Talk:David Strathairn

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

Use of "David Strathairn online" as a source[edit]

I became aware of use of this website because of a posting on the BLP noticeboard. The website operator raises "copyright" issues that in my view are of no merit. However, I think there is an issue, which is whether this site can be used as a source at all.

According to the website, David Strathairn Online is "an unofficial and unendorced website dedicated to Mr. Strathairn and his on-going career. It is in no way associated with him or his agency." [...] Therefore it should not be used as a source under WP:V for personal data such as the name of his father and mother. I cited WP:RS in the edit summary but I think WP:V is the applicable policy. If this were Mr. Strathairn's official website it would be different; it is not, so there is no way of verifying if that information is true.I'm not sure if it should be linked under WP:EL, but I will leave it there for now.--Mantanmoreland 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal. The information that you removed is largely irrelevant anyhow. shotwell 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call. WP:RS is a guideline, WP:V is a policy. As far as the external link goes, as long as there isn't any harm done to the subject, such as contentious, controversial, or derogatory information, or harm done to any third parties, and it adds something further of value to the article, I don't see a problem with it as an EL. That's not to say that another editor won't have a problem with it. - Crockspot 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of David Strathairn Online in external links section[edit]

David Strathairn Online is a fansite; it does not meet the threshold of WP:V or WP:SOURCE#Sources, which is linked in WP:V and WP:BLP: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP." I am removing it.

People who want to find fansites about actors and other celebrities can use search engines like Google. Such sites do not belong in biographies of living persons in Wikipedia. They are self-published. If the creator/webmaster/webmistress of such a site has a bonafide reputation as an "expert" on the subject by dint of recognizably-reliable publications on the subject, then perhaps its reliability would be identifiable. Until such evidence of the recognizable "expert" status of the site's editor/creator, it is not citable according to WP:BLP. If bonafide reliable and verifiable publications written and/or edited by the creator of the website exist (those published in newspapers, magazines, journals, or as books by recognized third-party publishers), then those should be cited as references. Within them, one would be likely to find a link or a reference to the fansite. It is an unofficial site and not one to be listed in the external links of the subject. Only his official sites or publications by experts on his work and life are pertinent in external links or references sections. The threshold for "external links" is the same as that for any other reliable and verifiable references in this article. The quality standards of WP:BLP does not permit including such fansites. Links to such sites are generally already found in the links sections of sites like IMDb (already listed in the external links sec. here) and the Notable Names database. --NYScholar 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked; this fansite is already linked in "Miscellaneous links" in the IMDb entry for Mr. Strathairn; it is easily accessible via its menu. It does not need to be linked separately here, and it violates WP:BLP to link it. See: IMDb Miscellaneous sites. --NYScholar 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pertinent policy is WP:EL, not WP:BLP. I had my doubts when the subject first came up, but I checked EL and the practice in similar articles, and found that such fan sites are indeed permissible. Earlier the issue is whether this could be a used as a source. The answer is no under WP:V. But EL and common practice with "celebrity" articles allows use of fan sites as external links. --Mantanmoreland 23:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already linked in the IMDb miscellaneous sites link. I don't see any reason to link it separately. Linking one fansite over another similar kind of site "privileges" one over another, which suggests there is some reason for doing so. I see no compelling argument for doing so. (I've cleaned up the citations and added some references to Mr. Strathairn's stage experience, which is a crucial aspect of his career omitted from earlier version of this biography. It is important also to list author's names, titles, publications, and publication information, inc. dates of publication and dates accessed in notes to sources cited in biographies of living persons. (Such sources need to be checked and verified for accuracy and accessibility before inserted in these articles. WP:BLP. I was unable to access a link given to the Sunday Mail; one might want to list full citation details (author, title of article, etc.), so one can locate it via an updated URL. If it is a restricted site or archived version no longer accessible, please supply active link instead. Thanks.) --NYScholar 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the pertinence of policies stated in and linked via WP:BLP, see the tagged notice above: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately...." There is no way to verify the self-published fansite information. If the same biographical information is already accessible in references and ext. links already cited, there is no need to list it. It doesn't contribute anything to the article that is not already accessible from the other references and external links already included. It is redundant. --NYScholar 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the guidelines on what links "normally to be avoided": see: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided; that pertains to the fansite; it is accessible anyway via "Miscellaneous links" in the IMDb site. Redundancy is "to be avoided" (see item #1). --NYScholar 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both your arguments simply don't hold water. First, the website[1] is not "controversial" -- it is the usual fansite accumulation of TV appearances and other fancruft. All of it is completely uncontroversial and indeed is promotional in nature. Therefore BLP is simply not applicable. That applies to derogatory material, not favorable material. Now if there is something I have overlooked, please point out to me where in that website there is anything negative, derogatory or controversial. Please be specific. Don't just site the policy without relating it to the contents of the website.
You are also mistaken in citing the WP:EL policy re "redundancy." The fact that a site is linked within another site does not make it "redundant." Please stop citing policies that very clearly have no bearing on this issue. You are removing a useful link that clearly belongs in the external links section.--Mantanmoreland 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a third opinion and also posted on the BLP noticeboard, since you keep citing that policy. If there were several fans sites I could see your point, but this is the only one. The other links in IMDB are to a Yahoo group and several listings.--Mantanmoreland 14:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and I agree with them and have removed it. --Fredrick day 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can elucidate what part of WP:BLP, WP:EL and WP:NOT requires removal of this site. There is no policy against fan sites not connected with the celebrity.--Mantanmoreland 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated in the section above, this site should not be used as a source, but I don't see any problem with it as an EL. I don't see any reason why it should be removed. It is run with the subject's knowledge and approval, and is not defamatory, so to me, that is almost as good as it being run by the subject himself, at least as far as external links go. As far as citing it as a source, different ballgame. - Crockspot 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got pointed here from WP:BLPN. This kind of a fansite is a perfectly good external link[...] The standard per WP:EL in a case like this is that the site needs to have more information than this article would if it reached featured status. I think it most certainly does. There is nothing libelous or defamatory on the site, on the contrary, it is run by a fanatic admirer, so there are no WP:BLP concerns. Finally, the extensive lists of everything he's ever done are informative and useful for research. Keep it in. ←BenB4 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the link hasn't been provided yet here, please see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Fan_sites_addressed_in_this_policy.3F for the more general discussion on this issue, that also contains comments about this particular site. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Alucard. I think the policy on fan sites needs to be clarified. --Mantanmoreland 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in [2] (Fan sites addressed in this policy 3F) re: this matter and the WP:BLP/N discussion; there are pros and cons expressed, but the cons seem more numerous than the pros. When in doubt, it is often most reasonable to omit a site. [updated. --NYScholar 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

As I said before, the site is already included in the "Miscellaneous links" section of the IMDb entry on this subject. A biography of a living person is a specific kind of article in Wikipedia. External links generally include official sites and blogs written by the subject himself or herself (resources of information about the subject that have been verified by the subject); these articles are not advertisements for subjects or for self-published websites by others. Anyone who can use a computer and knows how to use search engines like Google (which is how most people get to an article on David Strathairn via Wikipedia) will see the site in such a search. I agree with the arguments stated by those in the WP:BLP/N that the site is best omitted from this encyclopedia article on Strathairn. It does no harm to omit it. It is not used as a source because it is not considered a "reliable source" in Wikipedia because all information in it is not "verifiable"; that is a category in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. The policy is clear enough. I still do not see why it has to be included. It's a slippery slope. Every self-published fansite on a celebrity wants to be "the" site; Wikipedia is not an advertisement for fansites; that is why I deleted "and more" from the self-description of the site. I quoted the information from the site's description of itself; clearly, the copyright policy is not in keeping with Wikipedia's own copyright policies. The reference to "public" content in the [...] [Information section] is misleading. Just because photographs are published in online newspapers does not make them "public materials" or "public" property [...] [Site information: Disclaimer]; these "materials" are not "public" or "public" property; they are still copyright-protected on those sites and the posting of them does violate the rights of copyright owners, despite what this fansite and other fansites' disclaimers say. Including such fansites [in biographies of living persons: WP:BLP) is really not up to "quality" standards of Wikipedia. As the discussion in Fan sites addressed in this policy 3F points out, the site violates copyrights and is not linkable in Wikipedia for that reason, among others. --NYScholar 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment re: "featured" articles above misreads the statement in #1 at the WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided policy link. Information "unique" to that fansite should be documented properly in the sources that it "credits"; those are the primary and secondary sources that are citable in Wikipedia (published articles and books in reliable and verifiable sources), not the fansite. (If one wants to include references one learns about from fansites, one is free to cite them properly, following WP:CITE and WP:ATTRIBUTION.) Fansites are not contributing to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; they are generally biased in favor of the subject. Various points of view on a subject can be documented via reliable and verifiable sources. I still see no compelling rationale for including the fansite as a separate link in External links in this article, espec. since it is already included in the IMDb.com listing of links. Including the site via External links in a biography of a living person (where it is not permissible as a source) misleadingly gives the appearance of recommending its use as a source, and doing so runs counter to WP:V#Sources, which explicitly rules out using such sources in biographies of living persons (already quoted): WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). If Wikipedia does not recommend that readers consult such self-published fansite as a source in a biography of a living person (WP:BLP), then it is not a source to include in External links. Readers can find such fansites through their own original research (search engines like Google and reading the other external links like IMDb.com. (This is not just about external links in other kinds of Wikipedia articles; it is about external links in a biography of a living person; if it doesn't meet the threshold for "sources", then I don't think it should be included in External links either (which, obviously, is listing links for further use as sources).) [Updated.] --NYScholar 06:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a kind of compromise, I've included the direct link to IMDb's "Miscellaneous links for David Strathairn", which has a link to that fansite and its Fanlisting too (part of that fansite). If one believes that there are copyright infringements in any of those links (including the fansite), then one might want to delete that direct link, which leads to it. --NYScholar 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a compromise, and there is a consensus of the editors on this page for retaining the link. As for the discussion in Talk of WP:EL, the consensus there is that fan sites are covered by existing policy. WP:EL specifically allows inclusion of "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." In your comments above you continually confuse the criteria for sourcing with the criteria for external links, and as I just explained to you, sites which are eligible for links do not have to meet the criteria for sources. It has also been explained to you that there are no BLP issues here. You fail to cite anything in that website that presents any BLP issues. So please stop removing this link, and please stop revert-warring to remove it. Your personal dislike of fan sites is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.--Mantanmoreland 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) I'm sorry, Mantanmoreland, but by reading through this Talk page and the discussion on WP::EL I think that we are very far from a consensus to keep the EL to this site. The majority of people posting on the EL page indicate that it should not be linked, and quote some very definite WP policies to support that. Consensus does not equal a vote - we have to remember that. The most compelling issue right now seems to be the copyright issue, and WP:EL is very very clear on that one. For that reason I am strongly in favour of not having the link. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the site and could not find a copyright violation. Can you be more specific as to the troublesome content there? That is the only valid issue that has been raised. Everything else is a misinterpretation of WP:EL, because it is applying to this website the criteria that is used in determining a reliable source. The answer to that has already been determined, and it is of course "no." I originally became involved in this article when a BLP noticeboard complaint was issued by the site owner protesting use of this site as a source. The determination was "no." At that time the consensus, with no dissent, was to keep the link in the "links" section. Be that as it may, the copyvio issue is troubling and needs to be hashed out.--Mantanmoreland 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. On [...] [David Strathairn Online] there are several WMV files taken from HBO specials. Those belong to and are copyright from HBO, and I see no "used by permission" there. I see a note that says "No copyright infringements intended.", but that doesn't say that it's NOT a copyright infringement - just becaus ethey say they didn't mean to doesn't mean it didn't happen. On the same page there are also copies of featurettes from commercially available DVDs. These, too, will be copyrighted. On [...] [deleted link to copyright violations at webpage "tv3.html"] we have whole scenes taken from the HBO show "The Sopranos" - those are copyright HBO, too and again, I don't see a "used with permission" anywhere. On [...] [David Strathairn Online] [deleted similar webpage copyright-violation link] there are all sorts of excerpts from radio shows, which are owned by the respective stations. I see no permission given there either. There is not doubt that all of these clips are copyrighted by the original owners. there is no evidence that they are posted with the owner's permission. Therefore this it is a reasonable conclusion that this is a copyright violation, barring evidence to the contrary. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I missed that. OK, out it goes.--Mantanmoreland 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might as well delete almost all the fansites you have listed on other actors and celebrities here on Wikipeida. Because, believe it or not, all these other fansites have the same copyrighted material posted on their sites too (meaning videos and photographs). What gives that you can delete this fansite then and not all the others that are violating copyrights? Clearly, this is a biased act against this particular site, and there are plenty of other fansites listed on Wikipedia doing the exact same thing. If you're going to single out one fansite for copyright violations, then you better delete the hundreds of others you have linked that are doing the same thing. Otherwise, it's biased, and it looks like NYScholar has started a bigger issue than he intended. I don't know what his personal beef is with this site, but there are hundreds of other fansites your linking to then that shouldn't be listed. You can't single this site out and not others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

That's beside the point. Copyright violations are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. I was strongly in favor of keeping this site until it became clear that the there were serious copyright issues. --Mantanmoreland 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't beside the point. If it's against Wikipedia policy to link to these sites, then fine, but it should apply to ALL fansites in violation. Not just this one. This where your policy doesn't hold weight, because linking to countless other fansites violating copyrights. So, it makes little sense if you're going to continue to link to all the others but single this one out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

It does apply to all fansites.--Mantanmoreland 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly not, because you're still linking to all these other sites that violate your policy on linking them. How is that applying to all fansites?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)
Sites with copyright violations can be removed on sight. You don't appear to understand that point, which has been explained to you at least three times within the past half hour, and this is my last time. As far I am concerned, this discussion is over.--Mantanmoreland 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those links should be got rid of, and if you know of any, please go ahead and remove them, giving the reason. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good read for that. Just because it is done somewhere on WP doesn't make it right to do elsewhere - usually it's quite the opposite. If you don't want to remove them yourself, just post some examples, and we will take care of them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. I've already deleted several, including ones on the following sites: Rachel Weisz, Agnes Bruckner, George Clooney, Elijah Wood, Meryl Streep. There's one in question on Matt Damon, too. All of these sites contain photo galleries and/or media sections with copyrighted content. There are more, I'm sure, and any I come across I'll bring to the editors' attentions from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs) 18:44, August 9, 2007

Just for the record, I have no purported "personal" "beef" against this or any other particular fansite; I have already adequately stated my objections to such content (this is a content-related matter, not a personal matter, so don't make it personal as if it were, when it is not). I have already adequately stated my objections to including it and other such fansites in biographies of living persons and other articles that have information about living persons and thus must follow both WP:BLP (including therein linked policies and guidelines) and WP:COPYRIGHT. These other fansites also misleadingly feature similar "disclaimers" and notices stating that there is no "intentional" violation of copyrights, and yet they violate copyrights anyway. Such copyright violations and (in many other cases) lack of adequate documentation (credits) to sources and general lack of verifiability of information are why they are being deleted from Wikipedia by vigilant editors concerned about both quality and copyright infringement. (I added the unsigned template above so that comment is not confused with mine here.) I am in favor of deleting these self-published fansites engaging in copyright infringement from Wikipedia. There is nothing "personal" in this at all. These are content issues predicated on Wikipedia's own policies and procedures. --NYScholar 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record: I have featured sources pertaining to copyright and source-related issues in Wikipedia on my own talk page since at least September 2006; see User Talk:NYScholar for more information and links to Wikipedia's own copyright policies. I registered these kinds of objections a long time ago, independently of anything to do (then) with the particular website relating to David Strathairn.
My posting those concerns pre-date the website owner's own claims that her so-called "copyrighted" content was being infringed by Wikipedia; one cannot copyright other people's copyrighted properties and then claim that all that material is copyrighted (owned) by oneself. Only the unique design of the website and material written by the website owner herself belongs to her, not the copyrighted material taken from others that she re-posts on her site.
The same concerns pertain to other fansites that engage in similar practices and to "derivative" material posted on them, including fan fiction sites. Some news sites and blogs that are self-published have related problems; there is a rather grey area relating to the use of them (see their "disclaimer" notices) as they are being cited throughout Wikipedia as well. Some of these sites are well within U.S. and world copyright "fair use" exceptions to copyright laws; some are not. I don't know if Wikipedia has fully taken rapidly-changing contexts for such sites into account. The YouTube situation is a case in point, and that too seems to be rather in flux. One cannot link to YouTube videos that infringe on copyrights either. That is a related matter that I won't go into here. One can find discussions of it elsewhere in Wikiepedia; see, e.g., short mention in WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites[3] (courtesy of User:Crockspot, where we had some previous discussion pertaining to another article, which is now in archive 14 of my talk page). The issue that pertains to the deletions of this and other fansites is "the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights," a policy statement in WP:COPYRIGHT and elsewhere linked in Wikipedia, including via WP:V linked at WP:BLP: for a convenient list of such Wikipedia policies, see "Category:Wikipedia official policy" (won't print if I use Wikipedia internal link), which is one of the categories listed in both: try Wikipedia:List of policies. --NYScholar 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the talk page of WP:EL I've suggested a brief addition to the current policy to red-flag fan sites for copyright violations. --Mantanmoreland 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition on "self-published" ("unofficial") websites being used as a "source about a living person, including as an external link"[edit]

[I have posted the following in Wikipedia talk:External links and am also posting it here fyi]
I returned to post the clearest reference that I can find in WP:BLP to this matter:

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (See below). (Italics and bold added.)

That policy statement explicitly prohibits from listing as "an external link" self-published websites "unless written or published by the subject of the article," which prohibits "unofficial websites" not "written or published by their subjects." As I read that policy in WP:BLP it refers to fansites such as David Strathairn Online and other similar "unofficial websites" which are not "written and published" (or authorized and endorsed as "official") by their subjects. In my view, that policy statement is very clear and not ambiguous, just as are the policies already cited pertaining to not linking as external links webpages with copyright infringements (see earlier discussions above). There are clear links to WP:BLP in the talk pages of articles that are considered biographies of living persons in Wikipedia, including David Strathairn (which is just one example of an article in which these issues arose). [updated as a separate subsection]. --NYScholar 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Please note: I do not have time to discuss these matters any further. Please consult the information already linked on my talk page if one needs to find additional sources relating to copyright matters pertaining to Wikipedia (discussed earlier). Thank you.] [Updated.] --NYScholar 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Reposted here. --NYScholar 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gngl.jpg[edit]

Image:Gngl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narration[edit]

It seems fitting that career details should include mention of David Strathairn's success as a narrator. His lineup of audiobooks and other media is substantial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooy (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family[edit]

  • David Russell Strathairn was born on January 26, 1949 in San Francisco
  • sister, Anne Strathairn was born on October 17, 1951 in San Francisco
  • wife, Logan Goodman
  • Tay Strathairn, musician, son of David Strathairn, Born October 31, 1980
  • Ebberly Strathaim, Architect, son of David Strathairn, Born in 1987

69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't these be more than just resumes?[edit]

I know it's natural to think the an article about a person should just be life facts, but an article about an actor or an artist should be willing to say something about what that person special and/or what has accounted for their success. This is especially true for an actor with Strathairn's special touch and I miss that kind of discussion in these pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:600:1D90:F9E3:F1D4:5C49:B8E2 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Strathairn&oldid=1203288547"