Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:30, 6 July 2009

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

I semi-protected the article, but I'm clueless and don't know what template I'm supposed to add or what else it is that I'm supposed to do. :(--Jimbo Wales 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it semi-protected

I see no reason to unprotect it, because I see every reason that the same troll will come back and do the same thing again.--Jimbo Wales 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like user:SlimVirgin added a banner saying this article is sprotected but it also looks like the sprotected was removed a few days ago, I was going to remove the banner but I confused about what has happened. --Chinakow 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales semi-protected it again today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place to raise a general policy question, but do we really need to have a template on every semi-protected article? This article serves as a good example -- it isn't controversial at all, it isn't likely to need a lot of attention from anons (a somewhat famous actress but not like a major major superstar level of fame), and we know that there's a vandal waiting to vandalize if we un-semi-protect it. The template makes it seem like it's more controversial than it actually is. (To my knowledge, it isn't a controversial article at all.)--Jimbo Wales 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the right place would be WT:SEMI. Basically, it seems like we have a situation here where we are already keeping this article protected against policy — semi-protection is explicitly "not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized", and articles are not supposed to be permanently semi-protected. That said, I'm in the camp that says you can do whatever seems best to you, Jimbo. I would suggest leaving some tag on it, but maybe customizing it to be more applicable to the situation here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion be continued at Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy.

Here's a thought to take with you: A group of people band together and vandalise a random article. At this point, we could semi-protect it, at which point the vandals would be free to move on to another article. We could never unprotect an article, because the vandals would quickly notice and return. In the end, this would create an ever growing set of articles that are constantly semi-protected, defeating part of the purpose of Misplaced Pages.

In my opinion, this deserves discussion. But not here. -- Ec5618 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You raise a very good question, what is the purpose of Misplaced Pages? Hall Monitor 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to answer Jimbo's question. I monitor the protected pages list. Without the tags, it's almost impossible for me to keep that list current. --Woohookitty 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm working on the assumption that we're following Misplaced Pages policies, but I do believe Jimbo does get some sort of "veto" power. Permanent semi-protection is not an option. If it's one dedicated vandal, block his IP. If he uses multiple ips to sustain a major attack on the page, semi-protect it. But it still should be removed regularly to make sure there is a current threat level to the page. Just my two cents. --kizzle 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to actually semi-protect it? Don't we have access logs so we can contact the ISP and do other things at the vandal's end? Titoxd 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist and will correct any vandalism as if it comes in. - SVRTVDude 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

possibly useful link

Pauley helping with a real life murder case

Galaxy Quest?

I could have sworn Ms. Perrette in the movie Galaxy Quest. She played one of the aliens in human form as I recall. If I'm right, I think this should be added to her credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.186.228 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope ... that was Missi Pyle as Laliari in Galaxy Quest (although do they resemble each other. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Selected filmography

As per Misplaced Pages is not a collection of lists, I have reduced the Filmography section of Pauley Perrette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to just the films that have Misplaced Pages articles, and renamed it to Selected filmography ... people can click the IMDb External link that follows the section to see the subject's full filmography with links to information about each of their films.

Please see the template's talk page for examples of using the {{Imdb name}}, {{Imdb title}}, {{Tv.com person}}, and {{Tv.com show}} templates.

I have also used ] tags for the years of the films, since ] has little encyclopedic value.

Anonymous edits without comments may be reverted by anyone.

I am placing this boilerplate message on this Discussion page before I actually make the changes, so that I can just put "see Discussion page" in the edit summary, and hopefully not have my edit summarily reverted as vandalism by Some Other Editor. Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}

It's not vandalism :), but a complete filmography is better. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lists of works), "Complete lists of works are encouraged". Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole sentence is: "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." - Misplaced Pages:LOW#Basic list style - examples (my emphasis). -- Jeandré, 2008-11-02t08:53z

Well, I certainly wouldn't presume to prune the current version of the list ... at least it has the verasimilitude of looking encyclopedic, and not just a copy&paste from IMDb ... I mean, this version was just plain coyote ugly! :-)

BTW, I would appreciate any feedback or comments on the {{Selected filmography}} template, e.g., would you use it or not? — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked for quite a while on that. I'd note that one of the ongoing projects in WP:FILMBIO is to convert lists of films to tables, which allow for more detailed information on the film appearances. I'd discourage anyone from trimming a listing like that because at some unknown point, all the filmographies will hopefully be converted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about the 2008-10-30 version of the list ... if that had been a redlink farm (because either a bot or a Very Patient editor just linked all titles), and the redlinks outnumbered (correct) articles (some link to the wrong subject), then would you still want to keep it? — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A straight yes or no response would be yes. However, that isn't the whole answer. If you'll note on your example, there were 14 unlinked titles out of 36, when it was compiled. The editor was careful when he or she compiled the list. The long answer would be that I would consider each title that had no article on its own merit, and likely unlink the older, more obscure titles but still list it. Since those appearances are listed elsewhere (IMDB for example, which is considered valid for roles and appearances), I'd consider them valid, and in general, there is more available on the appearance (role played, etc.) that would be included in the tabled filmography. For recent films, I would leave the red link, with the view that new films will likely have articles created. They are a part of the actor's body of work and are valid inclusions. Omitting a role for whatever reason tends to be a bit of a POV choice. Because an article hasn't been created yet for some production doesn't mean it isn't notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... {{Selected filmography}} is a creation of my evil twin, born of frustration over redlink farms by copy&paste newbies, and I would often just tag them as Blatant copyright infringement. ... if nothing else, (a) it can be used to start a dialog, and (b) this time it led to my creating {{TV Guide person}} and moving {{TV Guide show}} to match the pre-existing naming convention. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Anyone have a free image? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources.

Is E! Online a reliable source? It looks like a tabloid. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t07:29z

Since the information is coming to E! by way of CBS News (a very reliable source) and since E! is an American Television network, I think it is reliable. Add away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 07:39

Age?

The source places her at 39 years old, but is Hollywood.com really a reliable source for this info? I haven't been able to find anywhere else that lists a DOB, so I wonder where they got their info. It just seems a bit shady to me. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The same information could be found at imdb.com. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 3, 2009 @ 06:31

IMDb is not a reliable source for biographies. While it's filmographies are usually not challenged, the only thing reliable on IMDb is screenwriting credits for USA productions because it comes from the Writer's Guild of America. Even then, the WGA's official credits sometimes have very little to do with reality. I'm removing the age until a non tabloidy source is provided. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t07:23z

I readded it as this has stood for some two years without problems. Please actually look for a "non tabloidy" source before removing the one we have and have had. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 07:31

"poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -- wp:blp, -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t14:45z

Excuse me, but since when are birthdates and birthplaces contentious material? You are really over-stating that. Just what sort of source would you find acceptable for a birthplace and date? The quote regarding IMDb biographies is about actual biographies written by users, not about something as simple as a birthdate. And no, you are wrong. IMDb is considered reliable for screen credits which are noted as complete, because they are verified. You are out of line in removing a birthdate and place. If that is the case, you have what? 100,000 or more birthdates to remove because the majority of birthdates for actors come from that source. Please don't take things to the extreme. If you doubt a birthdate, then put a {{verify source}} or {{cn}} tag on it. Don't completely remove it. That's excessive. Wildhartlivie Talk 15:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

" Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." -- wp:v. "IMDb not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." -- Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples. "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" -- wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t22:05z

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How can you say that a source that has stood for 2 years with no problem isn't realiable?

Now, I am going resource with IMDb....and that will settle things. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 23:21

How long something stays on Misplaced Pages is not necessarily related to reliability - some libel on BLPs have lasted for very long periods, e.g. Seigenthaler incident. Also, as Misplaced Pages has matured the requirements for sourcing has changed . -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:55z

Please do not quote policy to me, I know the policy quite well, thank you. But since you have, let's get the entire portion from Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples that you quoted: Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. Let me repeat: Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. It does not say that everything else on IMDb is questionable and to claim so is erroneous. Again, do you consider a birthdate or place of birth contentious or a source for liable? If you are not claiming that a birthdate or place is contentious, then you have no grounds to remove it. She's 39 years old, she's worked in television and film since at least 1994, how young do you think she would be? You have never said that you challenge the birthdate on grounds other than it is not cited. Again, if that is the case, then you need to get busy removing nearly all the birthdates on actor biographies (as well as other biographies) because the majority of them are not sourced. And again, you are being unnecessarily obstinate about this particular birthdate. You have rejected outright any source for this birthdate, which is unreasonable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See the comment at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IMDb for BLP info?. Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources also states "One exception being that certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." - I've asked at the noticeboard that it be updated to correctly represent BLP.

The fact that IMDb has been incorrectly used on other articles doesn't mean it should be kept when challenged. The Variety article is a fine source - hopefully Baseline didn't get the info from IMDb or WP tho.

I haven't "rejected outright any source for this birthdate", I sourced the day and month to the CBS bio.

Jimbo asked the OTRS team to clean up and keep an eye on this article because of gross BLP violations - the best way to do that is to require reliable sources for anything we generally have to fix via OTRS complaints. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:55z

And again, I ask, who challenged the birthdate? Someone who said it seemed "a bit shady"? The woman graduated from college and obtained a Master's degree before she went to New York and worked as a bartender and did a lot of advertisement work. Then she had her first noted film/tv role in 1994. I had no reason to doubt the 1969 year based solely on that - 5 or 6 years post-secondary school and a somewhat vaguely defined time in minor work would have made her 24 or 25 by the time she did her first tv work.

I am the one who sourced the birthplace to the CBS biography and NeutralHomer is the one who used the CBS ref for the birth month and day here. I am aware of the issues Perrette has had and what that entails. I've watched this article for a very long time now, and there have been no gross BLP violations in all the time that I've watched it, and I have difficulty believing that there was an OTRS complaint about her birthdate. And to clear the record, the source for the birthdate that was there when you removed the information, was not IMDb. It was an entirely different site altogether. But the only thing you chose to talk about was IMDb, despite the fact that the source you originally questioned was not IMDb. I asked you specifically "Just what sort of source would you find acceptable for a birthplace and date?" - which you did not chose to answer specifically. We all know there was no scholarly produced source for her birthdate, nor university produced materials. Nor did you ever describe what would encompass a non-"tabloidy" source. Finally, and what I didn't catch until just a moment ago, was that you were the one who first placed the references to hollywood.com for the birthdate, place of birth and the alias name, here. It would have been a lot easier for all concerned if perhaps you had looked for a new source instead of just removing vital statistic information if you had an issue with the source that you yourself had added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"who challenged the birthdate"

Interrupt feed correctly challenged my 2007-10-10 hollywood.com source at the top of this thread on 2009-02-03; which lead to it also being challenged in the article itself on 2009-02-08t07:26:27z, 2009-02-08t14:45:52z, ...

See wp:v re material challenged requiring citings to a reliable, published source; and the burden of evidence.

"I am the one who sourced the birthplace to the CBS biography and NeutralHomer is the one who used the CBS ref for the birth month and day here"

The CBS ref for her birthplace is a good source. Did you do this before 2007-10-10? NeutralHomer's using the CBS ref for day and month was at 2009-02-08t23:18:03z in the infobox (which he reverted because you can't do it with that template), after I did it at 2009-02-08t22:09:10z an hour before (scroll down to the lead, not the infobox).

"the source for the birthdate that was there when you removed the information, was not IMDb"

Was it a reliable source? If so, sorry. What was it?

"I asked you specifically "Just what sort of source would you find acceptable for a birthplace and date?" - which you did not chose to answer specifically."

I quoted from and linked to wp:v, Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples, and wp:blp.

"It would have been a lot easier for all concerned if perhaps you had looked for a new source instead of just removing vital statistic information if you had an issue with the source that you yourself had added."

The burden of proof for reliable sources lie with adding and reinstating info - wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t12:22z, -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t12:23z

I give up. As I said, if you had seen a problem with the source that you yourself provided in October 2007, it would have been much easier for you to say "Oh, I'm not comfortable with the source I provided. So sorry, I'll find a replacement." Everything else is skirting around the fact that it was easier for you to just remove it and move on. No, I didn't give the CBS source before October 2007, you said above (with the link) "I sourced the day and month to the CBS bio." I was pointing out that you did not source it according to the link you provided. The link you provided showed you removing even a place of birth. Again, I suggest you became over-enthusiastic in this. I asked for you to give some names of sources (that would be what is meant by "specifically") and you wouldn't even offer specific suggestions. There was no cooperative effort here, and I would suggest that being a volunteer with OTRS gives you no less burden to help in finding sources that you think are acceptable since you were so vague in assisting us in finding one. This was a lesson in futility. I'm thinking Jimbo would like his OTRS volunteers to be at least as helpful in fixing things as in flatly removing them and saying "Jimbo told us to, you fix it, I don't like it" especially when you put in the source to start. Thanks for all your valuable policy quoting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-07.

Re . If there are reliable sources indicating that the blogspot and paulyp pages were written by her, then those sites can be used, tho that the personal site was removed and an archive link had to be used argues against its use.

The 2 tv show refs are not "published", and the "Transcript" link points to a video on YouTube, which is not a reliable source.

The Metallica material is still unsourced. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-06t09:30z

The question is, are her tatoos real or are they the work of the art department?

So who knows if her tatoos are real or not? Also is she Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.172.23 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think she is Jewish, but to be honest I am not sure. As for the tats, all are hers with the exception of the spiderweb on her neck. That is the work of the art department, the rest are all her. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wedding coverage blog citations

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

User:Neutralhomer is repeatedly reverting edits to reinsert references to a self-published blog which contradict/describe as inadequate the coverage in sources that are generally considered reliable. The statements attributed to the article subject are controversial/contentious, and have no other apparent source. Under WP:BLP, these statements are to be removed, but User:Neutralhomer is edit warring to reinsert them. I cannot see any good faith issue here -- statements sourced from a blog report of the wedding, not found in any of the reliable-source coverage of the event, need to be removed from the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not editing in good faith either. I post on your talk page and you remove it as a "personal attack". You are removing a reference from Entertainment Tonight, a show that has been around for 20+ years. That is not a "self published blog". Now, since you seem to be resistant to putting any effort into this page, I am reverting. Revert again and I will request page protection. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. The contentious text in question is cited to a buzznet blog -- http://www.clintcatalyst.com/blog/pauleyperrette . The quoted language from that blog, which makes claims about ETs coverage being inaccurate by omission, includes a link to the ET coverage, but the article itself does not otherwise refer to it. It is becoming very difficult, given your continued disputing this point, to continue to see your editing on this point as being erroneous but in good faith. And your comment on my talk page, alleging bad faith on my part, was certainly a groundless personasl attack. It seems to be a fashion here lately to sccuse editors disputing buzznet nonsense of bad faith, but it's not appropriate behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then if the blog is the "bad" link, why are you removing the ET link? That seems a little weird to me. If you have a problem with the section, rewrite it....find the linkage. It is easy to wipe a page clean, but it is also as easy to use "The Google" and search for references...which is what I am asking you to do FIRST before removing a section that has stood, unconstested, for 6+ months now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the only reference to ET is inside the blog-sourced quotation. Delete the uncorroborated quotation, as required by WP:BLP, and there's no reason for an ET link. The wedding itself is already sufficiently referenced to EOnline, and doesn't need to have every news report of it used as a reference. Read the article carefully. And, by the way, in your rush to fail to assume good faith, you've ignored Google yourself -- which shows that the contentious quote appears only on Misplaced Pages and a single Misplaced Pages mirror. It's apparently even been removed from the blog. End of dispute, I think. Self-revert, admit error, and we can all be done with this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I did something you obviously can not or refuse to do...I googled for references. Didn't find any, so I removed ONLY the "bad" link and not the ET link as you have done. There was no need to remove the ET link. You should take more time to read what remove, speak a little more politely with others, and learn to use "the Google" :) Oh, and I admit nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty skanky response, especially since I discussed those Google results in the post above yours. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think (talk) needs to read Misplaced Pages:Civility as a refresher. You are more likely to get your point across if you talk to people like a grown-up rather than a spoilt child having a tantrum magnius (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnius is dead on...and I am not sure what "skanky" means where you live, but it definitely doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. I do believe this little back-and-forth is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment