Talk:Michael Betancourt

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Untitled

I am Michael Betancourt, and I DID NOT create this page, so it is not self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.32.70 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit

Hello! I did a copy edit run on this article and found the following issues which still need to be addressed in this article. Since my edits were reverted, as a member of the Copy Editors Guild I would like to reapply the copy edit tag to have a fresh editor from the Copy-Editor's guild take a look. Here is a summary of issues (which I addressed, but which were reverted); apologies it seems I didn't leave a talk summary after the original CE run. It would have been more helpful and transparent if I had...mea culpa.

Article relies on primary sources, written by the subject of the article
Article states the views of the subject as though they have been analyzed independently, which is hard to validate when the sources that are cited are primary, and written by the subject of the article
Article includes links to sources which are not fully formed as citations
Article has multiple inserts of the same citation (http://ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=717 ) which I combined to clean up the references list. This source also seems to be non-RS (it's written by the subject of the article)
The following sentence has a citation, but the source is simply to a collection of images produced by Mary Hallock-Greenwalt. This can't support the claim that is being made, because any discovery made by Betancourt would be after the fact of the art itself. To reliably support the claim that he made this discovery, we need an independent source (not Betancourt himself) to state or report the discovery. This is why I tagged the claim with "according to whom?".

"Betancourt has discovered ^{[according to whom?]} that the inventor Mary Hallock-Greenewalt produced the earliest hand-painted films known to still exist."

The IP user who reverted my edits said it looked like disruptive cite-tagging. I was trying to indicate that the claims in the sources were not validated because they were (when tagged in my CE run) only sourced to those aforementioned primary, subject written sources. Thus in trying to make a call, I tagged things as a combination of "not in refs", "improper synthesis?" or "original research".

For my own edification, I checked out the page on disruptive editing to better understand the specific concern about cite-tagging. I'm also viewing my version of the page and see that I didn't tag for "citation needed" if there already was a source. I tagged for "non-primary source needed."

Happy to step away from the article and let someone else take a run at it. That's all for now. Thanks, Curdigirl (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

___

I see what you meant by the citation needed for "Betancourt has discovered" reference needed. The revisions looked like the entire page was unreliable and highly questionable, something that isn't ok for a living biography. Thanks for the explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:900:4301:C5F0:3D20:2C7C:98AB:F655 (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]