Talk:Ed Naha

IMDB bio

This article seems to be a very close paraphrasing of the IMDB bio. We can't escape copyright that easily. --Slashme (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just started the article, I'm aware of the "close paraphrasing," where it does occur, and that won't be there for long.

At any rate, the closeness mostly occurs where it's a matter of cataloging bare facts, like the list of periodicals to which he's contributed. That sort of thing is not copyvio.

If you will examine the Atlantic Free Press bio, which I also referenced, you will find many of the the same similarities; it seems likely that the imdb bio was drawn from there.

I think it's far enough removed presently. If it's still an issue for you, tell me exactly what passages give you pause, if you will. Bustter (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you question Naha's notability? That's simply preposterous, given his contributions to journalism, film, his novels and non-fiction books, and music. Just producing a Gene Roddenberry record should be enough! Bustter (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For god's sake, he wrote the notorious Band film Troll! There are dozens of articles on the web about this one...How notable do you have to be around here? Ed is as notable as God! Bustter (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked page history and see it's not you but "Radiofan" who raises questions of notability and neutrality. Since he was not kind enough to document any basis for these objections, I request that someone more objective than myself consider removing or altering the template, or else make the case for retaining it. Bustter (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you leaped in with your objections while it was clear from the page history, or should have been, that I was still actively making changes to the article. But now that the article is in more presentable condition, neither of you are are around, and these unmerited templates remain on the article.

I think the both of you have failed in the presumption of good faith. Bustter (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Page issue templates are not based on where an article seems to be headed and how actively it's being edited, but where it is at the point that they're added. Also note that page templates are not an attack on the main author of an article or on the subject of the article, and they're just the opinions of people who, like you, are trying to improve Wikipedia. Neither Radiofan nor I have a vested interest in trying to make you or Naha look bad, and we were not in any way assuming that you were editing in bad faith, just that the article was (as it stood at the time) not up to scratch. Copyright violations should really not be on a page at any stage of an article's development, so they have to be flagged where they appear. I'm off to bed now, but Ill check again tomorrow evening, because I have to take the time to take a really good look at the article and the sources to verify that it's better now. It doesn't seem to be such a blatant copyvio any more, and you seem to have much more substance indicating notability, but that was just based on a quick skim. I removed the "raised by wolves" thing, though: it was clearly not a serious claim - just a joke. --Slashme (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. Of course the "raised by wolves" claim is a joke, but as the claim was verifiably made by Naha, I included it as a means to bolster the orignality of the article. I didn't say he was raised by wolves, but that he makes the claim autobiographically, which is true. Anyway, it's hardly needed. Bustter (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the copyright violation template: this article seems to stand on its own with a number of different sources now. --Slashme (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

blog as reference

I used a blog post by Naha as documentation that he was raised in Linden New Jersey; the reference was deleted with an injunction to remove all blog cites as "blogs are not reliable sources"

Is this really the case when the blog is written by the subject of the article, and it is a simple matter of basic biographical detail? Naha's made mention of his childhood in Linden a number of times. This seems to me very reliable. Similarly, his own account of working at CBS. Bustter (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. Please restore the deletia. Bustter (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the deleted reference is not to Ed's blog, but to a third-party blog - http://www.itsdeadlicious.com/2009_03_01_archive.html. However, this reference is valuable because the blog hosts the scanned images of Ed's 1966 artwork. I have confirmed with a collector of this title (Mister Stephen Bissette) that these images actually do appear in Modern Monsters #1. The reference refers to these utterly reliable images, not to text. Bustter (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is written or published by the subject it has to be something like their official website, not just a random blob. Scanned images of Naha's 1966 artwork may or may not be encyclopedic material and relevant to the article. Everything must come to its relevance from 3rd party reliable resources. The article looks much better and closer to an encyclopedic article, now. All other blogs will have to go, also. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the blog ref you deleted, all blog references are to Ed's 'official' blog (to the extent that "official blog" means anything). Before his blog was hosted at Smirking Chimp, Ed was blogging regularly at atlanticfreepress.com, here's a list of some thirty-odd posts he made there. http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/component/comprofiler/userprofile/edn.html

What constitutes 'official' for you? Bustter (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source that ties the blog to him. I left the atlanticfreepress.com sources in because it appeared to be his blog. However, what is said in them must come for its notability and relevance from reliable sources, then you can use this. This is to protect the living subjects of biographies on wikipedia, as much as anything else, you know. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and your efforts here. I am only tryying to understand whatever objections remain to the article and its sources. Presently, I do not understand what you mean by this phrase: "what is said in them must come for its notability and relevance from reliable sources" Bustter (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The editors don't decide what is notable, other reliable sources must have already decided that. That's how encyclopedias work, experts or authorities in subject areas decide that something is notable, or newspapers do. If a writer, for example, has been written about in newspapers or in television, or in magazines, or in peer-reviewed journals, his or her notability is established. At this point wikipedia can include an article about that writer. However, everything the writer does is not notable. If he writes a blog about eating chocolate syrup on eggs for breakfast and no news source or magazine ever comments upon it, this is not something that wikipedia writers should include in the article. What is said or covered in the article must be notable according to the medie or the authorities. So, Naha did artwork in the sixties. Has this artwork been discussed by reliable (media, academia) sources? Has its notability been established? If so, then the artwork can be written about, and, possibly, linked to. Now, if it's linked to the link has to be a reliable link with longevity. You can't link to some random blog, what if the guy stops blogging, then you have a dead link at wikipedia. So, links also have to be reliable. There's all sorts of information about this for writing your first article at Wikipedia:Your_first_article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You said to me, "what is said in them must come for its notability and relevance from reliable sources," a phrase of particularly tortured construction. I asked you to clarify it, and you did so; apparently you meant to say that notability and relevance of an article's content must be asserted or established by reliable sources. Thank you for making this clear.

It is not particularly notable that Ed, or anyone, was raised in Linden, NJ, but it is customary to include birthplace in an encyclopedic entry. Yet a reference to a blog where Ed recalled his Linden childhood was deleted. I am uncertan why this was deleted, or whether I may put it back. Currently, the mention of Linden is unsupported. Bustter (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if his birthplace is unsupported, feel free to remove it. Yes, it is customary in biographies of people to include their names and dates and places of birth and death, when deceased. Wikipedia articles often include these even when unsupported. For example, I just wrote a brief biography of an Indian poet, and included his birth and death dates from a translation from the Marathi language. I don't read Marathi, so I can't support these figures, and I can only find them in Marathi on the web, but they are included. Anything that you feel should be removed because it is unsupported by reliable sources you can remove, without discussion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, what I meant to ask was not, can I remove Linden -- it was, can I replace the reference that supported it without inciting an edit war? Though I have worked with Ed in the past, and know that he was raised there, only cite I have for Linden is Ed's own blog (specifically, http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15168). As I indicated above, I feel such cites are legitimate, per WP: BOLP. So, may I restore this reference -- or would such a cite be again deleted? Bustter (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this particular citation will be deleted again. You can't link to blogs for many reasons, one of which is they're unstable and require constant editing. Eventually it will gain its own messy tags or notes about banned spam, etc., or it will be deleted and put on a list of banned websites. Let's not make the article a target for tags and messes. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I quoted this above, but, as you are ignoring it, I will cite it once again:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.

Since the reference for Ed's home town comes from Ed himself, it can be used as a cite, as per WP: BOLP -- your issues regarding maintenance notwithstanding. I've cited a guideline that indicates the opposite of your contention, can you please point me to any guideline that says, "You can't link to blogs for many reasons, one of which is they're unstable and require constant editing."

If you think the text in WP: BOLP is incorrect, maybe you should be editing that, before deleting references in the biography of a living person that is legitimate per the guidelines.

I am replacing this reference, per guidelines, right now. Please do not delete it again until we have reached a consensus. Bustter (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming thia matter is put to rest; if not, I want to also point you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Bustter (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article looks like what it is, a badly written article. You seem to want that, rather than help creating a good, properly referenced wikipedia article, and you're very unpleasant about it. So, I'll leave this piece of ick to your ownership. Good day. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You treated me as a newbie earlier, but I am both adhering to guidelines, and attempting to participate in the building of consensus (WP: Consensus - Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages.) Your idea of consensus is, I assent to your bullying, and your unjustified insults. I'll have none of it, thank you. Bustter (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

badly written

{{rfctag|bio}} I do not wish to be responsible for a badly-written article in the Wiki. I feel fairly confident that this is not a badly written article, but a more experienced editor is telling me that it is, referring to the article as a "piece of ick."

I seek consensus on the matter, and proper advice regarding improvement.

Bustter (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, ignore the other user. – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. "Ick", perhaps being a technical term denoting envy of your article-creating prowess, does not apply here. I made a few minor edits, mostly to bring formatting and style within guidelines. Also, The Village Voice and New York Post are newspapers, not magazines, so I substituted the broader word "publications". I imagine a few additional tweaks might be worthwhile—for instance, the mention of Stuart Gordon breaks up the sentence and singles Gordon out for unknown reasons—but I'd say the foundation of a very decent article is in place. Thanks for writing it! Rivertorch (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness, sorry if I was too obviously fishing for salve to my bruised ego.

Yes, I was very aware that the Stuart Gordon mention was intrusive, but collaborating with Gordon is of biographical significance to followers of the genre -- more so than producer Charles Band, as the several Band films directed by Gordon are of a completely different caliber than Band's usual drivel (i.e., Troll, directed by big dummy John Carl Buechler). We could use a more elegant way to inject Gordon, who also worked with Ed on The Teenie-Weenies, the screenplay that became Honey I shrunk the Kids. Bustter (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a shade better now, thnx. And I even submitted Ed's birthplace & date to IMDB, so the article is no longer dependent on Ed's blog for Linden. Anonymous Editor should be thrilled. Bustter (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Gordon mention is handled much better now. It's looking good. Rivertorch (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks alright to me. You may want to include more than just the url in the references. Use the {{cite web}} template, or just plain text. Has this had enough outside input now? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes indeed, I wasn't sure whether it was appropriate to remove my request for input, I'll do that now. Bustter (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed Naha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724141105/http://www.plaxo.com/directory/profile/64426331630/c4a1d702/Ed/Naha to http://www.plaxo.com/directory/profile/64426331630/c4a1d702/Ed/Naha

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)