Talk:Norman Petty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Amburn claims
Following a complaint on OTRS (292826) I've removed the sentence apparently sourced from the Ellis Amburn book. The claims do not seem to be substantiated by any other source, and while the neutral point of view policy permits the inclusion of minority points of view, claims such as this need to be represented in the appropriate fashion, citing exactly which sources are relied on and clearly identifying the source of the point of view. Please do not re-add these claims until a satisfactory wording can be reached. --bainer (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying the author based it on gossip and hearsay? Wahkeenah 04:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't have access to the book and I have no idea what it says. What I'm saying is a page reference to the book would be necessary, to allow others to check whether the book even supports the claim. Simply saying that it is in the book is not sufficient. But of course you would also be well-advised to actually assess the sources that Amburn relies on. --bainer (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, here's what it says, on page 46, which is also well-sourced in the bibliography, if you really want to get into that. I'm not trying to make some big deal out of this, I just think it's an interesting fact. "The Pettys' relationship was more business than pleasure; though few knew it at the time, Petty was gay, Vi bisexual. Their assistant, Norma Jean Berry, was a lesbian. All three, of course were secretive about their sexual orientations." [It was the mid-1950s, rememember]. "When the Pettys were outed in the London Daily Mail in 1994, Sonny Curtis, who knew everyone at the Clovis studio, remained skeptical: 'If Norman was gay, he never put a shot on me,' said Curtis in a 1995 interview. 'Even if he was gay, what the heck?' However, Niki Sullivan, another key player, confirms the report." The ISBN for this book is 0-312-14557-8. It's from St. Martin's Griffin. I have no idea if it's still in print. It was published in 1995. Wahkeenah 06:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't have access to the book and I have no idea what it says. What I'm saying is a page reference to the book would be necessary, to allow others to check whether the book even supports the claim. Simply saying that it is in the book is not sufficient. But of course you would also be well-advised to actually assess the sources that Amburn relies on. --bainer (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)