Talk:Billy Chapin

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	I worked on this article on the Wikipedia and intend to maintain and develop it on Citizendium.
	Oliver Renye 16:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning: being "beyond a stub, but incomplete".

Unfortunately there's in fact scarcely nothing significantly on Billy Chapin published or availlable to date - by whatever reason. He apparently simply dropped out into a normal life after his acting career had ended in 1959/60 - and the passages on him in his sister's biography are 1. too private and sensitive to use them in any public way without strict permission, and 2. - blocked by her own copyright, anyway. Although he obviously had similar poblems with alcohol and drugs like his sister, it might have been not that heavy than hers. Today he seems to be not very keen on any new publicity, tailored on his former celebrity status, although, within the past decade, he had joined a few conventions and celeb-events on special occasions. He was married early (mentioned in Lauren's biography) and he has (at least) one son. Some months ago on his sister's homepage there was temporarily an up-to-date photo of him (along with her) displayed, but which in the meantime is removed again. So it will be very difficult to develop this article more significantly than it is today.--Oliver Renye 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When I added the metadata I used status 2 based on the length alone ( i know nothing about this topic). If you feel it is close to finished you should upgrade the status from 2 to 1. After 1 the next step is approval. Chris Day 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

I upgraded the status to 1 now, but I'm not very happy with the term "complete, or nearly so." - which biography will ever be this?

I don't want to say, that there will be no further improvements/ developments possible - whenever new facts on especially his today life will come up (the mentions on him in his sister's biography, which are mostly of the negative kind, stop in the mid-seventies).

For the Wikipedia article on him I directly researched about half a year, bought the listed books and even all of his screen appearances via eBay and iOffer; - that's why I could create a movie gallery on him via Youtube. (His appearance in "The Cockeyed Miracle", 1946, was/is in fact so tiny, that I couldn't even find him out - but since all major online data bases are listing him in this picture, he eventually must have "peformed" in it.)

As a "researching author" you are also always considered an intruder into somebody's privacy, as long as the person to research/to write about is not the one who hired you for such a project, and even then, such a book must then apear to be a chronological selection of memories, rather than a really "complete" biography; - not to confuse with "comprehensive", what I understand as "covering" all important periods of sombody's life without publicly exposing him or her.

(A very rare exception from this rule is definitely Lauren Chapin unvarnishedly personal life confession.)

A thumb rule, which I always try to follow is: "To write about a person, as if I you would write about myself; - what would I be ready to release/expose to the public, and not what would others/the public like to read/learn about me."

Back to Billy Chapin, I don't believe that at this time there will be any essential improvements possible, unless someone will find a way to contact him personally (I once tried it via his sister's homepage - but to no avail) and to talk him into telling something about these missing parts of his life.

Much more difficult is the "bio" on Sally Jane Bruce. Let's face it: Wouldn't she have performed in "The Night Of The Hunter", 1955, nobody would know today, that she ever existed (not meant in disrespect or even cynical!)

But exactly that made her a part of the "legend".

So what is anybody able to contribute to this article on her to maiking it "complete", without directly haunting her today life and privacy.

If you think that this upgrading was untimely, feel free to revert it.

I'd also look forward knowing your oppinion on this subject.

Regards Oliver--Oliver Renye 16:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is hard for me to comment since I know nothing about this subject. Much depends on how you define complete. I would suggest that complete is not the same as "exhaustive coverage". It's a question of balance. Chris Day 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick response.

Here's the definition for status 1:

These are checklisted articles that are complete or nearly so. They have not been approved, however. They are not merely copied from Wikipedia, or some other source, but have been significantly changed so that our copy is either original, or importantly different from its source. In other words, they are internal articles.

In all three cases, which I copied from Wikipedia, (Bobby Driscoll, Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce) I majorly worked on; - so why should I rework them now "significantly", just to fit in Citizendium's definition? - to make them "internal articles"? On the other hand: it doesn't make sense to downgrade this article again, just to let it be edited in order to match with these rules. It's definitely not "complete" in regards of a continuous biography - it actually only covers his screen and TV career.

Perhaps they should find other definitions for biographical articles.

I think, I will put this subject up for discussion in the forum.--Oliver Renye 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be a good discussion. Remember that there are only four categories of "completeness". Given they apply to all topics equally there are bound to be problems with applicability. As you suggest, one solution might be for workgroups to refine the definitions for their own use.

Re significantly changed, I forget where this is described but it does not mean rewrite. Changes include a sentence here and there. Even then this does not have to be the case. The Barbara McClintock article was not changed very much from it's original version at wikipedia. This was because editors here deemed it accurate enough for approval. I think there is a misconception that wikipedia articles do not belong here, this is not the case. We might need to massage the text in the CZ policy articles to reflect this more. Chris Day 23:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)