Talk:Melissa Joan Hart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melissa Joan Hart article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.


Discussion unrelated to Melissa Joan Hart and this article can be found in the archive.

Contents

[edit] MJH on SNL

Was she really on Saturday Night Live? That doesn't seem right. Adam Bishop 21:52 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed the statement about her being on Saturday Night Live. Firstly SNL doesn't have a lot of requirement for nine-year-old actors. Secondly the Internet Movie Database doesn't mention it, either on Melissa's page or on the unbelievably detailed page which lists every guest on every episode of SNL all the way through the seventies and eighties. In fairness there are a lot of MJH fansites which do say the same thing. There doesn't seem to be an official MJH web page. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Geez... Just because it hasn't been added to the IMDb, doesn't mean it didn't happen. She was on Saturday Night Live during the 1985-86 season... multiple times. They were very minor "extra" type appearances, that's all. I have taped and digitized two of them. Here's one at my website (warning: 307MB AVI file). - dcljr 21:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Shameless plea: BTW, if anyone wants to try to do something with that AVI file (namely, reduce the file size without losing too much of the already crummy quality), please do so. And let me know on my Talk page. My computer isn't powerful enough to do video editing... - dcljr 09:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

People should not be removing relevant external links, especially when there are only 3 links. Each topic should have at least a dozen external links. -- unsigned comment by 204.193.6.90

You speak as if the only criteria for an external link was "relevant to the subject" and such factors as "accurate", "balanced", "verifiable", et cetera, never needed to be considered. The linked article is less about Melissa Joan Hart than it is about "bullying in Sayville", with plenty of authorial value judgements. I'll extract a sample here for the benefit of the readers:
Melissa also was a vandal in the school district where she was mistreated. According to the Chicago Tribune, Sunday 12th May 1996, Melissa said, "In 5th grade I broke a thermometer and didn't tell the teacher..." She had a right to do this, as she was mistreated. Her favorite cartoon was "Ren and Stimpy." The Sayville cartoonist was one top artists on that cartoon, and he wrote the "Happy Happy Joy Joy" song. Chris was one of the hated outcasts of Sayville also. They both did shows for Nickelodeon at the same time.
This is right after we're treated to the questionable revelation that, on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the town is named "Sunnydale" not because Joss Whedon, the creator of the show, thought that the juxtaposition of "sun" and vampires was ironic, but because Sarah Michelle Gellar regarded Melissa Joan Hart as "the 'Chosen One' who led the fight against evil in [Sayville]" and "Sunnydale" sounds like "Sayville". One would think from the linked article that Sayville was somehow the bullying capital of the world.
In short, there is no reason for Wikipedia to be linking to someone else's poorly researched and highly biased speculation and that is exactly what that article is. We have no policy saying that external links with poor-quality content should be accepted if there are fewer than a dozen links already. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "We?" You are giving your own personal opinion. The fact is, you just personally do not like what it says, so you deleted it. The story about the thermometer was cited as coming from the Chicago Tribune. Look it up. You act as if you own Wikipedia. The page needs links and they will be added.
Yes, it is my personal opinion that the link is crappy quality and not worth linking to. Just as it is your personal opinion that the link is of value. The difference between those two opinions is that I can support mine with reference to the content of the link (BTW, the Chicago Tribune may confirm that she broke a thermometer; it will not confirm the value judgement "she was right to do so") while yours is supported by "we have fewer than a dozen external links and every article should have at least that many", which is not a Wikipedia policy but one you seem to have yanked from ... some portion of your anatomy. The difference between those two opinions is that at least two admins are agreeing with my opinion, as they have removed the same link before, whereas no one except yourself keeps restoring this link. I don't act as if I own Wikipedia, I just act as if I understand its policies and standards a little better than someone who seems to think that "if there's less than a dozen links, we need more!!!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] What Wikipedia says about External Links

These are the Wikipedia guidlines for external links:

avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article.

The Melissa Joan Hart early life biography page does follow the above guidelines.

I see nothing there about "each article should have around a dozen external links", nor "the standard of quality for external links should be significantly lower than for the information we'd allow in the article itself." In the meantime, you are not only breaking the three-revert rule, about which you were warned, you are breaking one of the guidelines that you yourself cite: "Adding links to one's own page is discouraged." I don't think there's any question whatever that this page you've been adding to this article is by the same person as this one you've repeatedly added to The Amityville Horror and I think it's stretching the bounds of credulity to think that you are not that person, especially given your edits to Sayville, New York. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And what is wrong with the archive link?

And what is wrong with the archive link? http://www.obkb.com THis keeps getting removed too.

(above comment left by anonymous user at IP address 204.193.6.90 - dcljr)
Does anyone have objections to the link? I've given it a once-over; it looks amateurish, but not actively objectionable (unlike the other article). However, that is after giving it a quick glance, not an in-depth examination, so there may be things wrong with it that I didn't see. I won't be lifting a finger to add the link into the article if it gets removed (funny how you tend not to do such things for people who bad-mouth you behind your back) but I don't actually see anything harmful about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why, thank you. It looks amateurish because it was created by an amateur (me). - dcljr (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I NEVER did a revert

I never did a revert. A revert is different than just doing a reedit. A revert is a specific process in Wikipedia that brings a page back to a prior point. All I ever did was re-edit.

I did not introduce my friends to Wikipedia.

Whoever you are, please get a username and sign your comments on "Talk" pages. Otherwise it is very difficult to follow the discussion. Thanks -Willmcw 19:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Revert:
A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page.
The kind of change you are talking about is listed on that page; however, that page makes it clear that a re-edit which has the effect of a revert is a revert, even if:
  • You make other edits at the same time;
  • You're only reverting some of someone else's edits;
  • Other people have made other edits in between.
I'm afraid that there's no support for your belief that simply re-inserting a deleted link manually is somehow not a revert. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teen forever?

It should probably be noted that she played a teenage girl for quite a long time. She must have been at least 23 or 24 before she quit being a 16 year old. Captain Jackson 04:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

  • Can recite pi to 341 decimal places.
  • Nicknames are Mel, Halfpint, and Sa (from MelisSA and ClarisSA).
  • Collects paintings and owns 3 Picassos.
  • Likes to snowboard.

Reciting pi to 341 decimal places seems extraordinary to me. Can someone cite the source of this information? junyor 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a refernce cited for that... if she can, that would be very impressive... - Adolphus79 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the entry that had become "Has a lazy eye" to "Her right eyelid 'droops' slightly lower than her left". She most definitely does not have amblyopia, which is a condition that affects ones vision. Her problem only affects the eyelid itself (a fact confirmed in the past by her assistant). I have not linked this to the article Ptosis, the possible medical name of the condition, since I don't have any medical training and have not verified that this is the actual condition she has. - dcljr (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with that eye? Is it real? Is it glass? Can she see out of it? How'd it get that way? She's never really tried to hide it/cover it up but has she ever talked about it? 203.146.247.71 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You might consider to choose your wording more carefully. Agreed, this is not a chatroom for elderly nannies; nevertheless, we should try to keep a minimum language level.Lost Boy 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage

Does anyone have a reliable source that she is of Irish ancestry? I couldn't find anything except wiki-mirrors and similar sites. Also, a few cheesy-looking sites say that her maternal grandfather was Jewish, does anyone know if that's true either? It all seems like the usual web-junk. Mad Jack 06:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a large number of the trivia bits were unencyclopedic and none were sourced, so I moved them here pending source (at which point they should be re-inserted into the actual article, rather than an individual trivia section) Mad Jack 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Favorite subject in school was math.
  • Nicknames are Mel, Halfpint, and Sa (from Melissa and Clarissa — her association with Sabrina came after the nickname).
  • Collects paintings and owns three by Pablo Picasso.
  • Likes to snowboard.
  • She is on dexedrine pills because she's hyperactive. She is......
  • Her right eyelid droops lower than her left.
  • Prefers to be called an actor rather than actress.
  • In a London bar frequented by celebrities, an avid fan named Alan Lazaro tried to sexually assault her, but she defended herself with mace. Charges were pressed and Lazaro was sent to prison for 6 months.

[edit] Confirmation name

Regarding the statement that her full name is Melissa Joan Catherine Hart, I don't think that most Catholics consider their confirmation name to be part of their "full" name. It's definitely not part of your legal name, and I don't know anyone who uses it. Tulane97 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So you removed the sentence on a hunch that she doesn't consider it part of her full name? Without that sentence it doesn't even make sense to mention the name Catherine at all. Great. Now I'm going to have to look through old e-mail to see where the idea that it's part of her "full name" came from. (I'm pretty sure it came from her.) - dcljr (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the theory that she does consider it part of her name is more of a hunch, unless you have some objective evidence that she does, in which case I apologize. Having come from a large Catholic family in a predominantly Catholic area and attended 12 years of Catholic school without ever knowing a single person who used their Confirmation name as part of their full name, that's what my "hunch" was based on. I think the burden of proof is on your side. Besides, even if she does consider it to be a part of her name, it still isn't, in a legal sense. It still makes sense to mention it though, since it's a fact. Tulane97 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dexedrine?

Mellisa takes dexedrine to treat hyperactivity. It has been removed many times in the article. Is it unencyclopedic? Why don't we keep it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.142.9 (talk • contribs)

Well, for starters, was it ever sourced? Even if so, I doubt it would be considered encyclopedic. Lots of people take medications for different reasons. Unless its somehow relevant to her career or public image, I'd say leave it out. (I still don't know if it's even true.) - dcljr (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Facts is facts. If she's taking speed, and someone can cite it, it should be included. Alvis 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

I am removing the following text from the section "Controversy". The closest thing I could find to a cite was a Lifetime TV chat transcript. Needs better citation, in meantime removing because I also question whether it is encyclopedic content. It's unclear whether or not said controversy actually affected her career or made any noticable lasting impact on entertainment culture.

Hart appeared in lingerie in a series of photographs featured in the October 1999 issue of the men's magazine Maxim, as well as in similarly revealing pictorials in Bikini and Movieline magazines around the same time. This caused problems for both Hart and ABC (the network broadcasting Sabrina the Teenage Witch at the time) since the copyright holder of the Sabrina franchise, Archie Comics, regarded the series as a show for children and pre-teens, and believed that the Maxim photographs and the accompanying article hurt the show's wholesome image (Hart also discussed her sex life and alluded to a Sabrina drinking game that could be played while watching the show). The chairman and co-publisher of Archie Comics, Michael Silberkleit, demanded that Hart either apologize or be fired from the series. She neither apologized nor was fired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lansys (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The contraversy is legitimate. This was a fairly big deal at the time. It did raise the bar in terms of younger celebrities and magazine photo shoots and it did cause considerable consternation among industry leaders. I think the topic should be there with a [citation needed] as opposed to being removed completely. If the [citation needed] is there, maybe someone will be more likely to research appropriate references. --207.145.105.170 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The current picture is horrible

69.180.16.5 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The color values were a bit extreme. I tried to improve on that. Is this version any better? — MSchmahl… 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Were the twelve images that made up the composite all your own, per chance? - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more the fact that's it's a digital composite and not an actual photograph. It looks like some kind of creepy painting.