Talk:Michael Crichton/Archive 1

message: I came to this article looking for info on Michael Crichton, NOT to find an edit war between two people with opposing views on Global Warming.
It does not matter what peoples opinions are, this is not the sort of activity I expect to find on wikipedia. I suggest that this article should be locked from editing to certian users.
Philcluff (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not a place for an Edit War and dispute on science. 

message: Watching re-runs of the early seasons of ER, it struck me that the series is very secular for a major US TV show. It seems like any sort of religious feeling is restricted to the black characters (and one ambiguous and rather jarring scene involving Lewis wandering into a church). We have Mark Greene as an "out" atheist, Ross is lapsed, Carter and Weaver are at the very least agnostic, and quite likely atheist, Romano is probably atheist, and of course Corday is. Is this reflective of Crichton's own views? Can we add him to the "list of famous atheists"? Bonalaw 09:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never watched EW, but based on Crichton's novels, of which I've read many (but not all), he does come across as an atheist. So why wouldn't the show reflect that, the same way (most of) his novels do? Especially given that the protagonists are usually highly educated in the technical or scientific field? --Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because of WP:OR and WP:BIO you have to find a source where either, he confirms he is an atheist, or a very respectable source that claims this.  Otherwise, we are not allowed to speculate from his novels.  Brusegadi (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views? 

message: (William M. Connolley 10:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference to ACGW should not be removed - so I replaced it.  It is a valid part of any discussion of Crichton's body of work.  Why do you believe "the stripped-down version is worthless"?  It is simply a non-judgemental mention of the ACGW lecture and a link to it for anyone who wants to learn more about it.  I agree that this entry isn't the best place to debate the relative merits of the talk in question, but it absolutely the right place to point out its existence and provide a link to it.  Personally, I think you're just angry because it challenges (and rightfully so) the validity of an unproven theory in which you evidently have a great deal of faith.  Based on your writings here, you're clearly an advocate for one of the many possible interpretations of research into possible climate change.  Does it really bother you that someone would have the nerve to question the science underlying the conclusions to which some people have some in this field?  Isn't the whole point of science to challenge assumptions and force people to prove them by testing their claims?--JonGwynne 23:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 00:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're certainly entitled to your opinion.  I am replacing the deceptive version with a neutral one.--JonGwynne 01:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACGW removed entirely 

message: The description of Crichton's speech without personal attacks and with more detailed list of the points he covered, and less frequent speculative critiques about every Crichton's point is more satisfactory, more balanced, and it fits the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia - and the rules of Wikipedia - better than William's version.
A special justification for William: there is consensus that your version is not good enough for Wikipedia. ;-) --Lumidek 23:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should go back to the shorter version.  A detailed description of the speech doesn't really seem to be necessary since there is a link to it so anyone who is curious about it can read it for themselves.  What do you think?--JonGwynne 11:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept a shorter version, but I will never tolerate a version with ten independent lies and stupidities - like the version proposed by William. Some of the reasons are described below. --Lumidek 22:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 21:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Year's Eve 

message: Let's start with the minor points: I assure you that "program" is a correct spelling in most of the world. You might try to live with the fact that the British already don't dictate the universal rules of English grammar and spelling.
Second. The predictions of global cooling were bad science, and if the current theories about global warming are better in any sense, this improvement may be explained by the fact that they were proposed 20 years later. I don't intend to waste more of my time with stupidities like global cooling.
: (William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Lumideks words 

message: The format of the replies of a colleague here called WC, [personal attack by L removed - WMC] reminds me of another talk by MC, namely "Environmentalism as a religion".  Well, it's not just about reminding; his approach to the questions is described there quite accurately. Should not this be also mentioned in the "Ideas" section? --Lumidek 00:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalism as a religion 

message: (William M. Connolley 22:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first lie.  If you ask nicely, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't bother to use the wikitool to compare versions which would have clearly shown the spelling and grammar fixes - through to be fair, it wouldn't have shown the spacing fixes since the comparison tool doesn't show spacing changes.  BTW, I'm not making "substantive changes", I'm reverting unwarranted censorship on your part - your destruction of other people's work begs to be reverted, expecially when that work adds value to this article.--JonGwynne 23:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And so on... 

message: (William M. Connolley 22:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the wikihistory, you are a liar.  No wiggle room for you on this one I'm afraid.  You are a liar.  I made three reverts no 11, January.  The first at 14:33, the second at 18:34 and the third at 22:30.  That's three reverts.  Exactly the same number as you have today.  I trust you won't make another before midnight.  BTW, as many of the wiki guidelines (e.g. personal attacks) as you break on a regular basis, you're the last person to lecture others on proper behavior here.  So spare me your sancimonious chiding.  To quote Jack Vance "He is that individual for whom the word 'mendacity' was coined".  So, you can retract your statement or not, it really doesn't matter, your dishonesty remains.--JonGwynne 23:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 23:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right, it isn't in a calendar day, it is in any 24-hour period.  I didn't know that, I thought it was in a given day.  So, I will retract one of my charges of you being a liar.  The other one still stands of course.  Oh yeah, and here's a question for you.  Do really want to blow the whistle on my missing the mark by 81 minutes?  I mean, if we go back and examine your revision record, will we find any examples of you breaking this rule?  I've already seen at least one talk page on which you were accused of this - though, to be fair, I didn't verify the claim.  If it is true, be prepared to have another charge of hypocrisy added to your tab.  Perhaps this is why you're so prickly on the issue, have you ever been busted on it yourself?  While we're discussing the subject of revision policy, I feel I could mount a very effective defense for my reversions based on the fact that they are undoing damage to the article which your changes caused.  Despite your baseless claims to the contrary, the version you keep reverting to has mistakes in it which I have corrected.  So, I could argue that my reversions were required by necessity.  Hmmm...  what's a word for willful and deliberate damage to the property of others which is often motivited purely by spite?  How about "vandalism"?--JonGwynne 23:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On an unrelated subject, I notice that you have yet to make use of the "criticism" section which was created especially for you in the (apparently vain) hope that it would persuade you to be less strident with regards to the content of the overall article.  Why not vent your spleen (within reason) in that section and point out all the mistakes you think Crichton has made with regards to his claims, views and public utterances?  Quote all the statements he's made that cause you to grate your teeth with frustration and their absurdity and show the world exactly why you think they're absurd.  How about that one about second-hand smoke that you were so keen to clutter up that other section with?  Here, I'll start you off:--JonGwynne 23:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JonGwynne breaks the 3 reverts rule 

message: I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley.  If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate.   — Cortonin | Talk 12:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley 

message: How do we call the literary technique that you write a story based on the plot or structure of another one's? Crichton uses that trick all the time.
I think you guys are doing a poor job with this article because you failed to introduce readers his books. You have spent many many many words on his controversial speeches, but you did not tell readers what are his books. -- Toytoy 15:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Saying that "we" have done a poor job is not very constructive. I have edited this article, but never improved that aspect of it; does that mean I've done a "poor job"? You make it sound like this article has some designated group of editors, and that they have failed to meet some obligation. Just stating what's wrong with the article without putting someone to blame for it will give better results. I don't disagree with you though. Fredrik | talk 15:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crichton is first and foremost an author of fiction, and it follows logically from this that the article ought to deal extensively with his novels. He is involved in controversy, so yes, the article should address this, but in all fairness I'd expect at least 50% of any article about an author to deal with the author as an author, with any other issues handled in short chapters, or if absolutely necessary, separate articles. Same way I'd expect an article about a politicial to be primarily about him as a politician, with any extra-marital affairs and scandals dealth with briefly in very short chapters, or if it cannot be avoided then addresses in separate articles.--Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary technique 

message: I am having to remove POV additions by VSmith that are inappropriate to this article and unsupported by his "references".--JonGwynne 14:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the criticism section or the reference for it. I just re-instated it for balance as it makes the article more in line with NPOV to have a bit from a credible source as criticism. It is appropriate and is supported by the source given. -Vsmith 15:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't supported.  The statements made in the editorial comments do not appear in the article and are unsupported by any statements that *are* made in it.  I'm replacing them with an actual quote from the review that is balanced.--JonGwynne 20:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VSmith's insistence on editorializing 

message: "Before Jurassic Park, Robert T. Bakker's theory of warm-blooded and athlete-type dinosaurs was unimaginable to ordinary people, who were accustomed to seeing stop motion clay dinosaurs crawling sluggishly over the volcanic prehistorical terrains."
Do we really think that MC deserves credit for popularizing this idea?  The warm-blooded dinosaur theory began 20 years before Jurassic Park the book and 25 years before the movie.  I was definitely aware of the warm-blooded dinosaur theory before seeing the movie, and that was when I was 13.  Dinosaurs were (are?) a popular enough subject with little boys and their dads that I'm pretty sure most people had the whole dinosaurs are chickens thing down.  Other perspectives?  --Chinasaur 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park 

message: "Additionally, Crichton correctly points out that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades"
Presumably this is now erroneous?!
:Quite. 2005 = most hurricanes of any year since records have been kept.
DragonJ1080:
I agree. Something should be changed about that part of the article.
I disagree. Just because one year was abnormally high does not indicate a trend. The 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was expensive but not particularly noteworthy in terms of numbers; 2003 Atlantic hurricane season was fairly active; 2002 Atlantic hurricane season was quieter than usual; 2001 Atlantic hurricane season and 2000 Atlantic hurricane season had no US landfalling hurricanes. This is hardly a "rise in hurricane activity" over a long period. Batmanand 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You people realize that Crichton is a writer of fiction, don't you? Dubc0724 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental beliefs 

message: I've never been a fan of his books. But a few people I know who are have commented that they feel his books post the Jurassic Park movie have drasticly dropped in quality without the same level of research and with a change in style to a more populist 'Hollywood' trend  or a made for the movie style. Is this a popular view among Crichton fans? Worth including? Based on his recent history, I guess many would feel his style is changing again to a more anti-science, pro-US conservative, even less research and spinning the evidence style. Any comments on this? Nil Einne 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't yet read anything after Airframe (1996), but I think that that novel, as well as the ones preceeding it, are all good. Since 1996 is quite some years after the Jurrasic Park movie, I have to point out at at least one fan does not think that quality has dropped. Also there's nothing populistic about Airframe. Rather, Crichton addresses the irrationalities behind people's fear of flying, in his usual fashion. --Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Crichton 

message: removed tag added by anon. --Mikereichold 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should go without saying that IPA is standard on Wikipedia, and "cry-ton" is not IPA... If your beef is with the obtrusiveness of the template, then either fix the pronunciation or the template.  --129.21.223.82 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I agree. --maru  (talk) Contribs 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, since you haven't seen fit to correct the pronunciation, I'm adding the tag back in. --maru  (talk) contribs 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonstandard pronunciation information 

message: Where do we put Crichton's well-known views on science and the environment? In the Criticism section?
He said:
:"Environmental organizations are fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money." 
John Stossel wrote:
:Crichton himself used to worry about global warming. But then he spent three years researching it. He concluded it's just another foolish media-hyped scare. Many climate scientists agree with him, saying the effect of man and greenhouse gases is minor. [ibid]
:Huh?  What views on science and the environment?  You quote a view on environmental organizations.  Views on environmental organizations are not the same thing as views on the environment.  Don't make the error of conflating a special case into a generalization.  Furthermore, you don't mention any particular views on science that I've seen.  Kasreyn 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His scientific views 

message: Is it just me or does the criticism section read like the work of a 12 yr old with an etch-a-sketch?  
The criticisms regarding DDT feel a bit weak, and disjointed.  They might do better with a combined approach, if one is possible.  If not, presentation should be cleaned up to feel like a relatively compelling criticism.
Second is the criticism of Jurassic Park.  It appears to be a criticism of the film, not the novel, and doesn't really feel like a criticism of anything.  It was a top-selling movie, and as such was compared with other top-selling films.  If anything the criticism of Crichton would then be one of originality, and I would submit to the readers that genetically cloned dinosaurs running amok is nothing if not original, particularly for the time period it was written.
The final paragraph seems to be nothing short of ridiculous.  I don't know what philosophical realm this came from but the notion that fictional authors have a responsibility to their readers to tell their tale in any other way than that which they deem fit is absurd.  I don't see this criticism on Jules Verne's entry, but he would fall victim to this broad claim as well.  I didn't catch the social impact of submarines at the end of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.  Even worse, this general critique would fight anything that has followed the common rules of drama (intro, climax, denouement, etc). 
:The Afterward to State of Fear is clearly intended to present a non-fiction account of global climate change.  Crichton wouldn't be subjected to the criticisms of scientists and journalists if he hadn't made a concerted effort to present himself as more than a fiction writer.  As far as I know, Jules Verne never testified before a Congressional Committee on science policy.
If anyone has any objection to editing these speak now or forever hold your peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.137.79 (talk • contribs) 
: No objection. Remember to use --~~~~ for signing your name. --Liface 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections.  Those criticisms were originally interspersed throughout the article by someone who was making a strong effort to discredit Dr. Chrichton.  I didn't want to get into an edit war with that individual, who has developed quite a reputation for engaging in them with others, so, I just moved all the criticisms to a "criticism" section without editing them at all which appears to have been effective in keeping an edit war from breaking out.  However, if that individual has moved-on to other things, perhaps now is the time to clean-up that part of the article as you suggest. Cla68 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you'd best notify the American Association of Petroleum Geologists of Crichton's fiction-author status, after all they solemnly intoned "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth". Who are we to argue with such an august body? Why would you wish to discredit Dr. Crichton after his veracity has been so recognized?Gzuckier 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms? 

message: It is not clear which Commonwealth Club Crichton made his speach at (see link). I presume it was the Commonwealth Club of California. If someone knows for sure, could they modify the link so it goes directly to that page? --Michael Johnson 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Club 

message: Crichton wrote a book about a drug deal gone humorously wrong in about 1971; I remember reading it, and later discovering that it had been made into a movie (staring John Lithgow, maybe). I don't see it reflected here.Uucp 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: right; IIRC that was dealing the  berkeley to boston forty brick lost bag blues. I'd forgotten about it. Made into a reasonably OK movie, too. I'll try and dig something up. Boy, has he changed since then. Gzuckier 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Book 

message: It seems prudent to include the academic title of Crichton in his name at the beginning of this article as Dr. Michael Crichton, M.D. seeing as he has an advanced degree. He does not use this title as part of his public persona, but that is not unusual. Bill Cosby has a Ed.D. in education but does not use this title as part of his public persona. I think that this title should be included unless there is some academic reason as to why it should not be.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.131.202 (talk • contribs) 
: If C has a Ph D, its not obvious from the biog in the article. In what? Where from? William M. Connolley 21:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually does use it in his public persona allthough not on the covers of his books or in the credits, but always when he makes  a speech or like when testifieng before the senate. Ben 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Michael Crichton, M.D. 

message: I added info on his new book under biography since it is not known whether it will be fiction or non-fiction and didn't know where else to put it. Ben 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Book 

message: By whom? Isn't that a little bit POV? --217.65.158.120 15:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Needs a source.  I like Crichton as much as the next guy but any statement like that needs a credible source or it can't be included in Wikipedia. Cla68 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a question of $$$$ talking. People like his stuff, it sells well. That is what a good writer is. On top of that, Hollywood likes his stuff too. What other writer, with more than a dozen novels published, has had such a great percentage of his novels made into movies? There really is nothing to discuss. He is a very good writer, by any objective criterion.--Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mixing up popular writer, prolific writer and successful screenwriter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.217.83 (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considered one of the best writers of the 20th century? 

message: I deleted the following section, because it contains statements that are, to my knowledge, false:
:== Scientific concepts ==
:In several of his books, Crichton popularised scientific and technological concepts which had not previously received widespread attention by non-scientists. Many of the ideas he used were novel to the average person, despite previous attention to them being given by some in the scientific community.
: For example, before Jurassic Park, Robert T. Bakker's theory of warm-blooded and fast-moving dinosaurs had not received a great deal of attention in the popular media.  Laypeople were accustomed to seeing stop motion clay dinosaurs crawling sluggishly over the volcanic prehistorical terrains.
The warm-blooded dinosaur reconstruction had in face received extensive coverage in popular media, newspapers, magazines, and children's books at least since the late 1970s,  more than a decade before the publication of Jurassic Park (the book), and a great many books had been published promoting the concept. In addition, the section seems to confuse the book with the movie in making comparisons to earlier stop-motion dinosaur movies -- though Harryhausen dinosaurs are at least as quick-moving as any of his SFX monsters. RandomCritic 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section 

message: Does anyone else believe that this is whole section is made up?  I've never heard Crichton endorse anything none scientific before.  In fact he usually talks about scientist who don't follow science.  Has anyone read Travels?  Does anything this section mentions appear in that book at all? Dominic 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was initially skeptical, but after looking at the reviews and Table of Contents at amazon.com, I'm not sure it's made up.  For example, there are chapters titled "Spoon Bending", "Seeing Auras", "Life on the Astral Plane", "Cactus Teachings", "London Psychics".  We'll need input from someone who has the book. --Spiffy sperry 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the book and that is indeed correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.184.102 (talk • contribs) 
The section was added here by anon 209.178.243.105, at which time it claimed (falsely) that Crichton claimed actually to have been possessed and cured by an exorcism, and (falsely) that Crichton endorsed a psychic cause for spoon bending. Based on such errors, I'm invoking WP:BLP and removing all text that was introduced in that revision. Gazpacho 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal Beliefs 

message: Anonymous user just add "John Dybach" as a pseudonym.  Nothing on the page indicates such a pseudonym.  True? Cburnett 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it after a simple google search revealed nothing relevant.  Cburnett 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonym John Dybach 

message: He also wrote an opinion piece for the NYT on gene patents, which might be worth mentioning. I'm too lazy to do it myself, though. --Itub 12:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents 

message: I reverted my own desperate edit,  made in the face of "obvious" evidence that something i couldn't see was broken. For anyone for any reason trying to understand what was going thru my head, my poor battered brain couldn't see that Anthony Crichton-Stuart didn't belong shortly before Jesus Christ in the alphabet, and it goaded me into making a fool of myself by trying to get Michael Crichton to fall near them both on :Category:Living people. [blushing beet-red] (The good news is that i didn't quite make it to WP:VP/T with a plea for developer attention!) --Jerzy•t 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for cryptic summary about "activating" his Cat LP sort 

message: :Image:Andromeda Strain (BB cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Andromeda Strain (BB cover).jpg 

message: :Image:Easygo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Easygo.jpg 

message: :Image:Scratchone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Scratchone.jpg 

message: :Image:Jurassicpark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassicpark.jpg 

message: :Image:Jurassicpark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassicpark.jpg 

message: :Image:MichaelCrighton Timeline.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelCrighton Timeline.jpg 

message: :Image:MichaelCrighton StateOfFear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelCrighton StateOfFear.jpg 

message: :Image:MichaelCrighton Disclosure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelCrighton Disclosure.jpg 

message: Is there an estimation of his personal wealth?
this should be measured in the hundreds of millions USD, and should also be mentioned in the article.--Procrastinating@talk2me 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be surprised if Crichton's personal wealth is not at least tens of millions of dollars, but no, it should not be mentioned in the article. He is a very succesful author, with most of his novels have been made into movies. It follows logically and obviously from this that he is rich, and the article should in no way spell it out. Instead, the reader should be able to "do the math" himself, just as with every other Wikipedia article about a person who (until proven otherwise) must have been assumed to have earned his wealth through some kind of work that he has performed. --Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you had a source for that we have to judge the weight it carries in a restrictive sense since we also have to worry about privacy issues.  So, unless there is good reason (suddenly it comes up the he is illegally in welfare or something) there is really no good reason to add that sort of thing.  For example, with birthdays, you are supposed to add only those of very notable people.  For less notable subjects, birthdays go unmentioned.  Brusegadi (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal wealth ? 

message: The page is becoming too big, anyone mind if I set up a bot to archive??  Brusegadi (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do; the page is becoming larger, and larger, and larger...--71.112.145.203 (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I've removed the "M.D." which someone added postnominally to the Crichton's name. The Manual of Style, in MOS:BIO, advises not to add academic titles to a person's name. Instead, somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that the person obtained an academic degree. For example, the article on Vladimir Putin does not begin "Vladimir Putin, Ph.D." but mentions later in the article that the former Russian president obtained a doctorate at some point in his academic studies. --71.112.145.203 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic title 

message: Hello, 
in the editing tutorial I've read that I should post here before adding content to the External Links section of the article. 
So, here goes: I have recently made a webpage with a full listing of Crichton's works, classified by type, and with comments on some of them (I aim to comment on all of them). This is the result of my interest in the writer and his work, and it is totally non-commercial - I do not make any money with it. So, will someone tell me if it is a good idea to add it to the External Links list?
The address is www.michaelcrichton.eu 
Thanks
Eriks9 (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that it's a bad idea because of the "notability" requirement. Nothing personal and maybe your comments are great. But, just having a related website is really not enough to justify inclusion in the links.  Kace7 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding webpage to External Links on Michael Crichton 

message: Someone has locked this article, and now I can't edit it.  Please unlock it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.23.44 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The links section is wrong. The "official" site is just a search engine spammer page or his domain has been hijacked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.250.65 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please unlock 

message: I'm hearing from some URS's (UnReliable Sources) that Crichton committed suicide. Are there any RS's saying this? 209.254.231.37 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I havn't found any. hda3ku (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read in the USA today that he was privately batting cancer, I'll probably check on it later. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide? 

message: There is a decent quality picture available on Flickr, but unfortunately the photographer has released it under a non-commercial license. I'm betting that if more people take note and comment, this article could finally get a face. It can be found here.
-OrinR (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the Author's Picture 

message: Can anyone find a reference supporting the statement that Michael Crowley sued him for libel?  I could not find any evidence that there was ever a lawsuit.  Crowley's response in the New Republic makes no mention of a lawsuit.  Aljo99 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit? 

message: In general there is a lot of attribution without support or references.  A newspaper or magazine tabloid piece as a reference - which itself does not cite sources should be unacceptable (I do hope that Wiki has this policy).
The following sentence is nonsense, “Crichton later enrolled at Harvard Medical School when he began publishing work.”   Is this cause and effect or was it coincidental?  If the two are unrelated except chronologically they should be separate ideas and made clear.  What does “he began his publishing work” mean?  Was he a publisher?  Do you intend to say something like:  “Crichton studied medicine at the Harvard Medical School and obtained his M.D. in 1969.  It was during this time that Crichton began writing and publishing (what was it… novels, short stories, medical papers in the Harvard Medical Review?).
“By this time Crichton had become unusually tall… By what time?  According to his own words, he was approximately 6 feet 9 inches (2.06 meters) tall in 1997, a full 12 inches (30 centimetres) above average height in the United States.[8] [9]…”    Yes, Crichton was tall.    Reference (9) is a URL link to a published study on the average body height and body mass in the US.  Is this necessary?  
In reference to his height, while in medical school, he began writing novels under the pen names John Lange and Jeffery Hudson. Lange is a surname in Germany, meaning "tall one" and Sir Jeffrey Hudson was a famous 17th century dwarf in the court of Queen Consort Henrietta Maria of England.   It may seem to be important but it doesn’t belong in this article.
:::It is clearly relevant to mention his height and how he stood out and also how this influenced his pen names   The Bald One      White cat  10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ths section in fact has barely been started, but I agree once it has been fleshed out, then it would be feasible to start a new article on his literary techniques and have a condensed paragraph on this. Remember that this article was practically empty before and all I did was flesh it out.  The Bald One      White cat  10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is significant because it affected his confidence and forces him to see psychiatrists and enlightenment gurus in the 1970s which resulted in him practising meditation for the rest of his life.  The Bald One      White cat  10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree  Dr. Blofeld      White cat  20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crichton article suggestions 

message: Does anyone think that the quote by Steven Spielberg in the Personal Life and Death section should be in blockquote I just noticed it but I wanted to be sure. Hda3ku (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block quote 

message: "Crichton's novel Jurassic Park and its sequel made into films would become a part of popular culture, with related parks established even in places such as Kletno, Poland"
Note the "EVEN". Even this compromises the neutrality of the article. As the writer is forwarding his view that Kletno is an unlikely place for such a theme park to appear. Shouldn't this be left up to the reader to decide? 90.214.110.160 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: He wrote a review for the New Republic (as J. Michael Crichton) in 1969 critiquing Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Perhaps this may be worth mentioning in the literary history? 67.165.40.79 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Crichton on Kurt Vonnegut 

message: The article says "only one child" (daughter Taylor), but this is recently on his webiste:
"...his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, son John Michael, family and friends knew Michael Crichton..."
Please, someone with better English then mine, add that piece of inforamtion into the "personal life" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.238.174 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son 

message: Crichton is included in the category Skeptics. This seems to mostly be individuals who have criticised alternative medicine, psychics, Creationism etc., and I am not sure that environmental skepticism is quite the same thing. Fences and windows (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be understood that Crichton was an rational atheist - that is what is meant by a skeptic.  He did not believe in anything supernatural. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Skeptic 

message: "In 1994 he became the only creative artist to ever have works simultaneously charting at #1 in television, as creator of ER; and in film, with the adaptation of Jurassic Park; and in book sales, with The Lost World.[4]" can't be correct; The Lost World wasn't released unrikl 1996. Shouldn't his #1 book in 1994 be Disclosure? Jerkov (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Lost World'' 

message: I find it unusual to find someone's awards section listing they have won this or that award without stating what they were for.  Could references to Crichton's Emmy and Peabody be added to the Reception --> Awards section? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  They were both for ER.  Thanks.   (64.252.124.238 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmy Award and Peabody Award 

message: sorry don't know how to edit wiki yet but I saw Jurassic park 3 in the novels made into movies section and thought I'd mention that he never wrote a Jurassic park 3 book. It was just a movie.216.164.14.249 (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Jurassic Park III'' 

message: On Crichton's website in the Q&A, he mentions that he sometimes disguises people he doesn't like in his books while portraying them in a negative light. 
From: 
"Once or twice, I've wanted to pay somebody back so I put them in a book in an unflattering way. But they're usually disguised so that even the person wouldn't know."
Just wondering if this is something we should include in the section about Michael Crowley. It's somewhat suggestive that Chrichton did in fact do a hit job on Crowley in my opinion, but it could be interpreted either way, so I thought I would ask before including it. --Wikilost (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new material for Michael Crowley section 

message: Article states: "The microbe, code named "Andromeda", mutates with each growth cycle, changing its biologic properties."
This may be inaccurate, depending upon what we mean by growth cycle.  During the course of the story, Andromeda grows (get larger) without mutating.  Late in the story, Andromeda does mutate (loses blood-clotting qualities, gains platic-eating qualities), but this mutation is not (to my recollection, anyway) related to growth.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andromeda mutation 

message: I think the speeches section needs to be elaborated upon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeches 

message: I'm sorry, but this article is almost completely unreadable due to numerous "citations needed" notes. I know that it may not be all backed up with citations, but seriously, does every single sentence in this article need citations? It renders the article unreadable.70.112.5.150 (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: Do his speeches really need their own section? They all appear to be from the last ten years of his life, and mostly focus on global warming/environmental controversies. Unless we can get some larger depth about his career as a "speaker" in his life, or add more variety, I think it gives undue weight to the importance his views on global warming. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeches 

message: Do any of the sources mention how strange it is then he had no problem believing in mysticism, out-of-body experiences, fortune-telling, and supernatural entities, but that he couldn't rationalize anthropogenic climate change? Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Crichton explained his views in simple, non-technical language in numerous public speeches, talks, and debates. Crichton was not a denier of anthropogenic climate change. What Crichton was skeptical about was the extent of the human contribution, believing that most of the Earth's warming was outside of human control (i.e. influenced by the Sun, natural weather phenomenon); he was also skeptical about the long-term predictions of the Earth's weather. So while I'm sure you can find sources that suggest Crichton "couldn't rationalize anthropogenic climate change," those sources would be misrepresenting Crichton's actual views. --76.121.180.74 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird beliefs 

message: Michael Crichton was tied up at gun point and robbed inside of his home, and he said that that influenced his views.  Why is such a large thing not mentioned in the article, considering that it had such a large impact on his works?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.152.230 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Invasion 

message: I in theory somewhat believe that the character John Carter in ER in which Michael Crichton created is a somewhat accurate biography of said creator. it may have been that way as the character was created.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugioht43 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible resemblance to John Carter 

message: Please, leave large segments on global warming out of this article.  An encyclopedia has a primary mandate to report the facts and only secondarily, if at all, to comment on, position or digest them.  Just because he does not agree with the point of view of most, is no reason to bog down an article concerning Mr.  Chrichton with cluttering contextualizing facts and data on said issue. One simple line could serve to indicate that his view is not in harmony with mainstream thought. Thems the breaks.  This happens  in civilized democratic, non-fascist society. Important, even quite sympathetic people get to disagree with you and you must accept it like a grown-up.
Furthermore, Crichton's view in no way constitute a fringe belief.  It is an extremely common belief among ordinary Americans. Obviously, those who are arguing that Chrichton is promulgating weird, fringe ideas seem to be totally indifferent to ordinary people's ideas.  I despise the way that Wikipedia is used as a socio-political weapon to advance personal and collective agendas and not the tool for the dissemination of knowledge and awareness that the founder intended it to be.  It is obvious that Mr. Crichton, albeit perhaps playing an important role in international discourse on the subject, is not primarily known for disputing Anthropogenic global warming.  Rather he is most recognized for his many literary and personal accomplishments.  Therefore, it is highly inappropriate that any biographical article on him would give so much time and space to what is essentially a tertiary concern.VaniNY (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does two sentences count as "large segments"? The sentences were carefully constructed to convey exactly the points on which Crichton disagreed with the scientific viewpoint. And fringe belief is not defined w.r.t "ordinary Americans" (a mythical beast rarely seen in the real world). Even if 30% of "ordinary" Americans believed the planet was less than 10,000 years old, it would still be a clear WP:FRINGE belief because it runs contrary to virtually every piece of scientific evidence and the overwhelming consensus of actual scientists. The same is true for claims about AGW that run contrary to overwhelming scientific consensus. Glaucus (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Glaucus is correct, and to be clear, WP:UNDUE actually requires this material (the stuff VaniNY wanted to remove) to be included.  See above talk.  I think I'm going to stick some hidden text in the relevant section of the article cautioning editors to read WP:UNDUE. --Middle 8 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrichton As He Is 

message: First bullet point. Crichton believed in god. Then we get a footnote. quality  like this is why I stopped editing on wikipedia. It's fine to say this, but why is it all alone as the first bullet point under personal life. Sounds like the person who put it there wants this as the primary information point on every article about a person. culture wars, the wikipedia edition!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.89.11 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Can someone explain to me: 1. why this is necessary in an article about a SciFi author; and 2. acknowledge this highly likely to be misinterpreted by the layman. From the context and wording, the layman would conclude that "mainstream" science is 90% certain that global warming is caused by human activity. That's not what the error analysis says, and nor is that what the error analysis is intended to do. In reading this thread it appears there was a great deal of debate on inclusion or not, as well as the potential for misinterpretation. It seems its inclusion only serves to show Chrichton views were not aligned with so-called mainstream science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.4.99.188 (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  90% Certainty of AGW