Talk:Jason Beghe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Previously

Previously, this article said Beghe is a supporter of Scientology; however he has recently made a very critical video. May want to update the article to reflect this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07m-IvvpK2E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.68.106 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Has since been updated. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice updates :O HaroldZoid129.15.131.248 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. More to come as more info comes out in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Source

  • Eramo, Steven (May 1996). "Fun-Loving Forest Ranger". TV Zone Special (21): 36-37. 
Would like to try to get ahold of this source somehow, haven't really looked into it yet. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it looks like the journal title was just simply TV Zone. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay it's called TV Zone, http://www.visimag.com/tvzone/ will look into this further. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

United Artists

The article states that United Artists is controled by Tom Cruise. The referenced story at http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2008/04/08/valkyrie-delayed.html does not support this statement, nor do facts elsewhere at Wikipedia. It may be true, but still, it must be supported better or removed. The Wikipedia article on United Artists states:

Cruise, Wagner and MGM Studios created United Artists Entertainment LLC and, today, the producer/actor and his partner own a small stake in the studio, with the approval by MGM's consortium of owners.

This is not the same as owning it outright or having a controlling interest. Proxy User (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks for pointing that out. Replaced with a better cite, and modified text accordingly. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That reads a lot better. It just sounded a bit POV, though when talking about Cruise and his "religion" it's hard not to... Proxy User (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, glad that it reads better. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bunker

I wonder if this part of the Scientology section might be worded different? It seems to be more about Bunker than Beghe. I know it's sort of relevant, but we should be careful not to stray too far into other people's details while still telling the Beghe story...

Bunker's account was also canceled on April 17, and he believes this was due to copyright issues with a clip from The Colbert Report that he had uploaded.[39][41] Bunker said that those issues had been resolved, and that YouTube should have given him time to prove that before pulling the Jason Beghe interview.[39] Bunker believes that YouTube removed the Beghe interview after receiving pressure from Scientology.[39]

The sentence that follows the above snip is actually the most relevant, not Bunker's copyright issues with YouTube, which are only tangentially relevent to the Beghe story...

Bunker believes that YouTube removed the Beghe interview after receiving pressure from Scientology.

Maybe I'm wrong. Proxy User (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's only 2 sentences for context, otherwise the bit that follows would lack context and be confusing to the reader as to what happened previously. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)