Talk:Bowfinger/Archive 1

message: A user made this claim in an edit summary:  "Martin has explicitely  said this is NOT a parody of Scn", referring to Scientology.  It would be quite interesting if there were some valid WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources to back up this information, then we could add it to the article.  If not, we can't.  Cirt (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary source for edit summary claim? 

message: Here is some brief info I put together in a few minutes :
In reviews of the 1999 film Bowfinger, some critics compared the fictional organization "MindHead" to the Church of Scientology.  In the film, producer Bobby Bowfinger, played by Steve Martin, encounters difficulties involving actor Kit Ramsey, played by Eddie Murphy.  Paul Clinton writes in CNN online: "'Bowfinger' could just be viewed as an out-there, over-the-top spoof about Hollywood, films, celebrities and even the Church of Scientology. But Martin has written a sweet story about a group of outsiders with impossible dreams."  Andrew O'Hehir writes in Salon that "Too much of 'Bowfinger' involves the filmmakers' generically wacky pursuit of the increasingly paranoid Kit, who flees into the clutches of a pseudo-Scientology outfit called MindHead (their slogan: 'Truth Through Strength')."  The Denver Post describes the Kit Ramsey character as "...petulant, paranoid and pampered, like any good star, and also a devotee of a Scientology-like religion."  In a review in the San Francisco Chronicle, Wesley Morris describes Ramsey's organization as "a mock-Scientology cult called MindHead - a bit that sprung from Martin's own issues with MENSA."  The Albuquerque Journal describes the MindHead organization "a rather thinly veiled but nevertheless amusing blast at Scientology," and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram characterizes it as an "organization that comes across as a thinly veiled send-up of Scientology."  The Daily Record writes that Ramsey is "in the grip of a cult religion called Mind Head," which it calls "a rather close cousin of Scientology".  A review in The Dallas Morning News describes actor Terrence Stamp's role in the film as "a Scientology-style guru," The New York Times referred to Stamp's character as "a cult leader for a Scientology-like organization called Mind Head," and the Houston Chronicle described Stamp as "the character actor behind the semi-Scientology guru in Bowfinger."
If you like, I could cite many more sources as well.  
Cirt (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cirt, is there some reason that, amidst all that research, you did not seem to find the statement by Steve Martin himself on the subject. That is a rather glaring omission, my friend. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I just haven't found it yet.  But evidently that means you removed the link to Bowfinger without any source to back up your claims.  Please see my request for a valid source, at the talk page for Bowfinger.  Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed unsourced material as is any Wikipedian's right (and duty perhaps). Now that you have sources you can say "which reviewers have compared to Scientology . . ." --JustaHulk (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the exact type of wording that I have used.  Please see Bowfinger and its talk page for more on this, instead of clogging up the talk page for the template.  Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Cough cough . . . And where were the sources when you added the template here - that is what I meant by my edit summary. I am still curious to see if you can manage to find the words by Martin himself on a number of occasions that run counter to your line of work or if you have a blatant blind spot. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I do not understand this "cough cough", as I had added the template after seeing relations to Scientology noted by other editors, and did not add context to articles to that effect, and had intended to add sources at a later point in time, but at any rate.  I did add info from Steven Martin, again, please see the talk page for Bowfinger.  Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Coughs aside, my remark was that an excellent researcher and experienced editor such as yourself should know better than to add controversial templates based on unsourced statements. And given your pronounced bias, you should be doubly careful. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As should you, in your claims in edit summaries.  And this discussion is neither here nor there anymore, as I have added 10 sources as to the film critics that make Scientology connections, and a source about Steve Martin's statements.  Cirt (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *True, and I think I am. Doubly careful, that is. Here is another, Cirt, with the more complete statement and here is a non-RS archive that you may have already come across. Good night now. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, this is all now discussion that is getting completely irrelevant to this template talk page, and would be better off on the talk page of the article for Bowfinger.  Cirt (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then move it, if it bothers you so much. --JustaHulk (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple film critics describe [[Bowfinger]] as Scientology spoof 

message: The fact that the Scientology connection is mentioned in multiple sources makes it notable and should be analyzed and discussed in this article.  If you wait, I was going to expand that subsection, change its title to Themes, and add some analysis to other cultural references made in the film.  Cirt (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: Need to expand the Themes section with comparisons to The Producers and other parodies/comparisons, and generally expand upon the Production and Casting sections, as well as proofread and go over the Plot section.  Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes going forward 

message: The WP:OR edit summary, DIFF -- Do you have a source for this?  Or is this just your own unsourced, WP:OR?  Just curious, is all.  Cirt (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, I gave you the source for that when we discussed this last month on the template page. And why are you making a big deal out of "still looking, will expand the section with other themes" - just use the same reviews that you cherry-picked the "anti-Scientology" theme from; there is plenty of material there. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  You gave me a source for your claim that the director, Frank Oz, says this theme is "not even in the film" ???  I do not recall that.  I recall that only being a part of your own personal unsourced, WP:OR claims and allegations in edit summaries.  Cirt (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant that Steve Martin denied the reference to Scientology - it has been so long since we discussed this. Yes, on the template page I gave you the reference. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I restored the discussion we had previously in which I provided you the refs in answer to your last claim that I was engaging in OR. Your mistake, I guess. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Frank Oz never said anything of the sort, and the Steve Martin thing is in the article.  Your mistake, I guess.  Cirt (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said that when I said "director" I misremembered Martin's role in the film. I already said that. Do you want to say I made an error a third time? Go ahead. Enjoy the moment. Then have a cigarette. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And regarding the "Steve Martin thing is in the article", you managed to get "pastiche" bit   in there without mentioning "It's not a direct reference to Scientology, says Martin.", something the reliable source I gave you says. Yet you manage to mention ad nauseum every reviewer that thought it was. Food for thought. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Food for thought - I added a verbatim quote from the reliable source.  The other source that you gave was not reliable.  Cirt (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a theme the director says is not even in the film." 

message: I think this article could use a section of the entire (notable) cast. For instance, adding Robert Downey Jr. and others, etc. Jon the editor (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So far it is setup with a paragraph format structure with sourced info. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: First, bang up job on this section! It has one of the most comprehensive and well-documented, well-quoted sections I have seen for a film on Wikipedia. It is also extensive yet concise. So excellent job! However, I recommend that considering this section focuses almost entirely on various, well-sourced critical responses to the movie that the section title be changed to "Critical Response to the Film." I believe that preceding that section ought to be a much more brief section that simply highlights the themes that are touched on within the movie in a concise manner and that that section instead be entitled "Themes." I can distill from the quotations used what the major themes are in this movie and write up a short paragraph that leads into the "Critical Response" section which corroborates the themes. Is everyone OK with this? Nothing will be removed. It's just that the section heading is inappropriately titled and would better be described as I have above mentioned. Any feedback is appreciated, and if anyone else wants to do the job, you are more than welcome to tackle it yourself.--74.235.10.224 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, sounds like what you are talking about doing violates WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, the reality is that the article blatantly violates WP:NOR. That's my whole point. People are using skewed quotations in order to claim what they think are the themes in the film. It's done very poorly and needs to be completely rewritten. The "Themes" section clearly violates WP:NOR. All of that information belongs in the critical reception portion of the article and only in that section. Period. In fact, the "Themes" section does a huge disservice to the readers by claiming to be an article about the themes, but in fact does nothing but string together some quotes. At no point does it clearly discuss the actual themes of the film. That is exactly why the whole thing needs to be rewritten in order to properly represent the themes from an NPOV. It's absolutely necessary. I was trying to be polite about the over-the-top skewed quotations that clearly do not delineate, demarcate, or define the actual themes of the film. However, now I am being objective and forthright. It's poorly done at best, and the quotations need to be put into the "Critical Response" section. As for the themes, individuals who are good writers need to write in a NPOV tone as to what they actually are.--74.235.10.224 (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is no OR going on in the article in its present state. Zero primary sources are used, zero inferences are being drawn from the sources - instead quite the opposite, the sources themselves are directly quoted so the reader can see the commentary from the writers of the sources themselves. All sources used are secondary, not primary. But what you are talking about doing would unfortunately violate WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Section Title from "Themes" to "Critical Response" 

message: A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to Baseball-Reference.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to  upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher).  Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bowfinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115004123/http://www.chron.com:80/disp/story.mpl/ae/movies/reviews/316029.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ae/movies/reviews/316029.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090224195300/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/reviews/cl-movie990812-1,0,6661502.story to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie990812-1,0,6661502.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051102043047/http://reel.com:80/movie.asp?MID=45639&buy=open&Tab=reviews&CID=13 to http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=45639&Tab=reviews&buy=open&CID=13#tabs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified