Talk:Tom Cruise Scientology promotional video leaked to the Internet
Note on sourcing edit
Everything in the article is sourced to the sources listed in the Sources section. Wilhelm 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
- Did the publishing of the book and the video leak really happen on the same day? The book was published on the 15th, but the article also says the video appeared on Sunday, which by my calculations was the 13th. It is not a vastly important discrepancy, but it is the very first sentence. --SVTCobra 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, fixed, per the sources, thanks. Wilhelm 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
Title edit
It seems that this article should be titled something more like "Tom Cruise Scientology Award acceptance speech leaked", since the video has been confirmed to be of an acceptance speech, and not a promotional video. Wikidsoup 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is not necessarily correct, as various segments of the video were reported as promotional/recruitment, and others as the award speech. Wilhelm 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
- Though the Church claims copyright and has said it wants it off websites, it also says it is neither a "leak" nor a "secret video" and that it can be viewed at any of its churches [1]. To me that means they are using it as a recruitment tool. --SVTCobra 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Wilhelm 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- Though the Church claims copyright and has said it wants it off websites, it also says it is neither a "leak" nor a "secret video" and that it can be viewed at any of its churches [1]. To me that means they are using it as a recruitment tool. --SVTCobra 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
External links edit
I removed the external links as it was beginning to look like a repository for anti-Scientology webpages. External links should be used sparingly unless they are sources, in which case they should be in the Sources section. --SVTCobra 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The second one was not a source, but the first one is, I will move it to the Sources section. Wilhelm 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- Actually, looks better now, thanks. Wilhelm 01:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- Well I am still sorry for the inconvenience, but that's why I posted here that I removed the section. "External links" sections have a habit of becoming link dumps for people, usually contrary to WN:NPOV. --SVTCobra 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, no, your actions were most appropriate. Thanks for being so clear in the way you did it. Wilhelm 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- Well I am still sorry for the inconvenience, but that's why I posted here that I removed the section. "External links" sections have a habit of becoming link dumps for people, usually contrary to WN:NPOV. --SVTCobra 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
New source, new developments, The New York Times edit
Andrew Adam Newman, "Scientology Writes; Gawker Rises", The New York Times, January 28, 2008
- This is a new development in the story, burgeoning potential for follow-up piece. Will need a coupla additional sources about this in the story of developing potential for legal confrontation, and commentary on the controversy by intellectual property experts. Cirt 06:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Tom Cruise’s Scientology video was “good for the faith” ??? edit
Tom Cruise’s Scientology video was “good for the faith”, Showbiz Spy, January 28, 2008.
- Weird. Cirt 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)