Jump to content

Talk:Shane Carruth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:A Topiary)

Religion

[edit]

Why is his religion here, I understand a lack of info, but expand this or delete this reference. Zendu (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you posted this like a year ago, but it seems like this is still under contention. I have to agree that it doesn't belong. To me it seems irrelevant but I'm having trouble finding policy/guidelines that promote keeping it or removing it. Any opinions? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what there is for me to say here that I haven't already said in edit summaries. A person's religion is a basic biographical fact, like their age, politics, birthplace, etc. It's as relevant and appropriate to include in an article about that person as any of those things. If it's something they've discussed publicly, then it would be part of a comprehensive encyclopedia article.Prezbo (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on principle, we don't have any of that other information, so it seems to just stick out in the article as poor formating. I hopped on two other directors in an attempt to discredit religion as biographical (lucas and kubrik) and it seems you are right (good show old chap). Still, I would be much happier if it was in a block of other such facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendu (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it's more out of place than anything else. It would be like having a "Shane is white.[4]" sitting by itself. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So rewrite it if you want, but I don't think it's justifiable to remove relevant content just because it makes the article read more awkwardly. Wikipedia articles aren't generally noted for their readability in any case.Prezbo (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's 3 paragraphs in the article. One is about his religion, which is irrelevant to his notability. Also, I'm sure about 75% of Americans have been baptized, which is one definition of "Christian".'

As I basically said above, this is a short article because Carruth is only marginally notable and no one cares enough to write about him, but that shouldn't be a reason to leave out basic biographical facts, like religious beliefs which appear to be strongly held. If he was married and had a family there would be one sentence about that; would that also be "undue weight"? Not everything in a biography needs to be relevant to the subject's notability, although in this case it is relevant to his notability since he's described his religion as an influence on his art. Being baptized is one definition of "Christian," but as is clear from reading the interview that isn't the relevant definition here.Prezbo (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should write a paragraph based on the interview for the main article. But even so, I'm dubious. We don't have any information about his family, either. john k (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've contacted the author of this image and have suggested he change the image's license to a Wikipedia-compatible one. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! Image has been added to the article. Thank you Jonathan Crow! Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 22:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shane Carruth. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name

[edit]

I've reverted the addition of Carruth's middle name again per WP:BLPPRIVACY. To include the full name, it must either be (a) widely published by reliable sources, or (b) published by the source in a way that we can infer they're okay with it being made public. An example is A verified social media account of an adult article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday". That's not the case here. If Carruth's middle name—or date of birth, for that matter—ever does get widely published by reliable sources or unambiguously by Carruth himself, then we can include it. WP:BLP is clear that we need to be cautious and conservative when it comes to claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not active after 2020

[edit]

The "years active" in the infobox goes to 2020... I was looking for a cite of this in the article (or at least a comment justifying it), but found nothing. Anyone know why this is asserted as the effective end of his career? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 06:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. He's said in interviews that he's quitting filmmaking, as mentioned in the "Unrealized or upcoming work" section. That was still true as of 2020, according to this interview from May. Then that June he released the script and most of the score for The Modern Ocean on Twitter, and The Playlist said it's dead unless it gets financed. The AV Club says Carruth says he has “one last project” in front of him before he steps back from filmmaking, though—so that last project wasn't The Modern Ocean? And after that, all of the abuse allegations came out. I guess what I'm saying is, the 2020 end date isn't sourced and could be removed. However, we have no sources saying that he is working on anything post-2020, either. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I was picking up on that tricky issue as I was reading the article, and looking for clarification. I guess, as you say, it should be removed for the time being? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still feels there's no closure re: that "massive thing" quotation in the article, in any case, when you look at the 'timelines' of the other projects? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's so uncertain with that potential "one last thing" out there. In any case, I went ahead and changed "2020" to "present". We can always change it back if/when other sources appear! Woodroar (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shane_Carruth&oldid=1200666524"