Talk:Marc Turtletaub

On the banks of the old Raritan

Why was it taken out? No explanation why good faith edit taken out; I propose we leave that in; when you go to the website of Rutgers Prep, they are proud to point that out.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That content was removed by Alansohn with this edit. I can't say exactly why he removed that bit of text, but I agree with its removal. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a neutral encyclopedic tone without any puffery, editorializing or anything else found in WP:W2W, whereas the Rutgers Prep website can be written any way they like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly why it was removed. It's a cute way to get a mention of On the Banks of the Old Raritan, the Rutgers University alma mater, but it is the kind of breezy, lighthearted puffery that might appear in a magazine profile of Turtletaub, and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Alansohn (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Puffery and encyclopedic content are in the eyes of the beholder. I feel the phrase is very applicable; it is on the banks of the canal; the canal is old, and is also called the Raritan canal. With the photo, it gives a perfect picture of the setting of the school. A very mental picture of the campus can be drawn from the combination of the two and (hidden) rhyming. Given consensus of reviewers (for now) that the phrase and photo (see below) are not worthy of encyclopedic content, I will defer to the reviewers, but await further comments on this question. Mwinog2777 (talk)

The phrase might be applicable to an article about the school itself, but not in an article about a person who attended the school. There are probably lots of things about Rutgers Prep which could be added to Wikipedia articles about individuals who intended the school, but doesn't mean they should. All that is really relevant to this article is that Turtletaub is an alumnus of the school; any more specific information about the school itself can be found by the reader in the article about the school. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Big Beach image taken down

I have reviewed license info of this image; I quote: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States." I would like others to discuss this further; if majority agree with me, will put back.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mwinog2777: The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of a file such as File:Big Beach.jpg must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy.

There are various problems with using this file in this article. The first one is WP:NFCC#10c, which says that a seperate specific non free use rationale needs to be provided for each use. This file is currently lacking such a rationale for this article, which means it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. The question then is whether it such a rationale can be written and I don't think that one can in this case. This is because of WP:NFCC#8, which requires that a particular non-free use significantly improve the reader's understanding to such a degree, that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. There no specific sourced commentary in the article about the image so it's use seems to be just decorative. The file is also being used in Big Beach (company) and there's a Wikilink to that article where the reader can see the company's logo which seems more than adequate per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. How does seeing this particular image improve the reader's understanding the article content about Turtlelaub's career as a movie producer? Why did you add it to the article? Did you just assume that because other images are used in the article or because the file is used elsewhere that non-free use was a given?

If you feel that the non-free use of the file in the article can be justified, then please provide the required non-free use rationale explaining how. The rationale needs to be specific enough to clearly show how (at least how you feel) the particular use meets all 10 non-free content criterion; in other words, simply copying-and-pasting a rationale for another use and changing the article parameter/name is typically not sufficient. Furthermore, providing a rationale is only 1 (actually only 1 part of 1 criterion) of the 10 criterion and does not in and of itself justify non-free use; the file's non-free use can still be discussed at WP:FFD or the file can be tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} if another editor feels the rationale is not valid. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask as WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC.

In addition, I'm not sure of the encyopedic relevance of some of the other images being used. They may be freely licensed, but they really seem necessary for the reader's understanding per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to criticism above took out canal picture. I await consensus on the logo issue. Will not put back for now. I strongly believe the others are of encyclopedic relevance. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

The logo non-free use needs to comply with the community-wide non-free content use policy, so there is already a consensus not to use it per WP:NFCCE and a local consensus cannot overide a community-wide one. As posted above, if you feel the file's non-free use is truly justified, then it is your responsibility to explain how by adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page before re-adding the file to this article because without such a rationale to evaluate there is no possiblility of using the logo in this article. If you're not sure how to write such a non-free use rationale or have any other questions on non-free content use, you can ask for help at WT:NFC or even WP:MCQ. Just for reference, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been purposely made much more restrictive than the US concept of fair use, and the way the logo was being used is not going to be considered to acceptable per WP:NFCC#8. There has to be something specific about the logo (preferably sourced critical commentary discussing it) in the article content which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing the logo would be detrimental to that understanding. Mentioning Big Beach Films by name in the sentence such as "Turtletaub joined with Peter Saraf in 2004 to form Big Beach Films." is simply not enough to justify the non-free use of the company's logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Perth Amboy as place of birth

Mwinog2777, do you have a source for Perth Amboy as Turtletaub's place of birth, as well as other personal biographical details in the article? Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, added references. After deletion of children and marital status, I believe no further personal bio details are left unreferenced. All info can be gleaned from the refernces. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Think I fixed the lead.Mwinog2777 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversed allegations of fraud

• WP:BLPPRIMARY

"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Court record of a class action suit was used in this case to make allegations of fraud by Turtletaub.. There are no secondary source available to corroborate. I undid this edit.Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• On 12/28/2019 another effort made to use court records in the bio of a living person without any secondary sources. And a second court case was added. Vigilance will be needed.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)