shows. (Note: Studying the article history is required to make the edit that got removed.) 2) It rises to WP:CENS (censorship) only when cited material is removed, not uncited. 3) It's a BLP (Biography of a Living Person); (rather depressing and onerous) standards exist and apply; please see WP:BLP if the banners at the top of this page and the article page aren't enough to get your attention. 4) It would be nice to have the info in, all that is needed is a properly cited source, which for well over two years (at least) hasn't been provided. 5) Pinkadelica, I'd love it if you remember to say "please see Talk" in your edit summaries (sorry, this is one I've forgotten, too, I'm sure). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the content was added in August 2006 by an IP who was later blocked for unrelated vandalism. That initially made me doubt its validity, but as I stated in another section above, the content seems to be somewhat true in that Lockhart did own an antique fire engine at some point. As for its inclusion, I stated my opinion on that in the above section as well. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

I seem to remember June Lockhart making an appearance in a single episode of the Roseanne show. Probably should be added to the list of works. This appears to be missing from the list of works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.68.226 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"mom on Lassie"

The following is garbled.

"She replaced actress Cloris Leachman, who, in turn, had replaced Jan Clayton - who had originally played the role."

If by "role" you mean "the actress playing the mother on Lassie", then they all played the same role.

But Jan Clayton played a different character. Cloris Leachman was the first to play Ruth Martin. She was so disliked by viewers she was replaced by June Lockhart. (My reaction to her and Jon Sheppod was that they looked like criminals.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll fan

According to castmate Billy Mumy, she was a big fan of rock music - even carried a photo of David Bowie (!) in her wallet in 1980. Hired Hourglass (pre-Allman Bros) to play at a party of hers. 50.111.11.25 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hammond Hall

I am Mark Emerson in Los Angeles. I added Ms. Lockhart's Hammond Hall school attendance based on the following facts personally known to me. First, my mother, Ann Dodge Emerson (b. 1927), received a scholarship to attend Hammond Hall for the 7th and 8th grades. She told me the story since my childhood that, while there, she knew June Lockart, who was two years older and had taught my mother to swim in the Hammond Hall pool. Second, in the early 2010s, I attended a performance of the Los Angeles Lawyer's Orchestra at Disney Hall, at which Ms. Lockart was an honored guest. After the performance, I approached the stage and introduced myself to her, explaining that she had taught my mother to swim at Hammond Hall. Ms. Lockhart lit up and asked for my mother's name, to which I replied, Ann Dodge. She replied, "I remember Ann Dodge, with the big brown eyes. Is your mother still with us?" I replied yes. Ms. Lockart then stated, "I always fancied myself to be a swimmer." She then asked me to tell my mother hello, which I subsequently did. My mother did NOT attend Westlake.

The edits were reverted for the most basic and important stricture for edits on Wikipedia: they are not supported by a reliable source. See WP:RS. Personal experience is never acceptable as a source here. If you wish to restore the Hammond Hall edit, you will need to find a reliable 3rd party source that supports the assertion.Sensei48 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

On May 12, 2023, Chikara2100 added a statement that June Lockhart was in a single episode of Battlestar Galactica (2004). However, June's IMDB page lists no such credit. Is there any evidence or citation to support this statement? If not, should it be removed? 2603:3023:1AF:4900:494D:8C3B:803D:2117 (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)