Talk:List of Romanian actors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 References, and whole point of the article 1.1 Third opinion 2 Work log 3 Discussion of cleanup 4 Cleanup finished 5 Unwritten rules 6 Nicolas Masson 7 WP:V

[edit] References, and whole point of the article

This has no references demonstrating that these people meet the scope of the article. It is also a mere list, a category can serve the purpose of this article. There is no encyclopedic content here. Unless this is addressed(how I cannot imagine) I am going to nominate this for AfD, suggesting it be turned into a category. Until(1 == 2) 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Going once... Until(1 == 2) 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Going twice... Until(1 == 2) 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, how long are you going to go like this? If until 1 == 2, it could be till Hell Freezes Over.  :) Turgidson 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the uncited content. That means all the content, the page is now mostly empty other than its header and cats. Unless enough cited material is added to qualify this article as a stub in the next couple days, I am not to nominate this for WP:CSD#A1. Please do not re-add uncited information per WP:V, it has been challenged. Until(1 == 2) 14:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay folks, don't just revert, read the talk page. Read WP:V. Talk to me. This is what is done with uncited information when it has sat around for months and months. Until(1 == 2) 14:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a section that allows you to gut a list article for no reason. Please point it out to me. —Xezbeth 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Right here: From WP:V: "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed."..."The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." Until(1 == 2) 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you have 2 choices, you can leave it, or you can cite the information. Until(1 == 2) 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see you have re-added the unsourced information a third time. Please explain how this is not directly against policy? Explain how my removal of unsourced info was against policy? You need to discuss this instead of just stubbornly reverting. Until(1 == 2) 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you are just reverting then ignoring me then reverting again etc.... I have asked for a WP:3O third opinion. This would be easier if you bothered to explain yourself. Until(1 == 2) 14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a list. It doesn't NEED a reference, you check the individual articles for them. You've had this explained to you already by Mikkalai it seems, so this smacks of WP:POINT to me. As I said before, nominate it for AfD if you're so convinced it needs deleting. Giving me only 30 seconds to respond to you before bleating about me ignoring you is hardly helpful either. —Xezbeth 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding me "bleating" you, it was not so much the amount of time, but that you kept reverting me without response. Until(1 == 2) 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees. See WT:V#Verifiability_in_lists, list need citations like anything else. So please restore the page the way with was and step back from the brink of 3RR. Basically Mikkalai and you are incorrect, both policy and a recent consensus at the policy talk page agree that lists do need citations like any other article, wikilinks are not a citation. Until(1 == 2) 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not violating POINT because I am not disrupting wikipedia I am cleaning it up. Look at Talk:List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#Finding_sources_for_removed_content, these appeared to be "cited" through wikilinks, but when I actually looked at them it was not the case. Please assume good faith, I am not a troll, I am not being disruptive, I am removing unsourced information(you know, the bane of Wikipedia?). Until(1 == 2) 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can explain how a list of Romanian actors is harmful to wikipedia, then I'll delete the article myself. You wont be able to, so just nominate the thing on AfD and be done with it. —Xezbeth 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was harmful, I said it was uncited. This is all about verifiability buddy. If you wish to include the information then the burden is on you to find the citations. I gave notice when I removed them that I would wait to give people a chance to do this. But instead you returned the information without citation, this is not appropriate once it has been challenged. Until(1 == 2) 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.". Why is it that admins here don't know this? Until(1 == 2) 14:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a list of uncited pages as long as my arm and I don't appreciate my attempts to clean them up being interrupted like this. I don't want to AfD this right now, I want to wait and give it a chance to get cited, for that a history is needed. Until(1 == 2) 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So how long should I let this uncited information sit here? It has been unsourced for years. How do I even know they are correct? Until(1 == 2) 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about this, all unsourced content(all content) is removed. Then, I personally will do the job that should be done by the person seeking to include the information. I will go through the articles and try to find citations. This is really your responsibility as you are the person seeking to include the information. But I am trying to clean this up, not butt heads with you. I can find citations over today and tomorrow. Does that sounds reasonable? If so, please self revert so it does not appear I have violated 3RR to someone who has not read this talk page. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I'm tempted to AfD the thing myself as it is better served by the category. But fine, I'll revert myself. I have no vested interest in this article by the way, I just object to wholesale removal of content. —Xezbeth 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a compromise on my part as wholesale removal of unsourced content is allowed and even enforcable. I am not trying to be a dick, I would rather edit than go through dispute resolution on this matter. If this is ever AfD'd I will certainly support the deletion. I will do a couple now, then I need to go out. Until(1 == 2) 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Well, I'm relieved to see that progress has been made, although Until(1 == 2) is quite correct to be strict about WP:V.

In order to assess this article, I made a quick examination of the 34 articles for which links are present, looking for: articles that match the claim and provide a citation; articles that match the claim, but fail to provide a citation; and articles that do not match the claim. If my tallies are correct, there are eight articles for which the claim of nationality/origin is not sourced and 26 articles for which some degree of verification has been presented. Of these, the overwhelming majority rely on the IMDB biographies in an "External links" section and fail to provide specific citations. As an editable resource, the IMDB cannot be considered to be among the most reliable of sources, but I will overlook that. Just bear in mind that better sources are likely to be available in most cases.

This is how I would improve the article:

• Work to satisfactorily source all the articles to which this list refers and carry over these sources to this list, preferably in the proper style.
• Consider including at least one other relevant piece of information, such as place of birth where known.
• Remove from this list the eight unsourced names until/unless a reliable source can be found for them.

Hope that helps. Adrian M. H. 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I find WP:30 almost as helpful as the crowd at WT:V when it comes to the WP:V policy. Until(1 == 2) 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work log

I am going to go through these items and find which ones really have citations. Wikilinks are not citations, and uncited content should not be here. I will not be returning the ones that I cannot find citations for.

Click "Show" to see log

Any help would be appreciated. Until(1 == 2) 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is the first 8 names on the list, no change to the article yet. Wikilinks are not citations, they are misleading. I am going out, will finish later. Until(1 == 2) 15:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There, I found one, 12th times a charm. Until(1 == 2) 15:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If IMDB is not a reliable source, what would it take? A romanian encyclopaedia would do?!? -- Jokes Free4Me 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB may not be a reliable source for specific biographical material. But it may be sufficient to assert the fact that persons in this list are Romanian actors. I am sure that you can find more sources in Romanian sites dedicated to cinema, as Romania has a long tradition of movie making and acting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can buy their way into imdb simply by paying to be put into some public records which imdb scrapes. IMDB in no way established notability, and is often the data submitted by the subject. IMDB is better than no source at all, but it is not enough to mean no more sources are needed to verify it. Until(1 == 2) 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of cleanup

Please Turgidson, read this page, respect the consensus. If you want to help. find sources. Until(1 == 2) 15:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, man, I read every single word on the talk page before reverting (it's not rocket science, ya know? but it's rather tedious, after a while), and this whole thing still didn't make sense to me. And, by the way, I spent quite a bit of time editing several of the articles in cause, so it's not like I'm coming to this page out of the blue. But OK, I'll hold off till I get a better sense of what you're trying to do. Turgidson 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read every word, how is it that you came to the belief there was no consensus? I had achieved agreement with every involved party before continuing. Plus I have the broader consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_in_lists, and an even broader consensus at Wikipedia:Verifiability. What I am doing is going through each one to see if there really is a citation in the article, otherwise I am not including it in the article. Until(1 == 2) 16:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a very limited discussion -- did any editor who actually contributed to those articles (or to this list) participate? Was the discussion broad enough, and enough time given to develop consensus? I don't think so. Turgidson 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of WP:V: "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." don't you understand? This is a matter of policy, I don't need to create a new consensus every time I enforce policy, the policy is the consensus. Until(1 == 2) 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but I just don't like you present that policy. No need to (figuratively) scream, or put it in bolds. And, by the way, before you give too mnay lessons in WP editing, how about taking another look at the edits you've been making, e.g., Ştefan Bănică, Sr. and Ştefan Bănică, Jr.? Looks non-sensical to me. Maybe if you explain them in bold letters I'll get it. Turgidson 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that our, I meant to put {{unreferenced}} and accidentally put {{referenced}}. I will go back and fix it. I am sorry if I was rude or short with you, but I had just spent an hour explaining the policy on the talk page when you reverted me. I tend to resort to bold when I have already said something on the page and it appears the person did not notice it, it makes it easier to see. Until(1 == 2) 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There, I went and re-checked my {{unreferenced}} tagging, it appears it was just those two, I have fixed them. Until(1 == 2) 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup finished

I have finished sorting the cited from the uncited on this list. I have left a log so that those who wish to recover names can seek out sources. If you do find a source for this page, please place that source on the actors article as well, as they need it.

I hope my work log makes it clear why wikilinks are not references. They give the illusion that the information is cited when it is about 2/3rds of the time not cited. Please cite any new additions to this list or they are likely to be challenged and/or removed. Until(1 == 2) 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your adding of sources, the removal of tens of names from this list because there is no specific source, is not welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:V. All these list items are verifiable. Leave it open so that editors can add more sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page. This has been discussed to death. If I am misinterpreting WP:V explain how. It says that if challenged a fact can be removed, and that it cannot be returned until cited. Everything is potentially verifiable, but until there is a reliable source it does not belong here. Until(1 == 2) 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the removed items are listed on this talk page above at #Work_log. People can use that to find citations. They do not belong in the article until they are cited. Please stop placing your opinion above the verifiability policy. The articles themselves need to be cited, so if you find any for here, you can place them on the article. Otherwise we don't know if the person is really a Romanian actor. Until(1 == 2) 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to delete content because you did not take the time to add sources. It took me less than 5 minutes to add three refs. I invite you to do that, and to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I spent all morning adding sources. I am not violating POINT, you are violating WP:V. You may not re-add material until you source it. I put all the unsourced ones on the talk page where they belong. Until they are sourced you are violating policy by placing them back after being challenged. I am working to improve Wikipedia, potentially false information is not helpful. Accusing me a bad faith is not helpful either. Until(1 == 2) 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. You are interpreting policy in a manner that is not consistent with consensus. Found material that is unsourced? Tag it as such, and let editors interested in the subject add sources. Better still, do some resarch and add sources yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a consensus right here WT:V#Verifiability_in_lists that lists need to be verified like anything else. The WP:V policy also enjoys rather strong consensus. I don't need a consensus to remove uncited data, it is a core policy that holds a strong consensus on its own. I also got a third opinion that agreed with me on this very page. I compromised and agreed with the others on the talk page. Then you come along and revert it. Until(1 == 2) 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat this again. Deleting material is a good thing when the material in unverifiable. If the material is unverifiable, delete it by all means. How do you know if is unverifiable? You know that after doing some research and not finding any reliable sources to support the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate your edits and your want to have articles that are well referenced. I am with you on that one. But your approach, delete everything that is not sourced, is not the way to address this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V does not say anything about "verifiable" information being exempt. Not sure where you are getting this from. I am not deleting anything, I am moving it to the talk page to be brought up to inclusion standards. Until(1 == 2) 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving it to talk, simply removes any possibility from the occasional editor to come and add a source. Rather that spend more time discussing this, I invite you to spend the next 30 minutes adding sources to all these entries. That is what Wikipedia is about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am seeking a greater consensus on this matter at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiable_information because what you are saying, and what the policy says cannot both be true. Once again, please stop asking me to add sources, that is the responsibility of the person seeking to include the info, and I did just that all morning. Until(1 == 2) 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈, for bringing back a dose of reality to the process, and restoring those deleted links. In the meantime, I've added more sources and text to Amza Pellea and Florian Pittiş (the latter was tagged by Until(1 == 2) for speedy delete! why??), but this takes time and energy, which can get easily sapped by rash edits. Turgidson 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion because it made no claim of notability. Until(1 == 2) 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to re-assess the way you are participating, Until. Tagging for speedy should be done when you are certain that the subject is not notable. And you can only be certain after you do some basic research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say and what the policy says are not the same. An article that makes no claim of notability is speedyable. It is not my job to research someone else's claim. I didn't write the policies. You keep saying what I need to do, but you are not basing any of this in policy as I am in my responses to you. Until(1 == 2) 04:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but you need to apply good judgment. If there is no claim of notability because of lack of sources, ask for sources, or check the subject yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A claim of notability does not require a source. If it only said "was well known" or "did something special" that would have been enough. Until(1 == 2) 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When you add information, you need to ask yourself "Why do I believe this is true?". Do you think it is true because someone else posted it on the article? Or perhaps you saw a movie with the person? Maybe you read a book that mentioned it, but don't have access to it now? I guess my point is that re-adding something just because it was there before is unwise, it should only be considered if you actually have a good reason to believe it. That is not policy, policy says get a citation before returning it. I am talking about academic responsibility, and just good editorial practice. When you add something, you are supporting the fact, even if you did not write it originally. Until(1 == 2) 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure... only that we are here to build an encyclopedia as volunteers. Volunteers and specially anons, add material to articles without sources. We, as editors, look for sources when these are missing so that we can augment the encyclopedia and make its articles compliant with policy. Your attitude of delete and then ask questions goes against the established practice. Yes, all material that is challenged needs a citation, so challenge it with {{fact}} wait a couple of months and then re-check. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwritten rules

Okay, I read the policy before starting and apparently I am "misinterpreting it". So please tell me, how long should challenged uncited material remain in the article proper? I don't know if these people really qualify(I would normally use citations to check), many of them do not have articles. I think it is really wonderful that most of it is cited(Thank you Jossi we are working to the same goal), and that is in line with my personal goals. But I cannot fathom why the remaining uncited information should be in the article instead of the talk page.

But I am not an admin, and those who disagree with me are, and I guess that trumps written policy. I am not going to revert those uncited additions(lest I be called a troll or a POINT violator again), but they are challenged, and under WP:V(as it is written now) they should not be there. Frankly I cannot understand why you would expose the readership to potentially false information when there is a wealth of verified information available. Until(1 == 2) 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a dick, or a troll, I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I read the rules, I was told to be bold, I was told the burden of evidence was on the person seeking to add or restore info, I was told I could remove uncited material, then I went out and did it, and I have been treated like shit for it, mostly by long term users(3 of them admins). I am real close to just helping another website, perhaps that would be what people here prefer based on what I am hearing. You need to get your policies in line with practice or new users with good intent are basically going to be treated badly. Until(1 == 2) 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have learned that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. I did not know that. I am willing to follow consensus in this matter, but I want to know this is really consensus and not just a group of people's opinion in one specific dispute. So I have made a policy change proposal to bring the policy in line with what I have been told: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposed_policy_changes. I will respect whatever conclusions the community comes to on the policy page, but if the community cannot agree to change the policy then I think the policy should be enforceable as is. Until(1 == 2) 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is simple, really. If the material is dubious or harmful, you can delete it and move to talk. If the material is harmless, tag is with {{fact}}, or do some research yourself to find a citation to support it. If you mark it ast {{fact}} come back in say two weeks or a month and delete it if no sources are forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2007

Gee, I used {{unreferenced}} instead of {{fact}}, but otherwise that is what I did. Until(1 == 2) 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Masson

When googling this name I get, in order, Wikipedia, IMDB, a production company directory of film that does not say he is Romanian, answers.com(uses WP content), a directory site, and a forum. No reliable sources. The WP article has not sources other than imdb. Now, if I remove that name for being uncited, and I being a troll? Making a WP:POINT? Being lazy? Or is this an acceptable thing to remove? I sincerely don't know anymore. Until(1 == 2) 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See also a number of interviews with Masson, here: [2], in particular the "The director Nicolas Masson refreshes the Romanian Cinematography" interview ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the first one, it does not say he is Romanian. The second one is IMDB which is not a reliable source, they accept content from anon contributors, also where is the text of the interview? Until(1 == 2) 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Evenimentul Zilei", 10 July 1997, Vol. 2, Iss. 1531, pg. 12. Unless you have good reason to assume that the source is bogus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the source? I will assume good faith if an editor claims a source supports a claim, but I need to know that somebody read the source, otherwise it is just taking a source from another source without checking it. Until(1 == 2) 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See [3]] a website of one of his films. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Will take a look. Until(1 == 2) 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The biography about him is written in the first person, autobiographies are not a reliable source. I am not trying to be stubborn here, I looked at all these before posting this thread. I don't think this person meets notability criteria since all the mentions of him are on blogs, wikis, directories, or self published. Until(1 == 2) 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I will look in the press section, perhaps I can find an independent reliable source, I do want to you know. Until(1 == 2) 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the press reports that it is a Romanian film, but not that he is Romanian. In fact the only sources that says he was born in Romania are copies of Wikipedia. I will take a closer look at the scope and see of making a Romanian film qualifies it here. Until(1 == 2) 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the scope of the article says the person needs to be Romanian, but does not need to have perused his career in Romania. I will keep looking. Until(1 == 2) 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than IMDB, and Wikipedia mirrors there does not seem to be a source for his place of birth. I will wait yet longer before removing the entry. Until(1 == 2) 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See the Romanian site http://www.cinemagia.ro/actor.php?actor_id=11458. Born in Bucharest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not what I would call a reliable source in the traditional sense. But given the uncontroversial nature of the information, and in the interests of moving forward, I can accept it if you add that as the citation. Not one I would use myself, but also not one I would challenge. Until(1 == 2) 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

This article is now in full compliance with WP:V, lets try to keep it that way. We still have a long ways to go before we meet the notability guidelines though.

Here is an exert from Wikipedia:Notability (people) describing what is expected to be demonstrated by a reliable source in regards to notability with entertainers:

• Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

... "Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline."(emphasis added)

I intend to go through these articles and see which ones meet the inclusion standards for entertainers. While I feel this is best handled in individual articles, the results of such a vetting will surely effect this article. Until(1 == 2) 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)