Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:57, 16 March 2012

"Legendary"

While the term "legendary" is obviously subjective, it was sourced. Comments? X4n6 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

If anyone has questions/concerns about this article, please discuss them here. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Canyon News

I don't think the Canyon News articles cited in this article are reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes, at least for establishing notability, if at all. Per this "Specials page" and another dating back to at least 2008 on their website it looks like the paper sells profile-type articles. I will tag them accordingly. Novaseminary (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree completely. Have fully explained at AfD. However, even IF there were an issue, the question is moot as there are ample other RS sources that essentially provide the identical info - thereby confirming - and conferring - notability.X4n6 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

SAG Award Nom

Why does X4n6 continue to rm this official source that actually announces Tait's nomnation as part of an ensemble. Because it also list the 130+ plus others who worked on the same ensemble and were co-nominees for the same film? Novaseminary (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I continue to remove it should be obvious. It blatantly violates WP:UNDUE. The better question is why you continue to insert it - and remove the actual link to the definitive SAG Award database itself, in order to do it. X4n6 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How? Rather than linking to the actual nomination press release, you link to a blank page on the same website. Why? It also lists the winner. Anything else violates UNDUE, at best, or is misleading at worst. Novaseminary (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Still wrong. The link isn't to a "blank page on the same website". The link is to the actual, searchable database the website provides. For a reason! There's no way you can plausibly claim the searchable, definitive source is less desirable than an easily misinterpreted press release about that source. That claim is transparently indefensible on it's face. X4n6 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How can the SAG's own press release be misinterpreted? Novaseminary (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You did it. Where does it list the total number of nominated performers in the category? It doesn't. Yet you took it upon yourself to try to do it? Nooo that's not misinterpreting, huh? Better question: just how/why could a press release about a database be superior to the actual database? X4n6 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The PR is about the noms and winners (not the database, of course), but puts it in context. The database is about the various noms and winners, without context. One would not know Tait was part of an ensemble of 130+. That misleads. Novaseminary (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It only "puts it in (the) context" you would like that context placed in. That's textbook NPOV. It's also textbook UNDUE clearly intended to minimize the notable achievement of the nomination. In fact, as we're talking textbooks, it is also original research - making it a textbook violation of WP:OR - which you must be very well-aware of, as it is a favorite rule you like to cite. X4n6 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you say the full context into which the sponsors and awarders of the award placed the nomination is POV? The facts are the facts. Hiding the fact that Tait was part of a huge ensemble that was nominated is POV; it leaves a false impresion. It is still a very significant accomplishment for which he and you has an admirer can be very proud. (But it does not meet NACTOR.) Why isn't accurately noting the facts sufficient? As for your claiom of OR, it is fair to note that me adding the total number of his collegues is close to SYNTH, but you aren't quite right. We generally don't consider simple mathmatical functions any different than sumamrizing. If he were nominated with one or two other people, we could say Tait was nominated with co-stunt actors John Doe and Jane Doe. But listing all of his scores of collegues on the ensemble would be less than elegant. It would address your specious SYNTH concern, though. But OR/SYNTH is when you go a step further than the source or combine two sources to prove a point. I don't want to go beyond the SAG PR; I want to summarize it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While your ability to obfuscate is apparent, how long did your "simple mathematical function" take? But why stop there? If you're really so concerned about context, why not list the total number of nominees in the category? Then calculate that percentage against the entire number of eligible performers who worked in films that year who were not nominated? That would provide some actual - and factual context, if that real context was your goal, wouldn't it? But obviously it's not. But a greater concern: what you call a "simple mathematical function" is simply - and specifically - prohibited. See WP:CALC. What consensus have you built for it? Where are the other editors who clamored for your unique interest in counting? When you produce those editors you may proceed, under their direction. Not before. Your NACTOR claim remains as vacuous as it is completely counterintuitive. The organization that confers the Award is the Screen "Actors" Guild. There could not be another body more uniquely qualified to confer notability on Actors. Re: the SAG Award itself, the word "Ensemble" is found in this award - as is the phrase "Outstanding Performance", so neither needs additional emphasis, but certainly not one without the other. That's clear POV. You should also review WP:SYNTHNOT as you don't appear to understand the policy you regularly reference. X4n6 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Stunt role in Freddy v. Jason

I am unsure why the fact that Tait played the stunt double in one scene in Freddy vs. Jason is being removed by X4n6. Even Tait's resume notes he was "Jason Stunt Double". Novaseminary (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the source is the phrase "stunt double" used. You are well aware of this, as it has been brought to your attention multiple times. Kindly stop making unsourced edits to skew the article to your own well-documented POV. Regarding Tait's resume, see WP:BLPSPS. Also you need to stop edit-warring to support that POV. X4n6 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough take on the reference, but I cannot find an RS to support the fact at all. This reference is a posting to a fan forum and almost certainly fails WP:RS. The site is not even affiliated with the films' producers, etc., according to the site itself. At least his resume lists the actual role. Novaseminary (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. There are abundant RS that show he played the role. We're not about to rediscover the wheel. You should know this fact. Especially since you've routinely attempted, and failed, to challenge them all. X4n6 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fridaythe13thfranchise.com is a fansite and thus fails WP:RS. I tend to have to look at how the main classifies his own participation in that film as a "stunt double" and side with that source. We've had this debate before about giving him more credit for a role he did not actually perform. Ken Kirzinger did the same thing for Hodder in Friday the 13th Part 8, where Hodder was not available for 1 single scene so they just used the stunt double for a quick shot. Tait is still part of the film, but it should be accurately represented as to what he is actually classified as in the film. In this case, he's classified as a stunt double.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw the note I left on your page about this very thing, but while most of these guys are actors and stunt men, they are also character actors in their own right. As you know, they get far more credit among horror fans than just calling them stunt doubles. Just wearing a costume doesn't qualify as a stunt. As for the fansite, you know much of the communication done on this genre is in fansites. Still there are many other RS already in the BLP. Also it's more accurate to call him an actor than a stuntman because he actually has far more acting credits than stunt credits, while most stuntmen hardly ever do on-camera speaking roles. X4n6 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Tait is not also a character actor, I'm saying that as far as Jason goes he was just a stunt man. If what is insinuates is true, his extent for filming involved him walking out of the lake from a submerged position. That is a stunt by any means. The fact that he was in costume doesn't change that he was performing a stunt that Kirzinger was unable to take part in for whatever reason. This isn't the case of Warrington Gillette and Steve Dask, where Gillette filmed one scene at the end but was given acting credit while Dask actually filmed the whole movie but because he wasn't a member of the SAG he couldn't receive credit. This is about a man performing a single stunt for the final scene of the film. The film classifies him as a stunt double. The SAG and the Stuntment Association classify that role as a "stunt" role. We cannot change things simply because a fansite does not use the word "stunt". Yes, I agree that he does have acting credits to his name, but as far as Jason goes he was a stuntdouble. Kane Hodder has both acting and stunt work to his name, but when he does just stunt work we don't attribute an acting role to him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that he's also an actor and a character actor. As relates specifically to Jason, I have come across several sources that say he wasn't performing a stunt for Kirzinger, but was actually replacing him because he was not available for additional filming. He was apparently the producers' second choice for the role and when Kirzinger was unavailable for shooting, they turned to their second choice: to shoot not only the final sequence, but other parts of the film as well. Here's some more examples:

"Although Ken Kirzinger was chosen to play Jason, many re-shoots were made late in the production process and Ken was not available to work. The producers used their next choice for Jason, actor Douglas Tait. The most notable scene shot with Mr. Tait is the very last scene in the movie, just before the credits."

"Because the ending had to be reshot, and Ken Kirzinger was not available, Douglas Tait was cast in the role of Jason. His few days on the film were largely spent underwater. The crew discovered that when Tait was submerged, his clothes would cling to him and make him look less bulky. Tait had to be bulked up with pads and extra clothing. He also had to walk along the lake floor so he had to hold onto a rope tied under the water."

"37. Although Ken Kirzinger was chosen to play Jason, many reshoots were made late in the production process and Ken was not available to work. The producers then used their next choice for Jason, actor Douglas Tait. The most notable scene shot with Tait is the very last scene in the movie, just before the credits."

I also found a really good interview with Tait where he answers 4 questions about replacing Kirzinger: Questions 2, 3, 5, & 6. So if anything, to be accurate, we should call him Kirzinger's "replacement", but not his stunt double. X4n6 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources being used

This source does not actually identify him as "acting" the role of Jason. It says that he appears in the film. It does not identify the capacity of the involvement. acknowledges that the only thing he did was walk out of the lake, so lets make sure that the article is clear that that is what he filmed. He did not act the role the entire time (which is the way it is reading right now). This source isn't even a source, it's a signed picture which is not a source for anything. Pictures are not allowed as sources, because they would fall under original research, so it needs to go as well. There is only 1 legitimate source that can be used, and the article needs to reflect exactly what it is saying, which is that Tait only filled in for the role in the scene where Jason walks out of the lake.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. I accept your concerns about the sources you mentioned, but I think the sources above are much clearer as to what his job on the set was and how he was hired, as an actor. Naturally it is confusing because one could claim that the entire part of Jason is stunt work and not character acting. But I think to do that diminishes the role of Jason Voorhees - which is pretty much generally accepted everywhere as a role, not a stunt. So playing it, even for just a part of the finished film should quality as playing the role for the period, not just performing a stunt. Especially if that part is the film's big final scene. But again, I think the sources above make that point. I just included a few. There are many others that basically take the same position. X4n6 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (IMDB cannot be used as it is fan submitted content) that explain his role, then use them. But, do not ignore the fact that he is merely credited as a stunt double. Explain that he performed reshoots when Kirzinger was not available, but also point out that he merel got a stunt double credit. My point is more that if I read the article on Tait and I see what is written about Freddy vs. Jason, I would get the impression that Tait was the actor who played Jason in the film. That is not accurate, and is very misleading. If I read that Kirzinger portrayed him, but because of whatever reason he could not take part in reshoots so Tait stepped in, then I have a better understanding. Again, it comes down to a reliable source and the IMDB source you linked cannot be used in the article because it's no better than citing Misplaced Pages itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning RE: Unsourced edits/Removing sourced edits

A pattern of unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on this BLP has emerged in blatant violation of WP:TE. If the disruptive editing continues, the editor will be reported. Suggest: if you will not/cannot contribute constructively to this BLP, see WP:JDI and WP:LETITGO. Otherwise, pursuing this course will result in action. X4n6 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dougomite Productions

The phone listed on Tait's resume is the same as for Dougomite Productions. This YouTube channel claims that In the Name of Freedom was "Produced, Edited, and Directed by the team at DOUGOMITE PRODUCTIONS LLC". The source in the article says it was produced by Isabel Cueva and Douglas Tait. Does Tait run this wedding and special event filming company? Is there any discussion of Tait being a wedding videographer in RSs? Novaseminary (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)