Talk:Sid Haig

message: This version of the article contains a large amount of text taken from http://www.sidhaig.com/biography.htm - The owner of the site is a contributor here Spirot and initially under the IP 70.40.37.0. She has been made fully aware of our licensing requirements and has released it accordingly.
This can be confirm on the bottom of the page itself by the words Licensed for use by Wikkepedia (11/12/06) Thanks  Glen  05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article copy has been released under GFDL for use in Wikipedia 

message: We've redone our site, so the bio that appears here under license is now located HERE.  Our new webmaster is in the process of placing the Wiki license on the page.  Should be up less than 24 hours after I type this.  Just figured I'd update the info.  =)
Spirot 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New location for Bio w/License 

message: Nobody here is doing what they should be. Edit warring content back and forth, appeals to authority, quoting rules and interpretations at each other, citing precedent and history, et cetera... it is all crap. It accomplishes nothing but annoyance all around while carefully avoiding any action which might result in actually fixing things.
Quatloo, don't just say you think the article is "poorly written and in the wrong tone", let alone "much of it is simply inappropriate drivel". That is criticism and insults which provides absolutely zero useful information... there is no way someone is going to be able to update the article when your comments are too general (and hostile) to tell them what you actually want to change.
Spirot, try to figure out what people are actually getting at and ask for specific examples when they don't provide them. Try to avoid making it into an adversarial situation. Most people aren't just looking for reasons to be annoying - they usually have actual concerns. Figuring out what those are and addressing them will help to avoid this endless cycle of repeating conflict and confusion.
Specific issues which people should be talking about;
:Tone - Much of this article originated as a biography and thus in places it still has a 'personal' feel. The claim that it is hagiographic seems to me unfounded (I can't find anything like 'Haig is the greatest XYZ ever', 'Haig walks on water', or other overly fawning praise), but it doesn't always feel 'encyclopedic'. For example, "After forty years of playing gun-toting tough guys, his hopes of being recognized as a more than competent actor were fading."... this describes the situation from Haig's point of view and purports to give us his actual feelings. It is too personal in tone. The 'encyclopedic' version of the same information might be something like, 'For the first forty years of his career Haig was routinely cast as a gun-toting tough guy'. The quotation of Haig saying he wouldn't play such roles any more is fine though it leads to;
:Referencing - Currently the article has only one reference - which is Haig's site. While information in Wikipedia can be referenced to the personal site of the person it is usually better to get references from neutral / reliable third parties. For instance, if you can source Haig's quotation to an old newspaper article that provides additional 'confidence of accuracy' - on the assumption that the newspaper checked their facts. Citing references from several notable sources also helps to prove the notability of the subject asserted on the page. The article currently indicates that Haig is a noted horror actor... but the only source for that which we list is Haig himself. It's true, but we should demonstrate that truth by referencing some of the information about him to other sources which don't have a vested interest in Haig.
:Copyright - The filmography was removed on the grounds that it was a copyright violation of IMDB's content. Not really. Lists of factual information CAN be copyrighted, but only if the 'presentation style' of the information is unique and provides benefits beyond a simple listing of the facts. For instance, if the IMDB list used a complicated cross-linking system to group Haig's films by genre, common co-actors, director, et cetera then it would be more than just a list of facts - the groupings would provide additional information on trends and comparisons and so forth. As it is, no there is no way that IMDB could exert copyright over a simple chronological list of Haig's films and the role he played in each. Not a chance. It'd be like saying you can't list the planets in order of their distance from the Sun because someone had done it before. It is basic factual information presented in a simple commonly used format.
Talk about the specifics. Discuss options for improving individual sections / lines. Less heat, more light. --CBD 13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with copyright on the filmography is this. The IMDB filmography contains IMDB-specific annotations that they hold the rights to. To given an example from this filmography, "Diamonds Are Forever (1971) (uncredited) - Slumber Inc. Attendant" Here, the portion "Slumber Inc. Attendant" originates in IMDB, and does not appear as part of the film credit. If you examine the filmography for Sid Haig in Wikipedia, you will find it full of IMDB-specific annotations. These are what is copyright. There may be an additional copyright claim if the filmography is selective in which films it chooses to list. Quatloo 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you are saying that IMDB holds exclusive copyright to describing Haig's role in 'Diamonds are Forever' as "Slumber Inc. Attendant" and there are no sources other than Haig's page. Why should that mean that the filmography and all biographical information should be deleted? Couldn't the words 'Slumber Inc. Attendant', even assuming that such a simple description is 'copyrighted', be replaced with 'man in Slumber Inc. uniform' or whatever his actual role was - rather than deleting the entire filmography? On his own site it is listed as "Slumber Inc. Mortuary Attendant" ... I guess the added 'Mortuary' gets it around copyright concerns. Looking at it, there are clearly items in the list here which don't appear on IMDB and vice versa - it is not an exact copy as indicated in the original edit summary. Anything which might be arguably 'unique' can certainly just be adjusted. On the sourcing issue... the usual process is to add additional sources. Is there some reason that isn't viable here? --CBD 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with starting with a copyrighted origin, is that edits to it are a derivative work. The copyright of a derivative work belongs to the holder of the original work. And it is not so much a single expression of four words, but the fact that all of the expressions, for each movie, and all of the roles (which may not necessarily match the roles as given in the credits) are as a whole a larger creative work which is actually a quite defensible copyright. Quatloo 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that this article uses only one single source, and that source was wholesale imported to become the Sid Haig article in Wikipedia. By User:Spirot's own admission , this biography was written by Sid Haig's publicist. If we are to have an article on this actor (whose notability has yet to be demonstrated) it certainly should not be by that actor's publicist. This article should be pruned down to a stub, as User:Burntsauce did, and restarted using impartial sources. Quatloo 14:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to his notability not being established... you establish it yourself by citing his extensive filmography at IMDB . About fifty years of appearing in film and television roles, over a hundred of them, is somehow NOT notable? Or 190,000 Google hits ? The New York Times has an entry on him . He's in Time magazine here and the Seattle Times over here. He is notable. Links can be found quite easily. Add links = no references problem. Yes? --CBD 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing an extensive filmography in IMDB or the New York Times filmography site (which is just licensed from allmovies.com) is no proof of notability. There are people in IMDB with far more credits than Sid Haig who are not the least bit notable. What is required for notability is multiple independent reliable sources. Your other sources may be able to establish notability but nothing I have said does so. Anyway my arguments are not aimed at Sid Haig's notability but the appropriateness of having a biography written by his publicist. And also at its non-encyclopaedic content. Quatloo 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually after examining your Time and Seattle Times sources, they are not about the subject Sid Haig, but about movies that only mention this actor in passing. They would be insufficient. According to WP:Notability, coverage of the subject must be "significant." Further quoting, "Significant means that the coverage goes into detail on the subject." None of those sources do that. Quatloo 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I am not contesting the notability of this subject.  I have no doubt he is notable.  Our reliance upon primary sources is what is so problematic, regardless of whether or not they have been published under the GFDL.  Burntsauce 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 

message: Where does one get the best verification of a biography's content?  Why, from the subject of the biography, of course.
PHOTOGRAPHIC VERIFICATION OF ARTICLE CONTENT
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.3.135 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this "proof" is so ridiculous within WP and definitely not at all acceptable, just proving this editor still is clueless on WP's policy. This mugshot, which is nothing short of humiliating and undeserving of this actor's plentiful career, must surely go into the top 10 of pathetic attempts by people to jump on the WP wagon to desperately get noticed. What's the address of the jokes board on WP so I can post it there? (I fully stand behind Quatloo's arguments that one's own site is not a credible source per se and should NOT be used as a primary source. Spirot, you are a liability to your client, imo.) --maf (talk-cont) 11:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: Wikipedia:I Deleted Some Bad Jokes And Other Nonsense But All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt#Sid Haig. --maf (talk-cont) 11:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FINAL VERIFICATION OF ARTICLE CONTENT 

message: I would like to comment on the quality of the links provided by Sid Haig's publicist to use as "sources" for this article. They are in general unacceptable and should probably be reduced to three links, only one of which could be used as any type of source. I will address each of the links individually.
*The Official Home of Sid Haig
: This is a link to Sid's official page. While a link to the official page should be listed as an external link of the article, as a primary source connected with the subject of the article, it should not be used as a source for content.
*phillyBurbs.com interview with Sid Haig
: This primary source can be used in contexts where a primary source is appropriate. This is the best (and I argue only) independent source you have provided that is of any quality, albeit is a primary source. A link to the PhillyBurbs page is appropriate.
*Badmouth interview with Sid Haig
: This is a blog. Blogs are not a reliable source for information on an actor, and this should not be used as a source.
*Sid Haig Dragon*Con Biography
: There is no content here, it is a redirect to the primary Dragon*Con front page. Even if there was something here a Dragon*Con biography is not a reliable source and should neither be linked-to nor used.
*IMDB Biography
: As acknowledged by the parties involved here, this is a copy of the biography written by Sid Haig's publicist. It is redundant to the official page. Furthermore, IMDB, being a user-contributed site, is not a reliable source in any event. A simple link to Sid Haig's IMDB top-level page is appropriate in the external links section as a courtesy to readers, provided it is not used as a source.
*Sid Haig Bio from Yahoo Movies
: This is apparently a licensed copy of AllMovie Guide. If the AllMovie Guide has an entry for Sid Haig, it can reluctantly be used as a source, although being an encyclopedia it is a fairly low-grade source. Many have made the argument that tertiary sources cannot be used as sources at all, and if those arguments are heeded this source cannot be used. However, if this source is to be used, the AllMovie Guide should be used and not this copy. This URL should not be linked to.
*Sid Haig Bio from All Movie Guide writer
: This is a copy of the same AllMovie Guide entry licensed to a commercial site. But even so, a copy of this on Bestprices.com cannot be used as a source. It should not even be linked to.
*Miscellaneous Info on Sid
: This is a user-contributed content site. It is not reliable. It cannot be used as a source. It should not even be linked to.
*HUGE info page on Sid Haig
: This is a cut-and-paste from the Badmouth blog-interview concatenated with a cut-and-paste from IMDB's filmography, on some unknown person's website. It cannot be used as a source under any circumstance, nor should it be linked to.
*PHOTOGRAPHIC VERIFICATION OF ARTICLE CONTENT!!!
: This stunt constitutes original research and can neither be used nor linked to.
The person who posted these links made no attempt to even understand what it takes to have a reliable source (see WP:RS and ). Quatloo 10:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about the poor quality of sources and links 

message: I have pruned this article per the extensive discussion on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Editors who do not have a conflict of interest are welcome to add to it provided any additions are properly sourced. Recommended reading includes WP:RS for information on what constitutes a reliable source, WP:OR for discussion of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Quatloo 08:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just write it off like that without giving any specific examples. As it is now, its just stating the fact. The little POV that there was there before (such as "Haig continues to enjoy his newfound success" and "Haig's dreams of being recognized were faded") have been removed. I don't see how its more biased or fanboyish than any other actor article. I think a lot of it has to do with your bias against Haig.--CyberGhostface 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think phrases like After forty years of playing gun-toting tough guys belong in an encyclopedia? You have revived the same terrible article that was written by Sid Haig's publicist. A turd cannot be polished -- this is the same crapfest that was written by Sid Haig's publicist, with a few poor quality sources added (blogs that nobody has ever heard of, and in once case pointing to anonymous text almost certainly written by the same publicist that wrote this article in the first place) to justify text which should not be in an encyclopedia, none of which make it palatable. The article should have been allowed to grow organically, not revive the drivel that was there before. I have re-added the tone complaint. Please do not remove it. Quatloo 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interviews count as reliable sources, I hate to break it to you. And your removal of information is bordering on desperate vandalism. You have already proved your bias with the article, and since I found legit sources, you are resorting to removing the information that is common knowledge.--CyberGhostface 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, one of the links you gave in no way supported what it was claiming. Secondly, I removed uncited information from this article for two reasons -- first, it is uncited and subject to removal without discussion, and secondly, to reduce the amount of bad writing. Remember, this text was written by Haig's publicist. Removing uncited material is not vandalism, even if you characterize it as such. I did not remove any cited material, even if I did not like the source, if the source vouched for the claim. Quatloo 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reboot 

message: Blogs, other than by the subject of the article, cannot be used as sources for 3rd-party biographical information in any circumstance, per WP:BLP. This includes movie review blogs. Published magazines, such as Fangoria, however, can be used. Interviews that appear in blogs, I'm leaving alone due to benefit of the doubt. Also, sites such as "wickedcoolstuff.com" are not reliable sources (WP:RS), even if their use is intended as primary source, it clearly constitutes original research, WP:OR. Quatloo 22:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anything controverisal or hearsay-ish (that would violate WP:BLP) cannot be sourced to a blog, even the quasi useable interview in a blog.  --Rocksanddirt 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Can anyone find a source that explicitly calls this guy Armenian or Armenian-American. All I can find is "born in Armenian American community." Bulldog123 09:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone with an Armenian surname would describe himself as an Armenian. As for the message board... unless the information is published somewhere, we're not allowed to use it. "Of Armenian descent" is also not good enough.  Bulldog123 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian

message: It would be nice to have separate TV and film sections. Sid also played a heavy in a Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman episode (Tex), Season 2, Episode 195, 31 Dec. 1976.172.56.30.151 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources Structure