Jump to content

Talk:Erin Moran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing performances which cannot be cited with a RS

[edit]

Following cannot be cited with a RS:

MurielMary (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are listed on Erin Moran's entry on IMDb. GoingBatty (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source as it is user generated. See the WP page on identifying reliable sources for more information. MurielMary (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general IMDb is not reliable. But for filmographies it's about as reliable as anything because IMDb staff are responsible for accuracy, and users are not allowed to edit filmographies. In any event, this article is no different than hundreds of other articles on actors. Don't remove the entire filmography. Sundayclose (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed and why

[edit]

There are no reliable sources for the majority of performances listed in the section below; those which can be cited are already mentioned in the paragraphs about her career. Also, it's overly detailed - every last appearance onscreen isn't needed here, just the main points of the shape of her career, which is already captured in the paragraphs of prose. MurielMary (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you doing? Why would you remove her entire filmography? Are you going to remove the filmography of Scott Baio next? You seem to love removing noteworthy content rather than simply adding a tag. And someone had recently placed the template for that section. There is absolutely nothing wrong with full filmographies. It's very common. Actors who have a very long list of credits even have separate articles, listing all of them. And I doubt anyone seriously questions any of those credits, which match her IMDb page. Non-controversial content like this should not simply be whitewashed from an article. It should only be done if you see something in particular that's likely to be challenged by a lot of people. So put it back. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 2605, and I restored the filmography. That's at least two editors who disagree with this absurd removal that flies in the face of the way actors' pages are done on Wikipedia. Get consensus before removing it again. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, IMDb is not a reliable source. The appearances in the list are not mentioned in any reliable source therefore should not appear in the article. As for gaining consensus, the removal was in line with a wp policy so why would consultation be needed? Finally, George, kindly monitor your tone on a talk page. Angry outbursts like "what the hell are you doing" are uncalled for and certainly not in line with assuming good faith. MurielMary (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general IMDb is not reliable. But for filmographies it's about as reliable as anything because IMDb staff are responsible for accuracy, and users are not allowed to edit filmographies. In any event, this article is no different than hundreds of other articles on actors. Look around Wikipedia. How many actors' pages have every film sourced? The film itself is the source, just as it is for plot summaries. If you think she is not credited in the official film credits for a particular film, find that film and challenge it. Otherwise, don't remove the entire filmography. I think you're going to find very little support if you want to force this issue. I'll be happy to set up an RfC if necessary. Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry MM, but that's precisely the tone needed to deal with editors like you who make non-sensical, wholesale removals of important content. Sundayclose was right when they described it as absurd. Rather than arguing, you should learn how to actually listen to what Sundayclose told you, which is correct. IMDb editors verifty the filmography listings and the shows and films themselves are the reliable sources. What is done here with the filmography is standard protocol for any actor's article. If there are a few listings you seriously doubt, then slap a tag on it. Or, better yet, make a little effort and try to find a source yourself. But you do not say hey, I'll just eliminate the whole damn section and throw out the baby with the bathwater. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a lack of adherence to WP's policy of "assume good faith". I searched for reliable sources for 8 of the performances listed in the filmographay and came up with nothing. Nothing. It didn't look like a good use of time to continue to search for RSs for any of the others in the list given that result. In addition, I wanted this article to appear on the main page under In The News/Recent Deaths, and if an article has an unreferenced filmography like this one, it won't be featured on the main page (check the discussion at WP:ITN/Candidates to confirm that editors opposed the nomination of this article to appear on the main page due to the unreferenced filmography). So it's clearly not just me who understands the RS guideline of "IMDb is not a realiable source". And again, accusing somone of making "nonsensical" edits when actually the edits are in line with a WP policy is yet again inappropriate on a talk page. MurielMary (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are the last person who should be lecturing others about inappropriate editing. It's very humorous that you have no ojbections to someone calling your actions absurd, yet are deeply offended by having your ridiculous whitewashing being described as nonsensical, which is extremely tame compared to what you should be told. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a threat, 2605. Mind your step, a personal attack on another editor isn't acceptable here. MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MM, why don't you tell everyone, specifically, what part of my comment you consider to be a "threat"? And while you're at it, why don't you explain why you're ignoring George Ho about your false and baseless allegation against him? We'll be waiting. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho I'm not sure why you've changed your signature from your user name to the string of numbers above? MurielMary (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parnoid much, MM? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now what happened - George added a subheading to the text above, and I viewed this and 2605's initial comment on a mobile phone screen, too small to clearly distinguish that there were two editors' names on the page rather than one. My error! MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail of WP's stance on using the IMDb as a source can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb and also here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources I see that the entries on IMDb for Moran are user-generated, which points to a lack of verifiability. In addition, a number of appearances on the article's filmography appear as "uncredited", so how can that statement be validated - an actor looking like Moran was in a film?? I'll put up a question on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and start a discussion on the use of IMDb for Moran's article. MurielMary (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My question and responses to it appear here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_filmography_of_Erin_Moran MurielMary (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responses, MurielMary? You mean from the one editor? And did you even read what the editor said? Exactly what we have essentially told you. The editor told you, "Keep in mind the reason it (IMDb) is used for released films & TV shows, is that as a primary source, the credits can be verified from watching said film/TV show. Which is why IMDB is more reliable for credited released films/TVs etc. Obviously if someone is uncredited, you cant do that." Gee, have you heard that before? Read it again what that editor told you: "the reason it (IMDb) is used for released films & TV shows, is that as a primary source, the credits can be verified from watching said film/TV show". It's precisely what both SundayClose and I have explained to you. That the TV shows and films themselves are the reliable sources. Next, you presented a mere essay (WP:CITINGIMDB) to support your claim, not a policy or even a guideline. Did you even read it? Do you understand the difference between "disputed" and "inappropriate"? Regardless, it doesn't matter because it's just an essay e.g. someone's opinion. You also presented a paragraph from WikiProject Film, which is simply taken from WP:CITINGIMDB. Hello? The bottom line is you have nothing new to add and you refuse to accept the fact that your complete removal of an actor's entire filmography was, as SundayClose told you, absurd. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One other note, MurielMary. You repeatedly preach about how it's important to "assume good faith", yet accused me above of being another editor (George Ho). Please educate yourself on the word hypocrisy. If you and this fellow have issues between you, deal with him instead of going around making baseless allegations stemming from your paranoia. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary, you conveniently ignored the fact that the film itself can be the source, I suppose because that would mean you can't delete the filmography, or that you would have to actually check to see if she is credited in the film. I suggest to others here that we not continue to add to this discussion. If MM wants to delete the filmography again, the issue will be decided with an RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IMDb is disputed and therefore there needs to be discussion of the appropriacy of its use. A discussion which I have initiated here, and also initiated at the RS noticeboard. If people say "the film is the source" then where is a reliable verifiable source, perhaps created by the film producers themselves, and not user-generated by a community, which shows the cast list for a movie? Theoretically, I can go on IMDb and add anyone's name to any film and create a source which WP will accept. The promotional posters only show the lead actors, not all the bit part actors, so that's not a useful source. We're still left without a reliable verifiable source. MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I'm saying this: The FILM is the source, not a poster or a producer. The FILM. You have been told that by three different editors, including at WP:RSNB. Now please drop the stick and move on, or we'll be discussing this at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to others: The accused IP (2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and I are not the same person. I was sent the message about the unverifiable allegations against me and the other. Also, I notified MurielMary about coming to my talk page to resolve the disputes among three of us. If the matter is resolved, the allegations can be disregarded. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

[edit]

Film and television

[edit]

Soundtrack

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Also, this statment is uncited:

The lawsuit was initiated after Ross was informed by a friend playing slots at a casino of a "Happy Days" machine on which players won the jackpot when five Marion Rosses were rolled.

Actually, it is cited in that section, so restore it. But why remove it instead of simply adding a citation-needed tag? Most importantly, it's a vital sentence because it's what prompted the lawsuit! A quick Google search produces plenty of reliable sources to verify the claim, like this, this, and this. Just do a word search for "five Marions" in these sources. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, you found a source for it. Feel free to re-insert with an inline citation. MurielMary (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is protected so obviously I can't restore it. Furthermore, I didn't "find" anything. The CNN source is and was already in the section when you inappropriately removed that very important sentence. So, you removed it. Now put it back. And from now on, do not remove non-controversial content; just add a citation-needed tag! But before you do that, read the existing sources and if you can't find verification then try to verify it yourself. A very quick Google search would've returned instant verification. Don't be lazy. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MurielMary refused to restore the content she inappropriately removed. I have just done it myself now that the article is no longer protected. MM, if you continue this type of intransigence as you also did in the above thread about the fimography and with other editors, you will end up, as SundayClose told you, explaining your disruptive editing at the appropriate noticeboard. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death

[edit]

At the time that THIS comment is being written, there had been NO official statement as to Moran's SPECIFIC cause of death!

The source for "throat cancer" and for the type of cancer it supposedly is has ONLY come from family (husband) and friends - - - NOT from a coroner or other verified official. Remember, toxicology reports have not come back!

As such, since COD has NOT come from an officially reliable source, I think any reference to or mention of "throat cancer" or the type of cancer should either be removed or notated as not being verified. 2600:8800:783:6500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually correct. Per this source, which is included in the article, the coroner only said it was stage 4 cancer, but didn't specify the type. It looks like the only ones saying specifically it was throat cancer are her husband and Happy Days co-stars. I'm sure they're correct, but for encylopedic purposes this article should make clear who is saying it, and why. You can make the changes yourself, but be sure to include a clear edit summary explaining your reasons. You can also refer editors to this talk page thread. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of her squamous cell carcinoma

[edit]

Did Erin Moran smoke and/or drink alcohol? The Wikipedia entry for squamous cell carcinoma states that is believed that half of esophogal squamous cell carcinoma are caused by smoking, and a third are caused by drinking, and that three-quarters are caused by smoking and drinking. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Open Letter"

[edit]

I think having that letter included in the Article or a link to it would improve the Article.68.206.248.178 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erin_Moran&oldid=1256558369"