Talk:Tommy Wiseau

Attack on the Nostalgia Critic

Is it worth mentioning his attack on the Nostalgia Critic's review of his movie, The Room yet? Pulling it for copyright infringement. Quite an achievement considering it was on Blip!!!--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. I mean he's famous for the room, a pretty aweful movie, and very little else. he's made a good sized wave at least on the internet with this stunt. Gaurdro (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

However this is not a forum for discussing the merits of his movies or internet wars. Regarding the article, the following statement is not substantiated by its sources:

Wiseau became a target for internet satirists after two reviews of The Room by the Nostalgia Critic and Obscurus Lupa were pulled down due to a claimed copyright infringement despite fair use as a review and parody.

The two citations given are video links to "The Tommy Wiseau Show", a satirical sketch by Doug Walker (aka The Nostalgia Critic) impersonating Wiseau, and "Brad and Jerrid Watch The Room", a satirical review by two of Walker's collaborators. The first issue is that neither of these sources fall under acceptable sources for a biographical article. Even if these sources were fine, they only substantiate the part "Wiseau became a target for internet satirists". In particular, the claim "despite fair use" is a pretty blatant violation of neutrality. For now I suggest the following alternative statement:

After filing several claims of copyright violation against reviewers of The Room, Wiseau became a target for internet satirists.

and then leaving the citations as-is. Does this sound like a reasonable consensus? 71.101.95.236 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable wording, but fair use is a simple legal term that does cover rights to both review and parody, so I'm wondering if you could clarify your concerns on neutrality, cheers. GullibleKit (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for editing without consensus, but given the fact that there is some sort of organized off-wiki effort to attack Tommy Wiseau's character (according to the administrator who locked the article), I'm replacing it with the proposed version to take out the rule violation. I'd appreciate more input on this so that we can have a version reached by consensus. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As you misread the admin I'm going to revert. The article was locked against vandalism from ED, that did not include the portion you removed. Jarkeld (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything at ED, but users on TGWTG forum are urging each other to update wikipedia in favor of Doug Walker on a copyright dispute. Vandalism needs to be kept out, but the article must conform to rules for biographies of living persons. I interpreted vandalism against the biography to be an attack on the person, but that's not really all that important now and the article must reflect wikipedia policy. Please assume good faith. I am reinstating the change until we can have more discussion on what would be an acceptable consensus that does not break NPOV. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate

{{editsemiprotected}} According to IMDb [1], his birthdate is 3 October 1968. Would the that be a usable source? According to this editing guideline regarding IMDb, the site is not suitable as a source for "any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs)". To me that sounds like any non-contentious material from an IMDb biography is acceptable, but I'd like to hear other opinions. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Although this applies to the film project and not biographies on actors or directors, WP:RS/IMDB suggests that "The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source" and that "Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor". And honestly...just looking at the man I do think his age is important but I'd like a more secure source. Tommy is pretty secretive about himself so I would like to find an actual source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ANowlin: talk 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that page Andrzejbanas. I'm unable to find an alternative source, I wouldn't know where to start looking other than online searching. Most of the references given in this article relate to The Room, in fact they are opinions and editorials on The Room which would be acceptable for that article, but are not suitable for a biographical article per wiki policy. As the only biographical information in this article comes from uncited or unreliable sources, perhaps the article should be considered for deletion? This was not my original position, but after reviewing the BLP page carefully I don't think this article belongs in an encyclopedia at this time. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiseau has a significant cult following so I think he passes WP:ENTERTAINER. So I wouldn't be too hasty on deleting this article. I'm welcome to more opinions though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrzejbanas, Tommy Wiseau passes WP:ENTERTAINER: item 2 without a doubt (significant cult following) and item 3 as The Room is an "unique" contribution to the field. Jarkeld (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not debating notability, certainly publishing The Room is adequate. However most of the biographical information about Tommy Wiseau lacks a reliable source with the exception of the interview (#2 on references at the moment). There's also an interview by the satirical The Onion but if you'll pardon the pun, that publication is a bit dicey for an encyclopedia reference. I tried to find other sources but he is apparently quite private with his personal info. I'm just wondering if we cut out all unsourced/unreliable info, there wouldn't be enough of an article left to merit inclusion. While there are many other sources, they pertain to The Room and that information belongs on the respective article; no need to duplicate it here.

On a related note, should "The Tommy Wiseau Show" be removed from references, as it is not an acceptable source per consensus reached above?