Talk:Jason Beghe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jason Beghe has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 21, 2008.
May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This is not a forum for general discussion of Jason Beghe, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jason Beghe article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

[edit] Info removed from article re: attendance at 5/10/2008 Project Chanology protests

Jason has been seen amongst Anonymous protesters on 5-10-2008[1]

This info could potentially be added back into the article, were it to be sourced to a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, per WP:CITE. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm new to the exact rules of wikipedia sources, I hope this one is better? albeit an 'Anonymous" source, it's pretty convincing to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNL (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is also a violation of WP:NOR. We need a secondary source, i.e. newspaper article about the protest, a chapter in a book, scholarly journal article, etc. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, I'm just citing that page about using primary sources;
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

I used a primary source and made a descriptive claim about the information. I don't see how that's breaking any rules. (Especially when it is a forum thread including pictures and video's of him being there. It's nonsense to call it non-verifieable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNL (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, using a messageboard forum is not an appropriate source to back up information. You are now jeopardizing this article's chances at passing its Good Article review, and I really wish you would remove that information please. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How are multiple pictures, video's and witnessess not an apropriate source? The fact that it's on the interwebs and not on a "secondary" source doesn't make it less of a fact. If you want I can post some blogs to? But really, that forum should be enough for anything as simple as his presence there; verifiable, and proper usage of a primary source. It doesn't even state anything about him actually activly performing in said protests, wich could be argued from the primary source, but that would not intrepetation. The fact that he was present there, is pretty much indisputable with all that hard evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNL (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The source cited was an internet forum, which is insufficiently reliable for any article and for a biographical article in particular. Whilst the information may well be true, it's currently really just gossip and so not suitable. The standards are so high for biographies because the risks are so great. CIreland (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Look further than "an internet forum" would it be better to directly reference the loads of pictures and video's? I'm not drawing any conclusions or anything, but how are pictures, video's and witnessess unreliable in asserting someone's presence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNL (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cirt and CIreland are correct. Using a forum, pictures on photo-sharing websites, and/or YouTube videos for references is not allowed.[here]
Furthermore, as this page is a biography of a living person, it is subject to the injunctions found on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, particularly the section about sources. The 3RR rule does not apply in this case; the material must be removed until a reliable source is found. [here] J.delanoygabsadds 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, because there is no editorial oversight of such sources to vouch for the fact that they are not faked or deceitful which, whilst unlikely, has occurred in the past. Secondly, the fact that it has not been picked up by, for example, the mainstream press, is indicative of the weight that independent commentators have attached to the occurence and, by extension, the significance that we, as a tertiary source, should attribute to it. CIreland (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How´s this for a secondary source? http://www.prlog.org/10071042-actor-jason-beghe-visits-anonymous-cult-of-scientology-protest-in-san-francisco.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNL (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, for all we know, you wrote that yourself. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAC review

This was a very interesting article to read; very eye opening. For the most part, I believe it fulfills the Good Article criteria in that it is (mostly) well written, correctly formatted, verifiable, stable and neutral. Both images are tagged correctly and are from the commons, so no issues there. I have several comments and suggestions:

  • is an American film and television actor: and vocal critic of Scientology? Just a suggestion, I'm not even sure. It's just that the last part of the lead seems to come out of right field, especially now that Beghe is now most recognizable because of the latter than the former.
  • Beghe's history with the Church of Scientology is notable: although this is true, I don't think it's necessary.
  • The entire first part of this paragraph needs to be rewritten, beginning with when he first began affiliated with Scientology: "Beghe began taking Scientology courses in 1994, and later appeared in a Scientology advertising campaign and in promotional videos; Church of Scientology head David Miscavige allegedly called him "the poster boy for Scientology". After leaving Scientology (in...? after...?), he began speaking out publicly against it in April 2008."
  • He contacted Andreas Heldal-Lund of the organization Operation Clambake, who referred him to Scientology critic Mark Bunker...: TMI (Too Much Information) for the lead. How about something like: "With the help of Mark Bunker, another Scientology critic, Beghe uploaded an interview to YouTube..." etc?
  • The lead neglects to say what effect his Youtube video had on Scientology (if any), or why it's notable. How popular was it? How was it portrayed by the media? That sort of info will show how it's notable rather than just saying it is, if that makes sense.
  • I see a few instances in which pronouns can be substituted for "Beghe", if only to cut down on repetition. For example, "Prior to his acting career, Beghe worked as a model in Europe.[9] HE had his feature film debut in a 1985 film called Compromising Positions, and in 1986 had his first recurring role on television on the HBO situation comedy series 1st & Ten.[1] HE starred alongside..."
  • Some of the wording can be jazzed up a bit. Instead of "Beghe/he starred in" or "Beghe/he played/portrayed" beginning each sentence, try "In [year], Beghe starred in..." or "After working on [film/show], he played..." Get rid of some of the blocky repetitiveness.
  • The "Scientology" section is quite large and makes up for most of the article. I suggest it be broken into two subsections, separating Beghe's early years and acceptance and then his newfound skepticism.
  • Fellow acting student Bodhi Elfman gave him a book about Scientology where he was introduced to the idea that "technology"... the "where" here is confusing, since it's referring to the book. "from which Beghe was introduced"?
  • In 2007 Beghe made the decision to leave Scientology: why? Has he stated any specific reasons? Why this shift?
  • Although "Suppressive Person" is wikilinked, a short definition of the term would be helpful here.
  • Bunker published a 3-minute portion of the 3-hour interview... three, not 3.
  • He also comments "I don't have an agenda...": needs a comma before the quote. Also, he said these things in the past, so it should be introduced in the past tense: he commented.
  • Tense issues pop out throughout the "Scientology" section; for example, "Bunker said" and "Bunker believes" appear in back to back sentences; since this has happened in the past (albeit only a month ago), I believe it should be told in the past tense.
  • The main issue I see with this, like I stated above while commenting on the lead, is that nowhere is it stated why Beghe's dissension is notable. It may be too early to tell, but what effect has it had? Negative, positive? Why did this get so much attention in the first place? If this can be qualified, the article would be far less "he said, she said" and have more impact.

The most important thing is to qualify what makes this Scientology brouhaha notable. Ref 33, for example, states that Beghe "is the first celebrity to speak out against the religion, telling how his 12 years with the church have damaged him." Do other sources corroborate that he was the first? What about responses from current Scientologists, have there been any? There are tons of great sources for this article as this was quite a sensationalist story, so I don't doubt this article can be improved enough to become a GA. I'll put the nomination on hold for now, so if you have any questions or comments, just let me know. María (habla conmigo) 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and suggestions. I will do my best to address the above points within the time allotted. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: to GA Reviewer: I have gone through and done my best to address all of your points above, save for one or two. Please allow a bit more time for me to come back in a few hours and do one more sweep through your points. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay I did another check-through all of your above points and I think I have pretty much addressed a great majority of them. The only things I wanted to comment on was that I agree with you that enough time has not yet passed where secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources are yet commenting on what overall affect Beghe's YouTube video and testimonials/criticism has had against the Church of Scientology. So I don't really think that I'd be able to find much to put into the article, I just don't think that sort of thing is out yet in sources. But I tried to address all of your other points. (The edit summaries state that the edits were made in response to the GA review.) Cirt (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand; you can't address something in the article if it hasn't been addressed by the media. If it comes out, great, but for now I think the article is as broad in its coverage as it can be, and the updates/changes you've made have definitely improved it. There are a couple missing commas there and there (While active in Scientology, Beghe's relationship with Duchovny suffered... for example), but those have a tendency to fix themselves. I'm pleased with the work done, so I'm happy to promote it to GA-class. Congrats! Great job on an interesting and topical article. María (habla conmigo) 12:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and thanks again for taking the time to do the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Still continuing to search for additional secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, particularly past interviews, background info on early career/life, etc. Cirt (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)