Talk:Stephen Moorer

@Smatprt:, articles on BLPs are held to rather high sourcing standards. That said, in this edit, you added the article subject's full date of birth without any citation. May I ask where this information came from and to provide a proper citation for it? I am removing it for now. Graywalls (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here you go, although not sure if it qualifies. https://www.carmelresidents.org/cra-hosts---history-of-carmels-live-theatre

Also on the fb page, which is public.

https://www.facebook.com/StephenMoorer?mibextid=LQQJ4d Smatprt (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Smatprt, as a COI editor, in particular because you are a COI-PAID editor, please use the edit request system, the process of which is clearly stated in WP:COI and here: guidelines for using edit requests. Here is a link to the special "Wizard" tool that COI-PAID editors use: Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Paid that makes it really easy. Won't you please consider abiding by the guidelines on this article as well as others? Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good morning! I was just replying to Graywalls. He asked a specific question, I assume expecting a reply, so I provided one. I'm not requesting a specific edit, especially on something so benign, but Graywalls said he was "removing it for now", so I thought he was waiting for my response. Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Netherzone might be splitting hair here, but I wonder if that Facebook is usable. WP:DOB says verified accounts can be used, but the one in question is not, although I don't really doubt the authenticity given that the subject in questionable isn't that notable. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to a person's own social media accounts, including Facebook, says that they "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• It does not involve claims about third parties;
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

So Moorer's own birthdate from his Facebook account can be used in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssilvers I'm still on the fence even though I introduced it. Moorer claims themselves to be a "public figure" in their Facebook profile, and WP:DOB says verified social media account may be used. Verified Facebook means https://www.facebook.com/help/1288173394636262 I'll see what Netherzone has to say.. and depending on the response, I may remove it again. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, whatever you decide on the birth date. --Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The re-opening of the theatre is essential context, if we're going to mention the construction dispute. I have removed the part that praises Moorer, though I disagree with your rationale. Alternatively, I would be happy to remove the whole paragraph, because, after reading the articles, it appears that the board kerfuffle was a tempest in a teapot, the board never even voted on the motion, the disgruntled directors left, were replaced by other people, and ultimately the board simply proceeded with plan A and completed the construction on the theater. In addition, the reporting on the alleged threats is disputed and, I believe, is prohibited by WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssilvers:, I'm responding since I'm the one who removed the fluff about newspaper journalist's commentary that praised Moorer. For the board matter, we should ask @Axad12: as they brought it in. I am not sure if board matter violates BLP so I suggest discussing it with Axad and/or asking at BLP/N. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you're happy with the paragraph as is, I can live with it, as I think the three sources, taken together, provide the reader with some warning about the anonymous former board members' supposed accusations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are we leaving in flowery things like "another critic wrote" terrific and such? I can't access the full article, so I am not sure who the critic is, but if they're just a local paper journalist rather than a professional critic, flattering comments should not be amplified more so than unflattering ones. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

You missed the edit I made that removed that. It doesn't say that anymore. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry, you're talking about a different paragraph (please should start a new heading if you wish to discuss other text). An article about a producer of theatre should state what critics have said about his work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Monterey County Herald wrote, "Moorer has staged a terrific version of this play with a fun and talented cast".[20] Of his Shakespeare "Royal Blood" series, but who wrote it? Was the writer specifically trained expert? A review by a regular assignment journalist commenting on his opinion of food likely doesn't have more weight than that of a Joe Blow's Yelp review. If he's a professional critic, that gives some weight.

Talkin' Broadway wrote, "Moorer ... has assembled a brilliant cast of actors from both San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles.... Moorer's direction is first class as he makes both productions exciting human dramas."[12] no comment if they have any more weight than a blog/website. Another critic wrote, "director Stephen Moorer handles the time-shifting sequences with a keen immediacy that's become his trademark". but what makes that critic's comment more meaningful than some Google Review commentator? Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree that it was a tempest in a teapot. The rationale given by Sssilvers (that a vote was not taken) is laughable. If that was a legitimate measure then many high profile decisions made by governments and multinational corporations would be unable to be covered by Wikipedia.

Ssilvers had been riding shotgun for Moorer on Wikipedia for 10 years and clearly has ownership issues in relation to this article, which they currently have 45.8% authorship of.

Graywalls and I both believe that the board material is relevant.

The idea that anything which is disputed is prohibited by WP:BLP is also laughable. The article text makes it clear that there was a difference of opinion, and that is obviously sufficient to satisfy BLP. There is no reason to assume that the material as covered in the article is disputed in any meaningful way.

Really what is required here is for Sssilvers to stop pursuing a 'don't like it' agenda. Axad12 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have compromised on every issue. I just want to improve this biography and the other articles about arts in Carmel that became the topic of contention recently. Please be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Also, please talk about content, not editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssilvers:, Some board members criticized Moorer of his management skills, this observation of opinion was picked up by the press with attribution which is an arm's length separated from the source, but you felt this had to be suppressed. Paper journalist's own commentary is like their general purpose writer of all topics thought the pizza at joint abc was good". If there was allegation like "some people who work for him thought he embezzled", that would violate BLP as a baseless allegation, but expression of opinion on managerial competency may not. Why did you feel criticism of his managerial ability should be selectively suppressed while things like "terrifc" "brilliant" and such should be kept? Why do you feel the board disagreement matter violates BLP? Graywalls (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, I said that I can live with the paragraph as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

With respect to this paragraph about the Board dispute, would you both kindly read the first comment under the source?: https://www.montereycountynow.com/entertainment/art/a-rift-over-management-at-carmel-theater-nonprofit-pacrep-leads-to-an-exodus-of-board/article_75c8586c-557c-11ed-a62f-c7e6483feae5.html Of course we cannot cite or refer to the comment, but it provides a lot of context missing from the source and alleges that the report makes serious errors. First the comment states that of the 14 board members who resigned, only 6 did so because of any dispute with Moorer, and all of those were after the contentious August meeting. Second, it points out that the motion to fire Moorer at that meeting could be brought by any one director, and that the vote was never taken because the unhappy board members did not have the votes to dismiss Moorer. Third, it notes that the cost overruns and delays were partly due to the COVID pandemic. It further states that the reporter was cherry-picking her facts. But as I said before, if none of this persuades anyone that the incident was comparatively trivial (see WP:TENYEARTEST), I can live with keeping the paragraph as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

[The words that follow are taken from the hatted discussion, but are I think relevant to the post directly above which was removed from the hatting:] I take your point but I'm not convinced that 'below the line' comments added by readers are admissible under WP:RS, regardless of whether the readers are informed (no doubt) and non-partisan (who knows?) in relation to the matter under discussion. However, others may take a different view - and if I end up in the minority then so be it. Axad12 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssilvers:, if it's contents you don't like, it's removed and you try to keep it suppressed as "Please use the talk page." and while if it's something you like, it's "WP:PRESERVE." You also suggested earlier about potential BLP violation, but you haven't given satisfactory explanation for that reasoning. Graywalls (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Graywalls, I don't think that's fair. For example, I never tried to delete the paragraph about the Board resignations, even though I think it is pretty clear that it is misleading. I immediately took my objection here to the Talk page, and in every case, I have tried to compromise with you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

To rescue a further comment from the rather indiscriminate hatting above (albeit slightly reworded to avoid any accusation of personalisation)...

BLP policy does not require that properly sourced material related to a dispute should be treated in an identical way to disputed material. The two situations are entirely different. Axad12 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that. I just think that the report about the dispute is misleading, and that, if one considers the facts, like that the theatre did complete the renovation and reopen, the dispute was trivial. Anyone who has ever sat on an arts-related board knows that board members very often worry that the organization's leaders are not steering the organization in the right path, and it upsets them, and they resign. Disputes on arts boards are like Wikipedia talk page disputes. I have sat on many, and I have never known one where some people didn't resign after disagreeing with others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm slightly concerned here that the application of the term trivial is being used in an inconsistent way in different discussions. E.g. you oppose the removal of certain material (claimed by others to be trivial) from the PRT article, but here you support removal because you claim the matter described is trivial.

Personally I believe that the matter discussed is not trivial and that it sheds light on an aspect and period of Moorer's activity which is otherwise poorly covered in the present article.

I'm somewhat concerned by continued efforts to present arguments for the removal of this properly sourced and relevant material from the article, none of which arguments seem to me to have any real substance and which generally amount to special pleading.

The article contains (elsewhere) an amount of material that I would consider exceptionally trivial detail, and the fact that this section has attracted your attention as the only part considered trivial seems exceptionally arbitrary and rather one-sided.

You've stated now at least twice that you're okay with the passage as it currently stands and I suggest that we leave matters there. Axad12 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Making assumptions like this as made in their edit summary though, is a BLP violation. Coming to such conclusion when a source isn't available is fabrication. We can't simply assume Moorer wasn't heldback, or graduated ahead of others. Graywalls (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right that my reasoning there was not acceptable under the WP:BLP guideline. However, l had already seen the PacRep webpage that gave his birthdate, and also this, and numerous other web sources that stated the birthdate, but you had rejected such sources as "primary" or not reliable, so I thought that reasoning might be acceptable to you. I was wrong. In any case, now the information is in the article so let's just talk about improvements in the article. Please start a new heading for any new text discussions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

On that note, the subject's date of birth is given here [1] on the PRT website. Surely that is a better source than the one used at present (the subject's own Facebook page)? Axad12 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

That works too. I was just commenting on Ssilvers's introduction of contents based on original research without having offered proper sourcing at the time. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

That web page is fine with me. Or, would you prefer this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The PRT's site would be preferable. There are two things that come into play. First, where it is published has to be reliable. I think their own site or their own company is fine. It also shows they voluntarily disclosed it publicly. I oppose using Californiabirthindex.org here, or in other articles for the same reason as not using complete garbage like FamilySearch. FamilySearch is unusable in itself, because it's a user that digs through resource like Californiabirthindex and connect it to a specific person whose process could be full of error. The second thing is that if the living subject don't publicly reveal birthday, we usually omit it. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

[copied from above to separate this from the previous topic.] I had written above:

• (please... start a new heading if you wish to discuss other text). An article about a producer of theatre should state what critics have said about his work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greywalls replied:

• The Monterey County Herald wrote, "Moorer has staged a terrific version of this play with a fun and talented cast".[20] Of his Shakespeare "Royal Blood" series, but who wrote it? Was the writer specifically trained expert? A review by a regular assignment journalist commenting on his opinion of food likely doesn't have more weight than that of a Joe Blow's Yelp review. If he's a professional critic, that gives some weight.
• Talkin' Broadway wrote, "Moorer ... has assembled a brilliant cast of actors from both San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles.... Moorer's direction is first class as he makes both productions exciting human dramas."[12] no comment if they have any more weight than a blog/website. Another critic wrote, "director Stephen Moorer handles the time-shifting sequences with a keen immediacy that's become his trademark". but what makes that critic's comment more meaningful than some Google Review commentator? Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you look at any Featured Article or Good Article about an actor and director, you will see reviews of their work by newpaper or magazine (and nowadays, WP:RS websites' critics). Talkin' Broadway specializes in theatre reviews and is cited in 265 Wikipedia articles. The other two sources are newspapers that regularly review theatre. I do think a professional journalists' review is noteworthy and different from a Yelp or Google Review commentator: they are held to account by the editors of the news source. I ask you to reconsider your deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"what makes that critic's comment more meaningful than some Google Review commentator": editorial oversight, in short. Most newspapers are considered reliable sources unless there is something specific that rules them out (and there are several newspapers at WP:RSNP that have been ruled out for one reason or another). We accept a professional reviewer or journalist's impressions on things like this - I've included critics' opinions in a large number of FAs - including from local newspapers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think "cited in 265" is an indication of quality. If we were to go by that, quora is cited in 265 places, Stackexchange in 1095 places. A source can be primary and secondary at the same time. A general assignment journalist's own personal reflection on subjective qualities of something within a news article is just an amateur personal opinion, because they're not a qualified expert on the matter they're commenting on. It's a reliable source as to what their opinion is, but I'm saying the inclusion of such opinion is undue. There is no plausible justification to continue to include what you want to include but not include what Axad12 added. This causes selectively amplification of flattering contents, which I strongly object to. Graywalls (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given we accept published reviews from sources with editorial oversight readily, is there anything about the source that makes it unreliable? That's the main metric we should be considering. If the source is acceptable, then the reviews are too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is about WP:UNDUE trivia. So, some general assignment journalist from a local tabloid attended something/ate something/visited somewhere. They then shared their experience. That makes it a reliable source for his primary account of having visited the place and his reflection. A general assignment's opinion on Quesdilla or a show is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. I am not sure why some "another critics" opinion director Stephen Moorer handles the time-shifting sequences with a keen immediacy that's become his trademark" is more due than news paper's coverage of board members' opinion of Moorer's incompetency at management skills. They're both statements of opinion. Why should we exclude contents based on a local newspaper's comment: "But some past board members say Moorer’s skill with leading theater does not extend to nonprofit finance and administration." while retaining one reviewer wrote, "Moorer reprises his 1988 role ... with skill and dignity. Working with no makeup or prosthesis to simulate Merrick's appearance, Moorer twists his face into a grotesque mask from which a high-pitched, rasping, wheezing voice emerges. From a physical aspect alone, Moorer's performance is skilled and noteworthy. Moorer also delivers a well-executed emotional performance that highlights Merrick's artistic sensitivity and droll sense of humor." from the same exact newspaper? The said "one review" was not identified and it likely is average joe's personal opinion. Journalist's personal opinion is not more sacred simply because they're a journalist. Comment on food from a professional food critic writing for food magazine like Bon Appetit is different from a general assignment journalist's own thoughts. Similar idea with theatre. Some general assignment journalist from a weekly tabloid is undue. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Reviews are always, by their very definition, the opinions of individuals. And yes, reviews from reliable sources can appear in encyclopaedic articles (we have thousands of articles that do this, as do other secondary and tertiary sources). I’m sorry, but you can’t bring in different standards for this article - it feels very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. If the news source is reliable, then it is acceptable to use. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Selective scrubbing of newspaper's coverage about board members opinion about Moorer's competency as a manager is POV pushing, because only certain side is being buffed out. See WP:ONUS. Having something reliability sourced is a minimum requirement before we even get into due/undue discussion. It's not a guarantee for inclusion. That's determined by consensus. I object to accumulation of flattery in the article while refusing to give same weight to equally credibly sourced criticism. It's similar to insisting on making tires on left side bigger while refusing to have matching increase on the right side. Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I already stated more than once that I will leave the criticism in, even though I believe it is about a trivial incident. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What Axad12 had already put in, as well as the criticism of his management skills? Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, which edit are you talking about? BTW, have you read WP:BLPPUBLIC, which says, regarding negative allegations: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not an "allegation". It's just an opinion with regard to his skills in running the organization just like superlatives like "well executed" "terrific". I believe it is relevant and covered in a reliable source. I object to one sided coverages that devotes more coverage to things like "one critic said" all these flowery thing. In other words, I can tolerate you upsizing the left side tires, but you'll have to accept similar upsize on the right. If you insist on omitting the criticism of his skills in running PacRep, then let's leave out some general assignment journalist's personal reflection of their observations. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, which edit are you talking about, or, better yet, what language, exactly, do propose to add to the paragraph? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What you you removed here asking me to use talk, while you restore contents you like that have been removed. Graywalls (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am OK with saying it, but you said it twice, and in the wrong place. It should go after the previous sentence, and I propose that it say: Some former board members reportedly said: "Moorer's skill with leading theater does not extend to nonprofit finance and administration". But if we put this in, we should put in the other quote that I suggested, specifically praising his skill at those things ("Moorer and his board navigated [the pandemic, cost increases and other] rough patches with skill and determination".) Neither is necessary, as people can read the two articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's also something about the board assigning a construction manager, then that construction quitting citing Moorer. That should be considered for inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In considering content removal/retention, it appears, based on contribution pattern of this IP suggests public relations editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Moorer&diff=931633346&oldid=928926387 Graywalls (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The content that was added is good content. If you don't think the ref is acceptable in a particular place, put in a better ref needed tag, and we can talk about those. If necessary, I'll do some research to find a better source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

That came from a Carmel-by-the-Sea geo-location and edit pattern suggests possibly PRT connected contributor drumming up their pages. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't care who added content or why. We should be focusing on whether content is good, bad, correctly referenced, not undue, and balanced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any kind of suspected public relations editing needs to be scrutinized extra carefully since their intents are generally embellish things they want to be seen while omitting things they don't. Graywalls (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Graywalls is correct that the article still reads like promotional PR. There are euphemisms used, lack of balance, and trivial content like his "theater" work while still a child in addition to what is being discussed here. Netherzone (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I just removed his high school role, which I agree did not add much. What else? BTW, if you guys see any negative reviews of any of his acting or directing work, we should mention some of those as well as positive reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply