Jump to content

Talk:Michael Crichton/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Name

In an edit summary, an editor who removed "rhymes with frighten" from the lead, advised "post a ref please. but that doesn't make it notable anyway." He did this while leaving a reference in place where the author Chricthon himself says that his name "rhymes with frighten" but does not give an IPA transcription that was left standing. Not only does this edit falsify what the source actually says, how the author's own advice on how to pronounce his own name could be considered not notable is beyond me.

This matter has been discussed repeatedly; in 2007 in the talk archive which referred to the verbatim "rhymes with frighten"; and in a dispute between myself and User:Kwamikagami where I wanted to add an IPA transcription and he noted that the IPA was unreferenced while "rhymes with frighten" was verbatim:

You have no source for your transcription, which makes it WP:OR. Crighton said two things, that it's pronounced "cry-ten" (/kraɪ.t?n/), and that it rhymes with frighten (/ˈfraɪtən/). He said nothing about vowel raising; it is only your assumption (though a reasonable one) that he has it, and only speculation that he hears it as distinctive. His own description of his name would appear to contradict that. — kwami (talk) 5:03 pm, 10 September 2010, Friday (2 years, 5 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)

Subsequent editors have added the IPA diff which could be removed as unsourced but which seems not to be disputed by anyone at this point.

The "rhymes with frighten" is sourced verbatim from the author, and represents long standing consensus between various authors. I am restoring it and a new consensus should be reached if this referenced material is to be removed. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed repeatedly - don't believe you. It was discussed once, very briefly: Talk:Michael_Crichton/Archive_1#Pronunciation.
The "rhymes with frighten" is sourced verbatim from the author - so what? He doesn't write this page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Putting that at the start gives it undue weight as well as a ghoulish emphasis, and takes it out of the context of the admirable Crichton's Scotch ancestry. Much better explained under early lif, so I've done that. . dave souza, talk 09:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is very simple, Crichton himself gave the "rhymes with frighten" explanation, and the IPA is not given. The repeated edit replacing his words with the IPA is falsifying the source, which is hardly "ghoulish". In cases of disputes we cite the source verbatim and the next step here is an ANI report. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad its very simple, in that case we're obviously all in agreement. In this case, we're agreed that Crichton doesn't write this article. Empty threats of ANI are empty William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Heartland institute website a reliable source?

I was under the impression that self-published materials do not constitute a reliable source. This one http://heartland.org/press-releases/2005/01/11/michael-crichton-right?artId=16260 appears to be precisely that, and serves as a reference for this paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Criticism_of_Crichton.27s_environmental_views Belsavis (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point, in a spirit of compromise I've removed it as not being criticism and undue weight to the fringe views promoted by Bast. It's a reliable primary source for what Bast and Heartland say, but that has to be shown in context of how it's been received by the mainstream – for which a reliable secondary source is needed. Here it is for discussion:
In contrast, Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, wrote in defense of Crichton's views in an online editorial in 2005, listing dozens of books by reputable scientists and authors that support many of Crichton's claims in "State of Fear", including temperature manipulation by scientists, El Nino existing independently of global warming, long-term temperature drops despite carbon dioxide emissions increases, insufficient glacial data, and sea levels rising constantly for six millennia. <ref "Michael Crichton is Right!" The Heartland Institute.</ref
That wording doesn't make clear that these conspiracy claims are nonsense. . dave souza, talk 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lost World: Jurassic Park missing in table

Why is Jurassic Park III in table and not The Lost World: Jurassic Park? Seems equally deserving. comp.arch (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Misleading section heading

A relatively minor qualm, but it appears that the entire body of the section Criticism of Crichton's environmental views is rather criticism of his book State of Fear (which already has a Reception section). While Crichton did put many of his views and arguments within that novel, anyone who's read and listened to the listed speeches would know it certainly doesn't contain the entirety of Crichton's environmental views.

Until someone can find people criticizing Crichton's environmental views, and not just one of his books, I'd recommend changing that section title to something like "Criticism of State of Fear" or something similar. Onychoprion (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for non-fiction and global warming

The section about Crichton's fictional works is about four times as long as the section about his non-fiction. Since Crichton is more known for his works of fiction, it would be a good idea to add to the non fiction section to expose that side of his writing to readers of the article. This edit would make the article much more balanced. Also, it would be nice if the section about his views on global warming actually gave examples of his views on the subject. Grayanderson (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to merge his views on GW into the fiction section William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The link for the claim about the jury taking 45 minutes to rule in Crichton's favor in the case by the "Catch the Wind" author is broken. There is also another link that says it took about 2 hours to decide, not 45 minutes: http://variety.com/1998/film/news/crichton-co-win-twister-lawsuit-1117467205/ "Crichton & Co. win ‘Twister’ lawsuit"

I can't figure out how to edit to reflect the old link no longer working, so I just wanted to bring this to someone's attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfasd2222 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Simultaneous #1s

Jurassic Park (the film) was released in June 1993, Disclosure was published in January 1994, and (according to its page) ER didn't reach #1 in the viewing charts until Series 2 which began in September 1995, so the claim that he had works simultaneously at #1 for all three media sounds a bit unlikely.

I did not post the above unsigned comment, but I have an additional observation. The article says that Chrichton is the only "creative" person to have simultaneous #1s in those three categories, but it is fairly well known that Tim Allen had the #1 TV show, #1 movie, and #1 book in 1994. Unless the Crichton claim can be verified, I suggest it be deleted. Jnmwiki (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Fairly well known" would still require a citation. Scr★pIronIV 14:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Crichton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Physician as occupation

Neither "physician" or "former physician" should be listed as an occupation for Michael Crichton. As it says in the article:

He graduated from Harvard, obtaining an MD in 1969, and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970. He never obtained a license to practice medicine, devoting himself to his writing career instead.

This is certainly interesting and belongs in the article, but this was only for a brief period before his writing career. We don't list what people majored in as an occupation. He never established himself as a physician. This is not like Joseph Wambaugh, who went from being a policeman for 14 years to an author - and notice that on his page, Wambaugh is introduced as a writer. Not a writer and policeman. Putting "physician" as an occupation in the lead or infobox for Crichton, giving it equivalency with author, screenwriter and film director, is WP:UNDUE and misleading. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. ScrapIronIV, why do you say it was "not a trivial part of [his] career"? It does not mean we cannot mention his obtaining an MD at all, just that it does not belong in the grouping of professions for which he is well-known. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Being a physician is not like other occupations. It includes years of study and also years of practical application in internship. Crichton never obtained a license for private practice, but he did perform in that profession at the same time he was beginning his writing career, and it obviously had an impact on the content of his works. I would agree if it were another occupation, such as a lawyer who might gain the degree and never practice. Becoming a physician requires engaging in the actual practice of the profession. Scr★pIronIV 13:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If it has been shown (and I didn't check) that this had a significant impact on his writing style/content, then I would tend to agree that it should be mentioned in the lead. As ScrapIronIV mentions, the profession requires years of service in which you move from being an intern to a resident to a fellow (optional), and so on. From the time you graduate from medical school, you are technically considered a physician, even if you are not yet board certified or finished your training. Saying he was a "former physician" seems accurate to me. Also, having it as the last profession mentioned in the lead's opening implies that it's less prominent than the others. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not what Occupation is for. It is to list what professions the subject was notable for. Crichton was not in the media as a physician. Putting physician in among the others implies equivalency or near equivalency. This belongs under Education in the infobox, where we already have an entry for Crichton: Harvard College (A.B.) and Harvard Medical School (M.D.). I'm fine with having his medical training in the second paragraph of the lead section. And of course it is in the article, which I am all for. But it does not belong in the opening lead sentence or infobox as an occupation.

Getting an M.D. did not have the impact on his writing that being a policeman did on Joseph Wambaugh's, who wrote about what he saw during his time as a cop. Not so Crichton. His first published works, like Odds On, Scratch One and Easy Go, had nothing to do with his time as a medical student or resident. Cricton's work was from his imagination. We don't use the last listed occupation as what he did before becoming notable. Readers seeing that under Occupation are going to assume he was seeing patients for a decade or something before becoming an author. They are certainly not going to think that he never obtained a license to practice medicine. It is misleading. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Gothicfilm is right. It is supported by MOS:OPENPARA which says to have "The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played," Later it says, "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Furthermore, the person infobox parameter says the "Occupation" field should be derived from the lead. So to exclude "physician" in this context is the policy-supported move. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of that guideline, and since there is a disagreement about the significance of the impact his medical experience had, I would say the burden is on ScrapIronIV to show that it was significant. Otherwise, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all, let alone the opening line. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)--GoneIn60 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

More than four days later and no response from ScrapIronIV. No one else supports leaving physician in the infobox or lead opening sentence, and as Erik's link shows above, the guideline is against it. I've taken it out. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Crichton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Crichton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


Error in reference

The paragraph dealing with "Aliens Cause Global Warming" refers to reference #91. It should point to the document referenced as [89]. I haven't fixed it or checked any of the other references. Wcmead3 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Content in 'Reception' section has nothing to do with the reception??

The section 'Crichton's Science Novels' appears under heading 'Reception' but has nothing to do with the critical reception of the book? It's just about the content of Crichton's books. Can it just be deleted or does it need to be moved to another section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


Only person to have book, TV, film at #1 simultaneously?

So, regarding this: "In 1994, Crichton became the only creative artist ever to have works simultaneously charting at No. 1 in U.S. television (ER), film (Jurassic Park), and book sales (Disclosure).[1]"

I don't think it's true and would like to remove it. Jurassic Park came out in summer of 1993 and was the #1 film of 1993 per Box Office Mojo. Disclosure became #1 on the NYT bestseller list in January 1994, but was lower down as of later in the year. And ER premiered in September 1994, so didn't overlap at all with Jurassic Park's time in theaters or year that it was #1, nor did it overlap with Disclosure's time at #1 on the NYT bestseller's list earlier in the year. Disclosure wasn't one of the top sellers of 1994 overall. ER wasn't the #1 TV show of the year, anyway. That was Seinfeld. I tried looking at the reference provided for the factoid but it was a dead link. I think this is just some publicist's made up comment. 07:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC) QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a little more exploration of this. In 1994, Disclosure the book was #1 for one week in January. Disclosure the movie was #1 for one week in December. And ER was not #1 for any of those weeks. It was in top 5 of TV shows fairly quickly but not #1 in 1994, when it had only been on the air since September. And the reference provided doesn't claim that Jurassic Park was the movie that was #1 for this claim--that seems to be something that others assumed was the movie being referred to. But it's understandable that someone would assume that Jurassic Park was meant. It was, after all the #1 movie the year before and is now a classic, while Disclosure has mostly been forgotten but did still reach #1 in a slow week in December 1994. QuizzicalBee (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Not true, I think I remember hearing that Tim Allen did the same thing. But I think Crichton may have been the only simultaneous creator, per this article[1]. ~ HAL333 22:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

List like article

To me this article seems like one massive list. I've removed all of the subsections. I know that it is still extremely choppy currently, but I'll get it down to a more organized cohesive bio. ~ HAL333 22:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

The article on the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect was deleted with the consensus to merge its contents with this one. But as I CTRL-F through the article, I found no trace of it. Apparently, it has been moved into a dedicated article for Crighton's speaches (linked at the bottom of this article). But that article may be running into notability issues and could get deleted. It really ought to be merged back to protect its contents. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Confused identities?

The photo used at the top looks unshakably, exactly like Steve Guttenberg to me. I wouldn’t normally consider them similar-looking. Other photos of Michael compared to this one look dissimilar. Is it just me, the circumstances of the photo, vandals, or lost Wikipedians? 2600:8804:901:1400:7536:FE4C:5B59:A53D (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Crichton/Archive_2&oldid=1085402122"