Talk:Archer MacMackin

The following editorial remarks were moved from the article content to this talk page:


 * All but the first paragraph of this Wikipedia entry were prepared by Jocelyn Faris, a genealogist to the Sager family. My grandmother (Margaret Emaline Sager Faris) was a first cousin to Cleo Sager McMackin.  Some information given in this report is based on oral stories told to me by my grandmother (such as Cleo meeting Lawrence McMackin at the circus) while other information has been garnered from historical records (census records, draft registration forms, etc.).  Original family correspondence now in the possession of Jocelyn Faris has been used as has been the Des Moines Register article on Lawrence McMackin. Newspaper articles on Archer McMackin's career were found using the on-line resource Newspaper Archive. I also own the majority portion of Archer's personal collection of movie memorabilia, letters, poetry, plays, stories, personally-written books (including his autobiography), photos from his life and career, and personal possessions which were purchased from an Iowa antiques dealer who purchased the collection from Archer's widow.


 * Since writing this wikipedia article, extensive research into the life of Archer McMackin has been completed. Inaccuracies in this article will be corrected in my forthcoming book on Archer McMackin.


 * I (Jocelyn Faris) am a prominent film historian having written books on Liberace ("Liberace: A Bio-Bibliography"), Ginger Rogers ("Ginger Rogers: A Bio-Bibliography"), Jayne Mansfield ("Jayne Mansfield: A Bio-Bibliography"), and a book on Jean Harlow that has not yet been published. I welcome correspondence concerning this family (jocelyn_faris@hotmail.com) including additional information or leads as to where additional information might be available (such as film archives).

Clean up
I've removed quite a bit of what appears to be original research and unencyclopedic content from the article. A lot of what was written seemed to veer off into MacMackin's family (which I'm sure is interesting and all) when what should be focused on is what made MacMackin notable: his career. There was also some POV wording and what I can only assume is someone's personal reflections on the subjects life and what they found in their while doing their research (e.g "One of the first records I have found of Archer's connection with the movies is an article he wrote for a December 1909 magazine entitled "How Moving Picture Plays are Written."). I attempted to wade through the content and salvage the points that need to be addressed. Any other content removed simply didn't belong in the context of Wikipedia.  Pinkadelica Say it...  08:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

+++++About the Clean UP ++++++++++++++++

Found the new article quite interesting. However, whoever rewrote my original article seems to have assumed facts from the original content that, though they would be a good guess, are erroneous. Over 85% of the subsection entitled "Personal Information" is now in error. There are only two accurate facts in the personal information section -- Archer did indeed marry Cora in 1942 and he did indeed help to raise her 3 children from a previous marriage. All other sentences in that section have taken what I wrote, made incorrect assumptions about the subject, and then called it a revised and improved biography.

Here, for instance, is an example of how this editor works. I wrote in my article that Archer was a Presbyterian who turned into a Mormon. This editor takes my factual material and uses it to claim that Archer was not a Mormon until after he married Cora who also became a Mormon after marrying Archer. That is very incorrect. Archer was a Mormon back in Chicago. Furthermore, Cora and her family were Mormons back into the 1800s. Cora and Archer met at church. I should know -- I can prove this from the correspondence I purchased from their estates.

Another totally bizarre assumption was made by the editor. She claims that Cora was Archer's second wife based on the fact that I mentioned Archer's first wife and then mentioned Cora as his widow -- note I did not say Cora was the second wife. The editor then rewrites the article calling Cora Archer's second wife. All you can deduce from what I wrote in my article was that Archer had a minimum of two wife(s) and the one who was married to him at the time of his death was Cora Cushion. I said nothing of all the wife(s) in between.

The other sections aren't a whole lot better.

You know if you really wanted to clean up the page, you'd fix the title "Archer MacMackin". Archer's real name is McMackin. He was often called MacMackin -- but his name was McMackin.


 * If there is in fact erroneous content, feel free to correct it. As for the supposed erroneous Mormon claim, there was no mention of MacMackin previous religion in the version of the article I worked on. Same goes for the content about MacMackin's wife. I can't deduce how many times he was married or what religion he previously associated himself with if the content isn't there. The only sources I could find on MacMackin was on IMDb and that states he was married twice. Again, I can't mention a wife that I don't know he had and since there were no reliable sources to go on, all I could go on is the content presented. That said, this isn't "your" article (see WP:OWN). Once anyone releases the content to Wikipedia, it can and will be changed (hence the note at the bottom of the screen that clearly states If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.). The fact of the matter remains that there was too much unencyclopedic content in the article that read like a personal essay and went off-topic. As I stated previously, that is not acceptable which is why I removed the content. I'd also like to remind you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. If you take issue with any edit someone does, the collegial thing to do is to express your opinion clearly on the talk page, provide reliable sources to back up your claims and leave your personal feelings out of it. Further, if you have an issue with the name of the article, I suggest you contact whomever created the article and discuss a possible move. I've found nothing to support that this wasn't his name and don't see the need for a page move at this time.  Pinkadelica Say it...  18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I already had the erroneous content out and don't believe I'll bother with the wikipedia any more. Can't be too much wrong with my writing -- I make a six-digit income from it every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.10.26 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And you make that by promoting your vanity press books in the middle of a Wikipedia article? Too cool. However, that isn't how things are done here, dear. Buy an ad. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you choose not to bother with Wikipedia anymore, that's your choice. It's not for everyone. As for making six-figures for your writing, good for you. That means very little in the context of Wikipedia, but if you felt you needed to get that out there, great.  Pinkadelica Say it...  04:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)