Talk:Acting teacher and director Milton Katselas dies at age 75

Note

Some minor bits of info sourced directly to publications from the Scientology organization, but I didn't think it significant enough to merit the OR tag. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This may

This may put too much emphasis on the scientology. The Variety article discusses a lot of other accomplishements. I've expanded some things slightly and tried to justify in more detail why we can talk about the Scientology aspect so much. What do people think? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way I am glad you have added more, instead of removing material. As can be seen from the Sources list, many different media publications have written heavily on this over the years. For some reason I cannot access the Variety source at this moment, though I could a short while ago, if you want to add more stuff feel free. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If Scientology is what he was and his school then it is what it is...that cannot be changed. I don't think there is too much because that was his most prominent background. I think it looks good. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a ridiculous amount of emphasis on Scientology in what ought be a simple obituary. Compare with his Wikipedia page. --SVTCobra 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

His Wikipedia page is completely unsourced and should actually have much more emphasis on this. As I have said, above, this is something that has been reported on in multiple different media sources throughout the years. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some additional info in a quote from producer Terry Jastrow at the bottom, in a new paragraph. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

HYS

Regarding [1], I think the HYS question should be specific to this case. Many different media publications have written about this controversy with regards to this acting teacher and this acting school using this influence to recruit for this organization. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that it places further emphasis on scientology and possibly takes the non-neutral stance that Scientology is qualitatively different from other religions or organizations. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does not discuss other organizations, just the Scientology organization, and so the HYS question should be specific to that organization. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh. True but not sure that's relevant. It is a general issue. Scientology has little to do with it specifically. It isn't such a big deal that I'll object any further unless anyone else shares the concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I respectfully disagree and think that this is not an issue related to other controversial movements or organizations - I do not know of any other that has drawn this much attention in the media for reportedly influencing and recruiting in an acting school. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence needs copyediting

Katselas was crediting with being able to take raw talent and nurture it into acting skill as well as for helping his students find roles in Hollywood.

First off "was crediting" should be "was credited". Also, credited - by who, or according to what source? Cirt (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct on the gram. That sentence was my summary of material in the NYT article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased it slightly so it involves less synthesis. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Review - Not Passed

Revision 716356 of this article has been reviewed by Poisonous (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There is way too much emphasis on Scientology, and too much negative about it. It's an obituary, not a critical review of Scientology and his recruiting techniques. Please fix. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 716356 of this article has been reviewed by Poisonous (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There is way too much emphasis on Scientology, and too much negative about it. It's an obituary, not a critical review of Scientology and his recruiting techniques. Please fix. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I would add that the most important fact of the story (Katselas passing) is only supported by a single source. Until that is fixed, it should fail verifiability as well. --SVTCobra 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I am in the process of expanding and adding some additional material to the article from some more sources. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

Since the above review, I have greatly expanded the article, utilizing material from an additional nine sources. As far as the above comment about verifiability, Variety is a respected media publication and as a secondary source it is sufficient for this purpose. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

Well I have gone through the article and it was a bit biased previously but it seems like Cirt has fixed that aspect of it and now I can see that its well written, well sourced and unbiased and the writing style and settings is excellent as well..I believe it can and should be published now...--Cometstyles 07:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is still only one source for Katselas' death.--SVTCobra 11:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back for lack of a formal peer reviewed template. --TUFKAAP (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The "peer review" template is not a requirement, simply a suggestion to make the review easier. The note above by Cometstyles (talk · contribs) was sufficient. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 716619 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 716619 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Family

Isn't it customary to mention family in an obituary? --SVTCobra 16:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

single source

first, out of the dozen sources listed, how is this single sourced? Please explain. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the story is that Milton is dead. There is only one source for that! I have pointed this out twice above, but nobody cared and the publication was pushed through. Every story must have two current sources. --SVTCobra 16:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well instead of trying to detail everything wrong with something, fix it. It took me a whole 10 seconds to find another source. Honestly there was no reason to un-publish this when all that it deeded was one source...i mean lets be a little more realistic about these things. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If it was so simple, why didn't you do it when you pretended to check for verifiability? I pointed out the problem TWICE above. --SVTCobra 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well why didn't it get fixed when it was noticed earlier? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented on this above. Yes, for one fact in the article, it had relied on a secondary source, Variety, an extremely respected publication in the entertainment industry and in media. But the bulk of the article always utilized multiple sources. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how reliable the source (but for hard news Variety is not as well respected as you say ... it's a trade magazine). It is policy to have two sources. --SVTCobra 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are and were more than two sources utilized for the article at all times, as stated above. Are you saying that every single sentence in the article should be backed up by two sources? Cirt (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, it is a moot point now. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See my first comment. The crux of the story must be verifiable by two current sources. It is impossible/impractical to do so for all background information.--SVTCobra 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Sure if we only had one primary source, we should use two independent primary sources for confirmation, but in this case when the newsworthiness is obvious and we are relying on a cited secondary source for the information, that should be sufficient if it is a respected media publication. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ISBN magic link

{{editprotected}} This page uses two ISBN magic links, a feature which is likely to be replaced sometime soon per the RFC on Mediawiki. In the References, please enclose the word ISBN, and the number immediately after it, inside the {{ISBN}} template e.g. {{ISBN|0870621440}}, which should have no outward effect but ensures that the link to Special:BookSources is maintained when the magic link is deprecated. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 21:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)