Talk:Stephen Moorer

Journalists' reviews of the subject's work

[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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Board dispute paragraph again

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is a very real danger that with the size of the paragraph we are putting UNDUE emphasis on this. It's already the dominant paragraph in the section, is larger than the section that follows it (the ridiculous navel-gazing "Wikipedia editing") and is creeping up to be close to the size of other entire sections. This is giving far too much emphasis to this small aspect. I'm not talking about trying to hide anything, but that section is lacking balance already, and it's beginning to affect the balance of the whole article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Due weight concept suggests coverage proportionate to what's covered in reliable sources. There was an entire article devoted to management rift at Moorer's PRT: 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

That article was cited somewhere in one of the Moorer/PRT/theatres article before my involvement, but not a single unflattering thing was said. The participation by various suspected single purpose users/IPs and other COI activities, public relations reputation management manipulation is highly suspected. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PROPORTION: any more on this aspect is giving undue prominence on this one aspect of his life. Look, I don't give a toss about COI right now. That's in the past, and the article needs to be more neutrally worded in places, but that's exactly what Ssilvers is doing. However, bloating this paragraph on one tiny aspect of his entire life is not the way to proceed. It's covered enough and doesn't need any more because it's being blown out of proportion compared to the rest of the article. The paragraph is already nearly 13 per cent of article body - which is already too much. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not how proportion works. It should be proportionately prominent in reference to prominence in published sources. Things for which coverage is mostly positive is fine to be mostly positive, and mostly negative if mostly negative. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should actually read WP:PROPORTION, because it’s exactly what it means. “An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.” Now, are the sources on just this aspect equal or exceed 13 per cent of all the information on sources about Moorer? That’s what PROPORTION is about. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Further possible promo editing

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Euphemisms such as got an early taste should be removed. In fact most of the of the "Early life" section is unnecessary; usually such a section is titled "Early life and education". The content there is frankly a bit cringeworthy; I'm embarrassed for Mr. Moorer that content about his childhood acting at a hyper-local children's theaters is even included. Non-notable theaters do not need to be mentioned at all. That sort of content should be on his personal website, not in an encyclopedia.

Analogy for clarification,....If I were a professional author (which BTW I am not and writing is not my profession) I would cringe if this were in an encyclopedia article: "Netherzone started writing in elementary school and their poems were published in the local school newsletter several times. Having had a taste of success, they went on to have poems published in the neighborhood library's "Teen Writers" annual booklet. Their poem, The Hot Rod Angel Cats (inspired by Blake) won an award. In 1980, Netherzone gave a spoken word poetry reading at their high school, and was invited to a larger town to perform it again three times at other (non-notable) venues. Netherzone then was awarded a paid internship at their local library."

I hope this helps to clarify. To my mind, the content following the mention of his mother's amateur acting should be changed to:

Moorer attended the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, middle and high schools, becoming involved in the drama program, acting in and producing shows. His first principal role was Miles in The Innocents (based on The Turn of the Screw), at a local community theater. After graduating from high school in 1979, Moorer appeared productions at other local theaters. In 1982, he trained in a 16-week summer season at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco.

Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"I'm embarrassed for Mr. Moorer that content about his childhood acting at a hyper-local children's theaters is even included". Really? When a colleague and I took Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud through FAC, we covered their appearances in school productions too. I would be embarrassed to have written an article that was incomplete in its coverage of a relevant aspect of the subject's early career. Granted, if I wrote the biography of a sportsman, I wouldn't include anything to do with their school theatre performances, but I would certainly mention if they had been in their school's sports teams.

I hope this helps to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes really, however if my honest opinion offends or upsets you I apologize for that, SchroCat.

Using Lawrence Olivier and John Gielgud for comparison is unbalanced, and agree to disagree on this. I would not think of comparing a generally notable visual artist (who is not super-famous) to Picasso or Magritte. That, to my mind, would be exaggerating. It would be gratuitous to write an article on an artist mentioning their student shows or things like a blue ribbon at a county fair; trivial filler or puffery. However I might mention if they learned a skill their mother if the source was strong and it was part of their culture's tradition to pass such skills down from generation to generation. Netherzone (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It didn't offend or upset me at all, although I was bemused to read it.

There's nothing unbalanced in the comparison at all. Although they are at different ends of the spectrum, Moorer is a professional actor, just like Olivier and Gielgud and I would apply the same approach to any actor of any standard. It can apply to anyone for whom we have an article: when did they start to learn what they became notable for, with examples of their juvenile activities in that field. Look at the article on Caitlin Clark, for example: her biography mentions her activities in relation to basketball from age five. This is entirely proportionate and correct. Would you say 'I'm embarrassed for Ms. Clark that content about her childhood basketball playing at a hyper-local children's leagues is even included'? I doubt it - I certainly wouldn't.

BTW, I certainly agree with you on "got an early taste" as unencyclopaedic language, on that we agree, and I have changed this to a more neutral and appropriate phrasing. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Then to prevent lopsidedness, I firmly oppose retaining contents on "one review said" flowery language blah blah bleh. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre statement, and certainly not the way article development works, nor any aspect of WP, really. We can only represent what the sources say. If you’d like to provide reviews that can be used, then please feel free to provide them, but the idea of withholding reviews in one part of the article because you don’t like coverage in another? No, just no. That’s not how this works. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, respectfully of course. To my ears:

This sounds like PR firm trivia:

"From the age of 11 to 17, Moorer also studied theatre at Carmel's Children's Experimental Theatre. After graduating from high school in 1979, Moorer appeared in a three-show repertory season at Hartnell Summer Theatre (which was later called the Western Stage). He returned to the Children's Experimental Theatre in 1980 for a paid internship. In 1982, he trained in an intensive 16-week summer season at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco."

This sounds like an encyclopedia article:

"Moorer attended the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, middle and high schools, becoming involved in the drama program, acting in and producing shows. His first principal role was Miles in The Innocents (based on The Turn of the Screw), at a local community theater. After graduating from high school in 1979, Moorer appeared productions at other local theaters. In 1982, he trained in a 16-week summer season at the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco."

Regarding Caitlin Clark, clearly apples and oranges. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather obviously, It’s not apples and oranges at all. It’s another example (along with Olivier and Gielgud) of the early aspects of their notability being explained. See dozens of biographies for the same treatment - Michael Caine, for example, and Peter Sellers are the same, as is Dan Marino and Henry Moore. It doesn’t matter about the field of endeavour, we give details of their juvenile careers. It’s true of us, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Dictionary of National Biography and hundreds of other similar sources and I don’t know why this is even being challenged. Sure, the wording can be tweaked, but not by removing details or large aspects - that does readers a disservice. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I made one of the changes suggested by Netherzone (three in total now), but I disagree with the rest. It is relevant to a bio about an actor that a parent also acted (or even had a particular interest in theatre). His involvement with Carmel's Children's Experimental Theatre is important, as that is relevant to the local theaters where he now directs, produces and/or manages. His youthful repertory season at Hartnell Summer Theatre is important in understanding his theater training. I find it bizarre that anyone would not wish to model Wikipedia articles on WP:Featured Articles, our best articles that are carefully reviewed by multiple experienced reviewers. Let's see if we can all agree on other language you two propose; I'm sure we can. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)