Talk:Sid Haig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Sid Haig has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Sid Haig was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 17, 2008
Sid Haig was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 9, 2008
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Archive

Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Article copy has been released under GFDL for use in Wikipedia

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)[1] Thanks  Glen  05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New location for Bio w/License

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)

License is now displayed on the bio page, as of 7:12pm PDT. =) Spirot 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

License altered to read: "Licensed for use to Wikipedia under the GNU free document license (GFDL) 2/2007" per advice from Admin CBDunkerson. Link is the same as above. Spirot 04:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with this article

This entire article is derived from Sid Haig's official website. Not only is the length out of proportion with the importance of this individual, it does not cite any external sources. It's not clear that this subject warrants an article at all. The article is hagiographic and full of trivia. I came across it and found it non-encyclopaedic, and tagged it as a copyvio. Though apparently that was incorrect (text use by permission from official site), my other complaints stand. This article should cite independent sources only, as it appears that people associated with Sid Haig are the editors. User:Burntsauce was right to prune it down (something I hadn't thought of). This article should probably be restarted from scratch. Quatloo 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that why Wiki's admins bumped it all the way from a stub top a class B article? Maybe you should take your issues up with them, since one of them helped me get the article to this point, and they are the ones who gave it the B rating. Obviously, you and Wiki administration do not share the same opinion of this article. Spirot 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving your completely and utter ignorance with the subject. Sid Haig's a very big cult actor, more than ever now because of his roles in Rob Zombie's films. He's not on the Hollywood A-List but in the core horror crowd he's VERY popular. I can bet if you'd nominate it for deletion it would be an overwhelming keep.--CyberGhostface 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I merely said that it was not clear. If what you say is true, there are plenty of sources independent of the Official Website with which to build an article. This article needs to be restarted because it is too self-serving. Quatloo 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Quatloo, didn't we already do this dance??? It's official, it's licensed, it's cited. Knock it off. Spirot 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this page. There are questions as to the tone and intent of this article (largely copied from the Official Website of the subject). Independent sources need to be found. See [2], "it is not unduly self-serving." The article reads like it was written by someone in PR. Quatloo 01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I know you, Quatloo? You seem familiar. Look, here is the deal, once and for all: 1) The bio is not only on his official site, but IMDB, and several other sites. If you took a moment to check that you would see it is true. As well as the full biography, there are excerpts, re-edits (like the article posted here), and several variations upon the same bio. And someone in PR writing a biography is rather common, especially for someone in the entertainment industry. It's standard business. 2) The bio here is NOT the same text as the original bio that I wrote and have had published on numerous sites (at their request). This version is an edit that was acheived with the help of Wiki admins and users. It must be ok by them, because they rated it a class B. Why is it you think your actions overrule the people who run this site??? 3) The last time you played around with this article, you complained that it was on IMDB, now you complain that it's on Sid's site. Where else would it be??? If there are two more appropriate places for an actor's bio than his own site and his page on the Internet Movie Database, then I'd love to know about them. 4) Every claim you have made against this article can easily be refuted by a simple glance at the discussion page entries above this one. If administration telling you this article is ok is not good enough for you, then I don't know what to do.Spirot 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. My claim is that the article as it stands is inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. It is written as if Haig's PR agent had written it. When I originally encountered it, I found it poorly written and in the wrong tone, and a quick check determined that it was not original to Wikipedia and so I flagged it as a copyright violation (I flag many articles with that, as Wikipedia is rife with copyright violations). Now that you have satisfied the copyright concerns, this leaves the fact that it is poorly written, PR-oriented in tone and content, and much of it is simply inappropriate drivel. Furthermore the article isn't properly sourced and this is in violation of WP:RS, and to a lesser extent, WP:BLP. My main concerns have not been "refuted" at all. Quatloo 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Complain to admin Glen S then, as he helped me get the article to where it is. Once again, did you not notice that the Wiki admins gave it a B? Do they do that to articles which violate policy? I suggest you take this directly to him, and see if you can explain to an admin why it is you keep deleting something they approved. Your main concern is addressed, and much like the link I had to show you five times last time you got a bee in your bonnet, it's right there if you only look. Spirot 05:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is with the article, not some editor or admin. If you look to see what qualifies as a "B" article, you'll see that it's not like receiving a "B" on your homework. A "B" here is nothing to be proud of. It means, "This is pretty egregiously bad, not as bad as a start-class article or a stub." In particular, it allows for "significant policy errors", which in this case are quite severe, and those are what I am addressing. Quatloo 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I keep saying...talk to the admins, not me. I got approval on this article, so go complain to them. A "B" rating is bad now? I'll try and remember that. Spirot 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

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)

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)
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" [3]... 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) (I moved this from the discussion below to be near the points it is refuting, but did not otherwise alter it. --Quatloo)
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)
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 [4], 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)
As to his notability not being established... you establish it yourself by citing his extensive filmography at IMDB [5]. About fifty years of appearing in film and television roles, over a hundred of them, is somehow NOT notable? Or 190,000 Google hits [6]? The New York Times has an entry on him [7]. 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)
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)
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)
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)

I have pruned this article to a stub, because of WP:COI and the lack of available independent sources for much of the trivia in it. I have no problem with information being re-added to it provided there are citations to independent sources. The biography on Sid Haig's official website, written by Sid Haig's publicist, is not such a source. Quatloo 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An entry for this article has been added to the WP Conflict of Interest Noticeboard [8]. Quatloo 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FINAL VERIFICATION OF ARTICLE CONTENT

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)

Oops, didn't log in. That was me posting, folks! Good thing someone's checking my work, though. Spirot 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

I hope you enjoy your sick fun, maf. Calling this article a "EULOGY"??? Spirot 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about the poor quality of sources and links

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.

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.
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.
This is a blog. Blogs are not a reliable source for information on an actor, and this should not be used as a source.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [9]). Quatloo 10:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reboot

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)

Even though someone has now added a smattering of references to the text, the article is fanboyish and contains many phrases and information which should not appear in any encyclopedia. I also question the origin of the "DragonCon" biography, it should probably be disallowed as a reference. Nobody knows who wrote it (a likely candidate would be Haig's publicist). Quatloo 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Sources

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)

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)

[edit] GA fail

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately, I cannot pass this article for GA because of many reasons. First off, there are only two images, and more would be necessary. Second, the article isn't stable. It's partially locked and edit wars have happened, both at the talk page and at the article itself. Lastly, the article is Not well sourced. There are only 13 references, which are not cited properly and are subject to link rot. After the article settles down and these things are fixed, it can be re-nominated again.Limetolime (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've improved all the links. As for the images, I added the only remaining image on Wikimedia Commons back to the article. If necessary, I could go browse Flickr for more but I don't want to clog up the article. As for fair use, I was under the impression that they weren't allowed.
The edit war that got the page blocked is, I think, over. I sent a message to the involved anon and asked him if he was done.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that Haig's publicist has twice quit Wikipedia forever in disgust, no answer is likely to be meaningful. As for additional illustrations, I think the evaluator is in error thinking it needs more. Quatloo (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well written: I can see some MOS violations. Names of TV series need to be italicized in the lead (see WP:MOSITALICS). "MacGyver" is misspelled as "MacGuyver" in the Acting section. Sections are too short and could probably be refactored to be more effective.
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: Only 13 sources, too heavy reliance on reference 6
  • Broad in its coverage: Meets criteria
  • NPOV: Meets criteria
  • Stable: Meets criteria
  • Images: Meets criteria

I do not feel this article meets the GA criteria yet. I would advise taking the article through WP:PR before attempting GA a third time. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be necessary to find sources that are further from the subject's control -- articles that are not either interviews or press releases. It is not that there is an overreliance on a single source, just that most of the sources simply aren't very good. Quatloo (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)