Talk:Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Problems with this Article

On the list of references, when one clicks on a link he either gets information about the date the article was published or on the publicatons themselves. There is no info on the acticles they are susposedly quoting. Studying this article thoroughly, one will see that there is no source that references that Paul Barresi was part of this project in the making. If you look at the discussion on the Paul Barresi article, there are many blanked areas because blocked editors have tried to use unreliable or self-published sources as references.

Another concern is that there's an information box on this article on Scientology. The subject of this article is clearly not Scientology. The box should not be here but should be on the Scientolog article. Perhaps listing Scientology under the 'See Also' section would be a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.154.12 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There is a citation after every single sentence to back up each sentence. Please specify a specific sentence or source that you have an issue with. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
    • You may also wish to read through WP:LAYOUT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Citations seen in the References section do not require external links to the articles in order to satisfy verifiability. Plenty of information is given for the reader/editor to go and look up the actual sources cited. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
  • The line where Paul Barresi was hired by Andrew Morton is not verified by any reference listed in this article. Also the tag here saying that this is a book release in the future is untrue. The book was released today 06 Jan 2008. It has been on the news and the Scientologists have stated they are suing Norton and the Publisher. There are sources in magazines and on the Net that Barresi offered his information to Norton but no verifiable source saying that Norton hired Barresi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.125.84 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, please specify a specific source you have an issue with, and/or a specific sentence. Otherwise not sure how to respond to that. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Doing much research on all the references cited in this article, I have clearly deduced that NO REFERENCE cites that Paul Barresi was "hired." Reference # 25- is irrelevant to this article it is a performer page for a small-scale gay porn co. including nude pictures of Paul Barresi (warning should be included with reference). Reference # 26 is a blog-style bio listing several adult films Barresi performed in and no mention of this book or Norton. Reference #27 - certainly verifies that Barresi was involved but does not state he was "hired"; it suggests that Barresi volunteered information. Reference # 28 is simply an internal link to Wikipedia's article on "The Daily Telegraph,"again, totally not necssary here! I am also in possession of 2 USA magazine articles which include interviews with Paul Barresi where Barresi specifically states Norton did not hire him but he did volunteer his own researsch information. So, the 4 citations listed for a specific quote do not verify the text! Fuzzyred (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand the way cites are used in Wikipedia. These are not "internal links to Wikipedia's article" on "The Daily Telegraph" - that is just part of the cite itself.
  1. Churcher, Sarah; Emily Maddick. "Tom Cruise fury as Diana author hires gay actor to probe private life", Daily Mail, February 12, 2006. 
  2. Staff. "Royal biographer and a porn star anger Cruise", The Daily Telegraph, February 13, 2006. 
  3. Grover, Sally. "Detective Gets 'In Touch' And Confirms Tom Cruise Is Straight", All Headline News: Celebrity News Service, AHN Media Corp, November 22, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-22. 

These cites verify this information. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed EL

Misleading aspects of Tom Cruise's response

  • In a statement to The Associated Press, Cruise's lawyer, Bertram Fields, said Wednesday that Morton's book is "absolutely loaded with false statements" and "Mr. Morton should be ashamed of himself for telling such vicious lies about a child to hype sales of his book."

Generally, a statement by a person's lawyer is taken to represent the person himself. So to say he has made no response is misleading. It implies that he has no disagreement.

Better to say it this way:

  • Cruise released a statement through his lawyer, saying ...

or simply:

  • Cruise's lawyer, Bertram Fields, said Wednesday that Morton's book is "absolutely loaded with false statements"

We don't want to endorse the bio's claims; nor do we want to label those claims as false. We should reveal the fact that there is a dispute about whether those claims are true. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't understand, the current phrasing states exactly what Bertram Fields said in his statement, why put our own POV interpretation and spin into that statement? Cirt (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In the intro, I saw only footnotes [4][5] and no statement. I think readers need to know what the subject of the book thinks about its credibility.
Where is the POV and spin on my suggestions? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the first example you cited was just the full quote from Cruise's attorney, but you wanted to put some sort of explanation in front of it, which would be interpretation. But in any event, the phrase "Prior to the book's publication, legal counsel for Cruise made statements to the press regarding the author's research." is exactly what occurred. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
All right, let me ponder that a moment. Meanwhile, here's a quote:
  • Mark Harris, Entertainment Weekly: Morton touches familiar boyhood bases (dyslexia, constant relocations, mean daddy). He compiles stout testimonials to the star's heterosexuality while carefully, non-libelously palpating rumors to the contrary. [1]
I just want the article to be neutral: not agreeing or disagreeing with Cruise's biographer or the biographer's critics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the majority of the article contains criticism and statements from Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology. But that's okay, over the next couple days I will expand the article with info from 100 more sources. I've been remiss in updating it lately with all the news coming in so fast. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Article follows in chronological order

A "Controversy" section would be fraught with POV interpretation of what should or should not go in there. Keeping the article in a chronological format, is much easier to follow, and self-evident as far as future organization. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Explanation for "NPOV" tag

Please explain, or it will be removed. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

By you? I'd rather you didn't do that. Please review the NPOV dispute guidelines below first:
  • What is an NPOV dispute? It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. [2]
  • The tag itself says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." You have not explained on the talk page why you placed the tag on the article. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
  1. Yes, I have.
  2. You are not supposed to remove the NPOV dispute tag before the discussion even gets started. What is your rush? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will work with me to examine and fix all neutrality problems in the article, such as our dispute over how to describe Cruise's response (through his lawyer) about the 'falsehoods' in Merton's book.

For example, you wrote "Controversy" is POV. Let's just write about the events and present the subsections in a Chronological order, which is more self-evident. I assumed, as would most editors, that the reason you reverted my edit is that you felt I was expressing a POV. I want to work with you to make sure that no viewpoint of mine is expressed in the article - rather that both sides of the controversy between Merton and his critics are "expressed fairly". --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. But the author's name is Morton, not Merton. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Then please address the issue I raised above in the "Misleading aspects of Tom Cruise's response" section. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I do not see a POV problem in this article. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
See below, "Lack of balance". --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit Number 2 spot on Amazon.com top sellers

I think it was CNN that reported it hit the Number 2 spot on Amazon.com top sellers recently. (You can check for yourself, it's Number 2 top seller right now, but that would be WP:OR.) If anyone finds the secondary source for this, that'd be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Hrm, okay, maybe it wasn't CNN, but I saw it somewhere. Still looking... Cirt (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
It is actually #1 now :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Okay, I guess we can wait for someone to report on that good news. Congrats to Mr. Morton, the buying public has spoken with their wallets and pocketbooks.  :) Cirt (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
Y Done.  :) Cirt (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Lack of balance

True to my word, I will not be slapping the NPOV tag back up any more, but the NPOV dispute is still not resolved. Not to my satisfaction, anyway. I protest the mindset which says that an NPOV tag can be removed before the problem is resolved. It is not right to swoop in and deleted the NPOV dispute tag before trying to understand what the dispute is about. There is no burden of proof on someone who wants to place the tage. The burden is really on someone who wants to remove it.

The NPOV dispute started when Cirt reverted my initial edits, calling them "POV". I disagreed with his assessment of my edits. So that is where the NPOV dispute began. A quick glance at the edit history of the article, combined with comments on this page will show where he and I disagreed about neutrality.

I had made my initial edits, because the article seemed to me biased in favor of the author. Now, ironically, it has swung the other way: biased against the author. This is not neutral either.

I won't consider the NPOV dispute resolved until the article is balanced, i.e., until it is not possible for the casual reader to know what we as contributors believe about which side is correct: Cruise et al., or Morton.

I beg you to consider replacing the NPOV tag, because it provides a signal to potential contributors dropping by that we could use some help neutralizing the article. It also automatically lists the article in Category:NPOV disputes, which is a handy reference for those contributors having a taste for helping out with this sort of thing.

Nonetheless, I will bow to the "consensus", but I wish you would consider leaving up the NPOV tag until all parties to the dispute are satisfied. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored the tag, so that we can address your concerns. What we need is a proposal from you about what needs to be changed to make the article balanced. The reason I say this, is that I do not see any problems with the article in its current format, so I cannot do anything about fixing something which I do not see as broken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to include information about supporters of the author. Has anyone said that the author is telling the truth? If not, then the POV of the article is that Morton wrote a false tell-all biography.
Whether you or I like Tom Cruise or Scientology is not the issue. The issue is whether the article balances anti-Morton views with pro-Morton views. Otherwise, there is no controversy. Are you and Cirt saying there is no controversy? Hence, nothing to balance and no POVs to describe fairly? Am I seeing a controversy where there is none? If so, we can take out the "controversial" in the first line of the intro.
But if there is a controversy, then we must identify the two sides. That is my proposal. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment

There is now a significant amount of material in this article that is negative about the book. We already have a large portion of the article dedicated to 1) Responses from Cruise's publicists and lawyers, 2) Responses from the Church of Scientology's publicists and lawyers, and 3) Negative reviews of the book. If anything, this article is over negatively weighted at the moment, and should include a couple more positive reviews, and more on Morton's responses to the unfounded allegations from Cruise and the Church of Scientology made about him and his book. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any such positive reviews, as most mainstream media has shown an unfavorable view of this book. As for the "unfounded" allegations, we do not know if these are so, only that Morton says they are; but I agree that we need text with the counterpoints presented by Morton in the numerous interviews he has given about the book. If we do so, we need to be careful not to cherry-pick quotes, and present neutrally what the interviewers say as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. And as to "most mainstream media has shown an unfavorable view of this book" - From what I have seen so far, that is simply the media repeating the claims made by the Church of Scientology and Tom Cruise's lawyers. So far, the only independent reviews of the book itself that I have seen, separate from commenting on the issues surrounding it, are The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Entertainment Weekly. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

I hope you understand my desire to place a tag on the article. It's not meant destructively. I don't want to condemn anyone's work. In fact, since I've started watching its progress, both you and Jossi have done terrific work.

First it seemed to anti-Cruise, now it seems too anti-Morton. I have not studied it word for word 3 times like Jossi. Nor have I contributed substantially. You don't even have to listen to my opinions.

I just want to have a well-balanced, neutral article on what seems to me a controversial topic. If you guys don't think the book or any of its aspects are controversial, then maybe I'm wrong. Why, just last week I made a mistake. No one's perfect. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Coming from you, who at first thought it was too "anti-Cruise" - that now you think it is too "anti-Morton" - perhaps we can remove the tag and go from here? Cirt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
I'd rather keep the tag until all 3 of us agree that we have attained balance. For one thing, we still need text with the counterpoints presented by Morton. Don't you agree? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I do agree, but I don't think the article is "unbalanced" without it, just lacking some info that will be added soon. That does not necessitate a tag, especially if you no longer feel the article is "anti-Cruise", which means the tag served its purpose. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
I agree with Cirt here. We are making good progress. Let us do away with the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

New review

Here: "Cruise bio describes his best role: Scientologist :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Books". Retrieved on 2008-01-18.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Kewl, thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Ah - that's a dup - looks like the same review by Teresa Budasi is in both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
      • I have 26 stories (very large javascript), and a whole lot more that haven't been indexed or weeded for dups yet. AndroidCat (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Oooh, thanks, if you want to post them in a new section below here on the talk page, I'll work through them. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
          • Eh, no need to post them here, I'll take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Second in command"

Now that the book is out, has anyone found the page that says this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.253 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's stick to using secondary sources, and avoid citing the book itself directly, in the article about the book. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Does the book say this or not? If not it goes, no matter what secondary sources have said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.253 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, for something that is this controversial, best not to rely on primary sources, and use secondary sources as much as possible, so as to avoid WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So tell me, hypothetically, if the book does not make that claim at all, how long should it be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.253 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll find the page number as well, I loaned the book to a friend recently. But Morton himself has said that this is in his book, in numerous sources. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I added this info back in, I have yet to get the page number, but I added an interview with the Associated Press with the author where they asked him about "second in command" and he responds. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)