Talk:Michael McShae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] Notability?
I'm raising the red flag about notability here. McShae is "most noted" for a one-off guest appearance on a TV show. He looks to have a sequence of minor roles to his name, and there's no indication that he's had any significant press coverage about him, as opposed to the productions he's worked in. Is he really notable? —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred. Please pardon my lack of sophistication in using this site. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to become the expert that others, such as you, have become. As a result, any help from you or others is appreciated. Anyway, I have two points in response. First, in this context, "most noted" is a synonym for "best known." If you believe the latter is more neutral, I have no qualms in changing the wording. Everyone is "best known" or "most noted" for some attribute to their friends and acquaintances. "Most noted for" is a relative phrase that does not specify the magnitude of noteworthiness.
Second, I believe Michael has sufficient notability to warrant a brief mention on Wikipedia. Considering Hannah Montana is the most popular show for pre-teens and tweens on television [1] and its record-breaking, world-wide popularity, anyone who plays Miley Cyrus's boyfriend (and kisses her), is going to be of serious interest to the millions of young female viewers of the show. Already, unauthorized YouTube.com videos of Michael's episode, "Test of My Love," (which has aired everywhere else in the world except for the U.S.) have broken all YouTube.com viewership records for episodes of that show in their first two weeks (my unpublished research using Vidmeter.com) with one of the videos reaching 364,000+ views [2] before Disney had it removed. Finally, since Michael has higher imdb.com STARmeter ratings than other actors listed on this site (cannot provide a reference since imdb.com requires a subscription to view the ratings), I believe he deserves a minor mention such as the one I have posted. Keep in mind I am not claiming he is a celebrity nor am I insinuating his importance, via a prominent entry, to be anything other than the minor notability he has justifiably earned.
If you have any tips or suggestions to improve its neutrality or readability, I am willing to listen. Thanks! - Bob Sienicki
- One key right now is that there need to be reliable sources for the article. Unfortuantely, IMDB does not qualify, so the article currently cites no reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Then please explain to me your apparent inconsistency. If you look up one of Michael's acting friends, Creagen Dow, you will note that the only listed reference is an external link to his profile on imdb.com. In addition, there are countless examples of imdb.com citations listed for various actors on Wikipedia, so if imdb.com is so unreliable, why are such citations permitted anywhere? Finally, I am guessing you are not in the industry so I would be interested to know what you feel is the most reliable source of information for actors and productions. There is absolutely no more comprehensive and reliable source available that I am aware of. And considering imdb.com insists on substantiation from either released production credits or direct confirmation from the production companies themselves, I would be most interested in your justification for claiming imdb.com is not reliable. I have re-written the entry in a neutral tone that states only substantiated facts. So unless you can provide adequate reason why you are holding this entry to a higher standard than other entries in this database, I would appreciate it if you would let this go. Your point about the notability and neutral language was noted and changes were made. What is left is factual - I have the call sheets, pay stubs, videos, and contracts to prove them all. I appreciate your help and will accept your suggestions should you care to provide them. - Bob Sienicki —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMcShae (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I've gone ahead and flagged the Dow article as likewise lacking in notability and sourcing. Though I point out that, as a rule of thumb, each article is considered on its own merits, regardless of what other stuff exists. As for what souces I consider reliable, I go with the general Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, with an emphasis for independent ones. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, Fred. I presume you want to be helpful as opposed to just doing drive-by critiques. So rather than constantly flagging what you think is wrong, perhaps you might want to tell me what I can do to correct it.
As for the references, I read a good part of the debate about imdb.com and noted that the issue of allowing it to be used as a reliable source centers around whether the information on that site is freely editable by anyone - much like Wikipedia. If you have ever tried to contribute film or television credits (such as the ones shown here) to imdb.com, not only do you have to follow an established and well-controlled procedure, but the credits have to be verified by imdb.com editors before they will allow them to appear. That does not fit the description of "freely editable."
But rather than engage in that debate, I have read further and discovered the following quote: "We have an accepted principle on Wikipedia that a films credits are acceptable as a reliable source." As a result, not only have I provided adequate reference to the credits appearing on imdb.com but I have also provided references to each of the projects' actual film credits. Since not all films and television shows are freely available, as an official release, on the internet, one simply cannot provide an online link to the film or television episode in question to verify the credit. So the only apparent alternative is to indicate the actual film credit as a reference. And, indeed, there is evidence this is an acceptable method. (see List of Hannah Montana episodes, the episode "Test of My Love" and the references for the writing and directing credits.) As a result, I have also stated - in the same manner - the reference to the actual film / episode credits.
Two more points, Fred. 1) common sense, and fairness, dictates all entries in Wikipedia be held to the same standards. Badgering this or any other new entry for issues regarding references (or any other policy issue) is arbitrary and capricious if existing entries with those same issues are allowed to exist unchallenged. Ultimately that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. I suggest you take the equivalent time to audit existing entries for adherence to policy prior to biting newcomers who offer only simple statements of fact. 2) if Wikipedia does not provide for a uniform, reliable source as a comprehensive reference for all film and television credits, everything on Wikipedia - with respect to film and television - becomes a house of cards. It is a well established fact that even articles appearing in the New York Times Film Reviews are neither accurate nor comprehensive in their stating of what limited film credits they offer. To suggest such an article constitutes a more reliable source than imdb.com is ludicrous. But be that as it may, if you are going to allow ANY film or television credit to appear anywhere on Wikipedia, then you must insist on holding all of them to the same standards you are holding to this entry. And last I checked, I have not seen your flags pasted throughout all the violating entries.
Ultimately, if you want to do more good than harm, you might want to consider the 80/20 rule. It would be a lot more effective to audit all the extensive, splashy entries of persons who are guilty of far more policy violations than this one rather than obsess ad nauseum over all the issues you have raised regarding this simple four line entry! Finally, if you have a specific issue with any of the grammar indicated in the entry that might suggest something other than a neutral point of view, I would appreciate you providing more specifics rather than merely flagging this and posting a link to some general policy page. Much of what appears in policy debates deal with specific interpretations. Merely reading a general policy does not indicate to me what your s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c concerns are. Regardless of my relationship with the person in this entry, if what is stated is a fact and is not colored by opinion in any way, I cannot see how there could either be a conflict of interest or an issue regarding neutrality. If you fundamentally do not believe this entry deserves to be included on Wikipedia for whatever reason, then perhaps you should say so! This is not a who-dunnit dime store novel, Fred. I don't know what your specific concerns are by osmosis. You need to provide me with more detailed information. - Bob Sienicki
- Suggest you read the article about notability of people in WP:BIO. There is some debate about IMDB and generally production information is classed as reliable as it is generally given to IMDB by the production companies. The fact checking that IMDB does is an unknown and may just be for consistency and trustworthiness for other stuff. We don't know what they do so don't generally trust their verification procedures. Episode information has been wrong often enough that it can't be trusted to the same extent that the actual main show info is particularly for future episodes. The main issue for notability for this article is not so much that the subject has credits, that is good to have in an article but is basically just directory type information. A name and a role. What is really needed is a number of articles about the subject published in some magazine or newspaper that goes into some depth about the person. As for your other comments about Wikipedia consistency - all I can say is we are all a bunch of volunteers that try the best we can. --NrDg 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As for your point regarding imdb.com, I must ask if you have intimate knowledge of the journalistic procedures in place at the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, or the LA Times? I personally know some of that information and understand those "reliable sources" are just as prone to error and exaggeration as imdb.com. To arbitrarily single out imdb.com as having dubious credibility merely because you don't know either the people or processes in place is capricious and irresponsible, IMHO. I would think an editor on Wikipedia would not be prone to such a clear violation of neutrality (in judgment) you wish to enforce! As for the issue regarding notability, I can understand your point. But according to the Entertainer guidelines present on the WP:BIO link you provided, it clearly states an actor has sufficient notability if he/she: "- Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. - Has a large fan base." In the first case, Michael has had a very notable role as Miley Cyrus' new boyfriend. If you are at all familiar with Ms. Cyrus and the show, she is the most popular teen idol on the planet right now (not to mention the wealthiest!) and her show, Hannah Montana, is the top teen television show on cable TV. In fact, her series has set viewership records for Disney shows. As a result, her prior boyfriend, played by Cody Linley, was an overnight sensation simply due to the interest millions of teenage girls had in Miley's on-screen love life. Considering Michael's role was certainly no bit part (!!!), I would think that the nature of the role - within that context - would qualify as being characterized as "significant." Finally, if you were to do some minor research on Vidmeter.com regarding the viewership and comments on the many unauthorized videos of that episode (some of which have been pulled due to Disney), you would find Michael has quite a large fan base - as well as a large number of heartbroken girls who are not yet ready to let go of the last boyfriend Miley had. Not to be rude here, NrDg, but Michael has already built up more of a fan base with this one episode than you and I, combined, will ever know in our entire lives! Offhand, I think that warrants a brief mention on Wikipedia. Not a big, splashy glorified PR job - just a mention. I would think your fine volunteer efforts would be better spent culling out the more prominent violations of Wikipedia policy, don't you? - Bob Sienicki —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMcShae (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Major newspapers have a reputation for reliability along with a lot of other sources classes as reliable. A good explanation of the concept is in WP:RS. The fact that this article IS about an actor on a notable show is one reason it was not summarily deleted and why we are having this discussion about how to improve the article. As it stands now the article is marginal without something more than IMDB sources. --NrDg 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Major newspapers also have a well-documented history of making "Dewey Wins!"-type mistakes, too. The simple fact you choose not to research the processes in place at imdb.com seems more a matter of convenience than substance. A conflict of interest, perhaps? Not that Wikipedia would ever entertain the idea of becoming a superior source for film and television credits, would it? As for improving the article, I have already provided substantiated references to the film and television credits themselves as was indicated sufficient in your movie credits talk page. If you can point me to whatever you feel is the most reliable source of film credits to further bolster those references, I will be happy to comply. But having scanned dozens of other actor entries, I can assure you I don't know what source that would be. At least not without causing plenty of other entries to be flagged with similar reference warnings! I have also rewritten the article to present objective facts about the actor in question. There are plenty of examples of similar, brief entries for people in such publications as Britannica and Who's Who. I don't suppose expecting me to expound further than a mere recital of his name, birth date, profession, and credits is a moving target, c'nest pas? Look, he is notable enough to have a brief mention - which I have provided. If one of his fans wants to embellish the entry further, that is between them and you. If you would prefer I provide a link to an article that provides more information about him, I will be happy to comply when it comes available. I presume there will be plenty of interest from the various major teen publications that will suffice. That is, unless you are not convinced their editorial processes are of adequate quality to serve as a citation! - Bob Sienicki
[edit] Conflict of interest
This article appears to be initiated and mostly written by the subject. Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged as it is perceived by most people to be almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view about yourself. See WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Generally when a subject is notable someone else will create the article. The subject is welcome to comment on the article in the discussion page, point out inaccuracies and locations of reliable information sources and remove unreferenced information for pretty much any reason. See WP:BLP. Any references you have that is not published in reliable sources is impossible for anybody to verify so can't be used. See WP:RS and WP:V. As an actor on Hannah Montana is would be very likely that a fan of the show would have created this article eventually.
On the subject of IMDB reliability. I noticed that the IMDB article on the episode "The Test of My Love" only listed one guest cast member when there were actually 6 listed in the end credits of the show. If the episode info came from the production company, much like most movie info does, the guest cast list would have been complete. The linked resume on the IMDB article is a bit untrusted as actor resumes are not always totally accurate - its purpose is to get a job.--NrDg 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. NrDg... two points: 1) if you had read through the entire talk page, you would have noticed I have signed my name as "Bob Sienicki" not Michael McShae. As a newbie, I created the account using Michael's name because I thought it made sense to use the name of the person whose entry I would be contributing. I have no desire to add any other entries to the Wikipedia database now or in the foreseeable future, so your presumption of a conflict of interest is founded upon another equally faulty presumption that I am somehow the person I am writing about. If it would appease you that I change my user name for appearances sake, please let me know. I have no problem with that option. 2) a conflict of interest is rooted in the neutrality of the entry's wording. If the information provided is factual and not colored in any way by opinion, it should be irrelevant who provided the information. I challenge you to prove otherwise. If you have a problem with the wording of the entry, I would be willing to consider rewriting whatever particular phrase or passage that appears to be non-neutral in its wording. - Bob Sienicki
- The opening paragraph in the article states: "Michael McShae (born Michael Robert Sienicki on June 19, 1991)" The same as the name you just signed the above paragraph as. I still see conflict of interest here. Either as the actual subject of the article or a relative with the same last name. Possibly the "IMDb Mini Biography By: Robert Sienicki" who wrote the IMDB bio. His dad maybe according to the IMDB bio? --NrDg 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Though I am surprised you would place much stock in such an unreliable source of information! (vbg) My point remains valid. From the wording of the entry, alone, I cannot find anything that would suggest anything other than a statement of facts presented in an objective and neutral manner. Perhaps you would like to comment on my item #2? Or are you fishing for some sort of justification to teach a newbie a lesson here? I have no problems with changing the user name should you feel that should somehow - by its existence - suggest a conflict of interest. Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "conflict of interest" as: "1. the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence: The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest. 2. the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them." Perhaps you might be kind enough to point out how my submitted entry falls into either of those definitions? Or perhaps Wikipedia provides a definition other than that which is commonly accepted by most of the English-speaking world?
Look, Mr. (or Ms.???) NrDg... I simply wanted to provide an entry for my son. Nothing fancy, no exaggerated claims, no sales pitches. He is already known by millions of Hannah Montana fans around the world as the new boyfriend of the main character played by Miley Cyrus. Already his Wikipedia entry is in the top four links provided by a Google search for my son's name (not an uncommon name, I might add. Try his real name, Michael Sienicki, as a comparison!) I would think that would justify a minor mention on Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping a newbie like moi to edit this entry to meet appropriate requirements, by all means, I am all ears. However, if not, then I must wonder why you feel so inclined to persist when there are plenty of more notable violations of Wikipedia policy. Of course, I presume the former unless proven otherwise! - Bob Sienicki
- Actually, based on your above communications I detect a vocabulary, reasoning ability and maturity level greater than I would expect from a 17 year-old. I no longer believe you are the subject of the article but likely his father. Still conflict of interest. Neutrality is also based on what is chosen to be included and emphasis given to what is included. Neutrality is hard at the best of times, more so when close to the subject. A third party using published reliable sources is judged more likely to provide a neutral article. --NrDg 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the operative words you mentioned are, "more likely." Which certainly suggests that neutrality can, in fact, be achieved by someone who is closely related to the subject of the article. Again, the deciding factor is whether the wording of the article is written in a manner that suggests a bias or opinion. In this particular case, I have provided a mere recitation of facts - all of which are able to be substantiated with more evidence than is likely ever seen on Wikipedia! A much more revealing question would be: if a person, not knowing the name of the contributor (and not seeing the red warning flags!), read the article, would they detect anything subjective? In this case, I think not! Of course, if you can show me where the wording falls short, I would be more inclined to be sympathetic to your complaints! IMWTK! - Bob Sienicki
- Please read the article WP:COI to get a better understanding about our concerns. The article as it stands now is not much more than a listing of basic bio info and acting credits. A lot of the problem IS perception of a conflict of interest. Neutrality of articles is placed in question when people who have something to gain (promotion of a family member) are involved in writing the article. I don't doubt that you could remain neutral, the temptation to shade things will always be there. Best you don't edit the article directly. It is true you could have created the article using a pseudonym and nobody would have known. I appreciate the fact you didn't do that. What you need to do next, if you want the article to remain, is find something written about your son that is not just a list of credits.--NrDg 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as you hold every other actor on Wikipedia to the same standards of providing a reference about them that is not just a list of credits, I will not complain. But until you establish the fact that the article, as currently written, is not neutral or clearly shows a conflict of interest, I would respectfully request you delete the warnings for those issues. The last I checked, giving someone a scarlet letter merely because of the POTENTIAL for a conflict of interest went out with the Middle Ages. When you see me add something that would clearly fall within the definition of "conflict of interest" I would be the first to understand. But through all this verbiage, neither you nor Fred have indicated where there IS a conflict of interest - rather than its mere potential. People are not normally convicted of crimes just because they had the opportunity! I would hope you are sophisticated enough to understand that distinction! (And not trying to be rude, but Michael isn't going to get much more benefit from being included on this site than he already has from being on the Hannah Montana show itself and having his profile on imdb.com! So the promotion angle you mentioned is a pretty weak argument. Perhaps if all he had ever done were bit parts that might be the case. But then, up until this particular role, I hadn't created this entry either, had I?) - Bob Sienicki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.144.31 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
