Talk:Tommy Wiseau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Attack on the Nostalgia Critic

Is it worth mentioning his attack on the Nostalgia Critic's review of his movie, The Room yet? Pulling it for copyright infringement. Quite an achievement considering it was on Blip!!!--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. I mean he's famous for the room, a pretty aweful movie, and very little else. he's made a good sized wave at least on the internet with this stunt. Gaurdro (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

However this is not a forum for discussing the merits of his movies or internet wars. Regarding the article, the following statement is not substantiated by its sources:

Wiseau became a target for internet satirists after two reviews of The Room by the Nostalgia Critic and Obscurus Lupa were pulled down due to a claimed copyright infringement despite fair use as a review and parody.

The two citations given are video links to "The Tommy Wiseau Show", a satirical sketch by Doug Walker (aka The Nostalgia Critic) impersonating Wiseau, and "Brad and Jerrid Watch The Room", a satirical review by two of Walker's collaborators. The first issue is that neither of these sources fall under acceptable sources for a biographical article. Even if these sources were fine, they only substantiate the part "Wiseau became a target for internet satirists". In particular, the claim "despite fair use" is a pretty blatant violation of neutrality. For now I suggest the following alternative statement:

After filing several claims of copyright violation against reviewers of The Room, Wiseau became a target for internet satirists.

and then leaving the citations as-is. Does this sound like a reasonable consensus? 71.101.95.236 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable wording, but fair use is a simple legal term that does cover rights to both review and parody, so I'm wondering if you could clarify your concerns on neutrality, cheers. GullibleKit (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for editing without consensus, but given the fact that there is some sort of organized off-wiki effort to attack Tommy Wiseau's character (according to the administrator who locked the article), I'm replacing it with the proposed version to take out the rule violation. I'd appreciate more input on this so that we can have a version reached by consensus. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As you misread the admin I'm going to revert. The article was locked against vandalism from ED, that did not include the portion you removed. Jarkeld (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything at ED, but users on TGWTG forum are urging each other to update wikipedia in favor of Doug Walker on a copyright dispute. Vandalism needs to be kept out, but the article must conform to rules for biographies of living persons. I interpreted vandalism against the biography to be an attack on the person, but that's not really all that important now and the article must reflect wikipedia policy. Please assume good faith. I am reinstating the change until we can have more discussion on what would be an acceptable consensus that does not break NPOV. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources which cite birth date

None look terribly reliable:

imdb

manpaper :S

Movie Zen

--Half Price (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An alumnifinder search says that his middle name is Pierre, and that his birthdate is 10/3/1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you link that please? —Half Price 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Alumnifinder is a pay service provided by Lexis Nexis - it's not possible to link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a pain. Any chance of a print-screen? You could use an image-hosting service like imageshack.us or just use Wikimedia Commons. Sorry to fanny you about but we need to be sure. Thanks. —Half Price 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not allowable on commons...it would be copyrighted content and layout, not "free". Unlike en.wp, commons doesn't even allow "fair-use" material. DMacks (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Should've known that. I'm not much of a commons user. —Half Price 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you describe your exact search method? Some readers probably do have Lexis-Nexis to help verify. But anyway, if we add this info, we'd need a specific citation (i.e., proper bibliography entry), not just "it's in Alumnifinder". For example, the exact entry in the database, if there's a serial-number or other record ID, etc. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure - I noticed in the Harpers article that he confirmed living in San Francisco. I searched for the last name Wiseau in San Francisco. That returns only a single individual, although he lived at a few addresses in SF. Clicking on the persons (censored) Social Security number allows you to trace all the addresses that have been used with that person. This generates a few pages of results, all of them addresses Wiseau used. I'm hesitant to reveal any actual addresses - or even part of his SSN, so here's a hastily censored version.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o197/Jordashebasics/Picture7.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. I'm not sure if we can use it, I really want to though. —Half Price 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for input here. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We've still not got a definitive answer. What do people think? —Half Price 23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Wiseau is in the public records, accessible on Ancestry.com. He is listed as Thomas P. Wiseau, born October 3rd, 1955, living at 133 Ave, San Francisco, CA 94101 in the 1990s. He is the only person with the surname Wiseau in the entire country. Source Information: Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings. --Josiahschmidt (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot: http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj59/swohioue/ThomasPWiseau.png --Josiahschmidt (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The actual source link is: http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=1&new=1&MSAV=1&msT=1&gss=angs-c&gsln=wiseau&gsln_x=XO&cpxt=0&uidh=apg&cp=0&pcat=DIR_TELEPHONE&h=185454764&db=USpublicrecords2&indiv=1 It is behind a paywall, but it is a valid link from a reputable source nonetheless. --Josiahschmidt (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the Nostalgia Critic

I've once again reverted the TGWTG mention because:

-It is unsourced

-Last time I checked it can't be reliably sourced

-It has no place on the bio of Wiseau Not to be replaced without PROPER sourcing. Jarkeld (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The reviews are back up as of 12/12/10. There needs to be SOME mention of the incident if only because it became fairly well-known on the internet AND it lasted for months AND through various reviews on Channel Awesome following the original reviews being taken down, it became obvious that Wiseau or some other representative of Wiseau Films got the reviews taken down by claiming copyright infringement. Not mentioning the incident at all calls the article's neutrality into question just as much as posting a heavily biased account of the events would. Doing a minimal recounting of the incident, linking to the Critic's "Tommy Wiseau Show" sketch where he explains what happened and then closing with "the reviews went back up on the site on 12/12/10." should be adequate unless we get more information. Leaving it out entirely isn't the way to go.

If you can find information from a secondary source on this then go ahead. Currently, the only articles people have found claim "we aren't sure about this" or "according to the That Guy With the Glasses Site" and such. These are not reliable and have little to do with Wiseau. Information about the sites episodes should be kept to his page as Wiseau has little to do with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Will anyone mention his appearance in BBC TV's programme "La La Land"..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toSYxeBFg_Y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.78.120 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The House That Drips Blood on Alex premiere

This page says that "The House That Drips Blood on Alex... will premiere at Comic-Con on July 24, 2010." Any update on this? July 24 was two months ago. Also, the page for The House That Drips Blood on Alex says "It is to air October 31st, 2010 on Comedy Central." Hbomberman (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: "The House That Drips Blood on Alex" is available at: http://videogum.com/235431/tommy-wiseaus-the-house-that-drips-blood-on-alex-presented-in-its-entirety-without-commentary/webjunk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.70.114 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Room 3D and proposed vampire film

These new projects were revealed in an interview with Christopher Hooton for Little White Lies magazine (http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/?p=12545) and need to be included in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.28.96 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Legodude2002, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The filmography section of Tommy Wiseau forgot to mention the movie he's making, that will be relesed this October in Comdedu Central about a film called The House That Drips Blood On Alex

Legodude2002 (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC) So please Let Me Do This Minor Edit, To Put More Info About This Man's Film History

Not done: Please provide a reliable source for this change. Also, the way it works is that you detail the text to change and someone edits the article for you. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The House That Drips Blood on Alex

There is no way he could have directed this. It's way too high-brow for him. Does anybody even believe this? I don't. Just because he was billed as the director doesn't make it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_That_Drips_Blood_on_Alex . There was a studio involved! Trust me, cause I read it. TheSOB (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Joking

This article writes the quotes as if it was making fun of Tommy Wiseau. I don't think that's right, it's unrespectful for Tommy Wiseau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.179.151 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously man? Now people are complaining about quotes that the subjects actually said being presented on Wikipedia? First, how can an article "writes the quotes"? People write articles, they don't write themselves. The quotes are presented in the article as they were said - they're not taken out of content to make the subject look like an idiot. Also, the word I think you are looking for is "disrespectful". "Unrespectful" is not a word. Regardless, the article is not un or disrespectful to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.176.240 (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Director Credit

This article in Entertainment Weekly states that Tommy Wiseau did not direct "The Room." Is this worth discussing?

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20467412,00.html

Geoffmark 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I find this wonderfully amusing. However, we should wait to see if this story is picked up by some other sources, not a huge fan of EW's journalistic standards. The Interior (Talk) 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More sources:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/feature/2011/02/14/tommy_wiseau_the_room_director_debate

http://www.slashfilm.com/tommy-wiseau-direct-the-room/

http://pittnews.com/newsstory/33121/

Geoffmark (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One more source, say what you will about their standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Room_%28film%29#Directorial_credit_dispute

The_Room_(film)

Geoffmark (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If the subject of directorial credit is already discussed on The Room article, why discuss it here again? Seems redundant to discuss and source the same thing in two closely linked articles. Inevitably someone will come here and bitch about the info being repeated anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.176.240 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't really matter if it's mentioned in two places. What matters is if this info is a) a legitimate complaint, and not a smear on poor Tommy, and b) relevant to Tommy Wiseau as an individual, or just a anecdote relevant to the film. I'd say a) depends on whether reliable sources put much stock in the script supervisor's story (which may need to be re-assessed in a week or so). As for b), I'm thinking that this man is famous for one thing, and if his credited role in the film is being disputed, this be notable. My 2c's anyhoo. (re:Geoff - Wikipedia has standards?:) The Interior (Talk) 21:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like you're covering your bases, and that's fine. I'll bring this up on "The Room" page. It certainly is notable. There are more articles out there, I just need to find them again.

As a side point, I have heard (no reliable references yet) that this other person has been interviewed on the subject as has several of the crew & cast. I'm willing to hold of until more info surfaces.

Geoffmark (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Tommywiseaucloseup.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tommywiseaucloseup.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal history

In the beginning of the personal history there is a section that reads: "Wiseau's early life is shrouded in mystery but his origins most likely be from france," that I feel is worded awkwardly. It seemed like a simple fix, but whenever hitting the edit button this passage disappears. It seems to be tied into the audio version of the article somehow. Could someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.136.180 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 November 2012

birth_date 3 October 1955 83.253.87.196 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DMacks (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

I believe that the age and birthplace sections of this article should come with the caveat "claimed." Most (if not all) of this information is autobiographical (directly from Wiseau) and highly dubious. Trockety (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I've removed Wiseau's birthplace from the articles since it wasn't sourced (the interview only says that he "grew up" in New Orleans), but I don't see any reason to doubt his claimed (and imprecise) birthdate here. Are there sources that have cast doubt on it? --McGeddon (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Earlier on this talk page, LexisNexis/Alumnifinder both source his birthdate as October 3, 1955. In the book The Disaster Artist, which was written by Tommy's friend, and approved by Tommy, Greg Sestero refers to finding Tommy's drivers license. In that case, it lists October 3, 1968. Late in the book, there is this passage which contradicts it; "It turned out David's girlfriend had a friend with state government connections. According to public record, Tommy was born much earlier than 1968. It was nice to know David and I weren't crazy, but after I considerd the lengths to which Tommy had gone to conceal his age, my feelings turned a bit heavy."

Plus, I'll mention that there is a picture of Tommy, around page 151 in the book, which specifies that the picture is from the late 70s. Tommy does not look like he's 10 years old in that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.56.100 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't direct The Neighbors

He's not credited in IMDB, and the director of the pilot is Chris Koch So................ Remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErdoSa (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

He did direct a show called The Neighbors, just not the one you're referring to. The one you're looking at was picked up, Wiseau's was not. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there some article saying it wasn't picked up? ErdoSa (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It says it in this article and is sourced to this interview. The Neighbors, which is the sci-fi/sitcom you're referring to, is not the same show Wiseau directed. A snippet of the pilot Wiseau directed is on YouTube. I've seen it and I can attest that it's not the same show that was picked up by ABC and is, evidently, airing now. That's why Wiseau's name is not on the IMDb page. Different shows, same name. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok then thanks, I guess I skimmed through it too fast. ErdoSa (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Disaster Artist's history

Greg Sestaro's book The Disaster Artist tells a possible story of Wiseau's history, but even within the text it is specified as being somewhat unreliable. Sestaro states quite openly that the information that he has garnered from his years of friendship with Wiseau may not be entirely accurate, and himself in the book finds contradictory evidence on Wiseau's date of birth. It's certainly notable and as a published source is reputable, but it's hard to say for certain that it is entirely correct. The most convincing evidence that Sestaro possesses to indicate that it is are several photographs included in the book, so I'd say that likelihood is strong that it is correct, but this isn't really my call to make. As a result, I have split the segments of Wiseau's history as according to The Disaster Artist from his 'early life' segment for now. We should definitely keep it within the article, but clearly indicate that it is sourced from Sestaro's statements rather than any statement or documentation from Wiseau himself or other sources. Hope this is useful. Justin.Parallax (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if we keep it to a single paragraph and write it clearly enough, we can avoid the need for a separate section. I've moved the basic Chalmette mention back to the other section as it's sourced to an interview with Wiseau (although not that he lived with his uncle and aunt, only that his uncle lived there, and per WP:BLPNAME there's no need to namecheck them). --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In Sestero's book he also claims to have seen Wiseau's driver's license, which listed his name as Thomas P. Wiseau and his date of birth as 3rd October 1968. Should this replace the indeterminate DOB in the article? --zombiebadger (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2013 (GMT)

No. This is a claim from Sestero, we can't consider it as independantly verifiable. We could however mention it under the paragraph discussing Sestero's claims, though. Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiseau's date of birth needs to be fixed

As has been mentioned earlier on this talk page, Wiseau's year of birth as mentioned in the beginning of his Wikipedia article is almost certainly not 1968 or 1969. The source for him being born in the late '60s is hardly reliable, it is a satirical 2010 interview Wiseau gave to an Ausralian website named Crikey, in which he claimed to be 41 years old. He also claims to be born in New Orleans in the same interview, which is definitely not true. Earlier on this talk page, his date of birth has been noted as October 3, 1955. This is far more likely. At the very least, his year of birth should not be listed, or it should be noted that it is the year of birth he claims. Far more reliable sources, such as Greg Sestero's book, Entertainment Weekly, Esquire and The Verge all state that Wiseau won't give his correct age, but that he was born in the mid-'50s. It does not make sense and is misleading to list a year of birth of 1968 or 1969 which almost nobody who knows anything about Wiseau thinks is correct. That would mean he was 32 or 33 when they shot The Room. The 2008 Entertainment Weekly article I linked to says he appears to be in his early 50s, which makes sense. And The Verge article states, based on info uncovered in public records, he purchased a condo in San Francisco in 1984, which, if he was born in 1968, would mean he purchased a condo at 16... there is just no way. --Bernie44 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the reference to his age. I read The Disaster Artist, and in it Greg notes multiple times where Wiseau lies about his age. He is someone who pretends to be a lot younger than he is, so this is an example where self source is not reliable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Cutting the quote-not-fact statement of "Wiseau gave an age which puts his birth date in 1968 or 1969" because an editor feels that "Wiseau lies about his age a lot" seems a bit much. I don't think this crosses the line of "unduly self-serving", and I'm not sure why the Crikey interview is being regarded as "satirical". It seems a plain enough interview that just happens to have a "borderline incomprehensible" interviewee. --McGeddon (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better now that it no longer definitively says in the lede or infobox that he was born in 1968 or 1969. Explaining in the Early Life section that he claims to be born in the late-'60s but that others say he was born in the mid-'50s works for me.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been cut again by User:Harizotoh9 under WP:SELFSOURCE because "Tommy reportedly lies about his age and past a lot", but I think it's fine within the tongs of "Wiseau gave an age" - particularly when our only source for "lies about his age and past a lot" is a single actor's biography.

It certainly doesn't help the reader to talk of Sestero revealing Wiseau to be "'much older' than he claimed" without saying what these claims were! --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And okay, the same user has now added it back as it was. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Familysearch.org

This familysearch.org page has recently been introduced as a source for Wiseau's birth, being a copy of "United States Public Records", and an edit summary arguing that "The source listed uses a name and residence consistent with the information presented in the article, and I therefore consider it accurate".

Checking WP:RSN to see how reliable this site is, there's just a 2009 thread that counts the site among a group of "widely respected independent organizations who claim to employee researchers to check pedigrees" (which is immediately disputed) and a 2012 concern that "a lot of material in Familysearch is user contributed without oversight". Given the latter, and the consideration that this is the kind of thing a Wiseau fan might try to add to a low-oversight public birth database, I've cut this for now (the article still has Sestero's assertion that Wiseau was actually "born in the 1950s"). --McGeddon (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

xkcd mention...

Wiseau got a mention in today's xkcd comic - expect LOTS of people to arrive here today to find out what it's all about!

SteveBaker (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok...I'm sure the wikipedia servers will be able to handle it. --Jleon (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's already been through several add/remove cycles. Once more and we'll have to PROT/PC for a bit. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that a brief mention regarding Wiseau being in XKCD is appropriate. Why would it not be? Kevink707 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really important unless other more important secondary sources cover it. I made a gag involving Tommy Wiseau today too, can that go in the article? ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Relevant XKCD. This essay attempts to draw a line between XKCD strips worth mentioning and those not. Strips which got a direct reaction from the subject (such as Python or Cory Doctorow) can be worth mentioning as they add something to the reader's understanding of the subject and its position in pop culture, but the bread-and-butter "joke about or repetition of interesting fact" strips aren't worth linking or mentioning, as they broadly only say that a webcomic artist knew the same interesting fact that the reader has just read, and maybe add a joke. Until Wiseau makes a statement confirming or denying that he is D B Cooper, or the press start hounding him about it, this joke, however compelling, isn't encyclopedia material. --McGeddon (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. My intent with starting this thread was simply to warn established editors of this article to be on the lookout for junk edits on this subject and to be aware of the reason that this bizarre theory is suddenly popping up here. I agree that XKCD mentions do not warrant a change in the encyclopedia unless they are founded on some other, more reliable source - or are in themselves newsworthy because of an extreme reaction to them. XKCD makes it clear that this is not intended to be a real connection anyway - so there was no irresponsibility at that end either. SteveBaker (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I protected the article to force discussion rather than endless new editors re-re-adding it (BR okay, now need to D). I'm wearing my admin hat here; I do not plan to comment on this bit of content itself and don't necessarily support the "excluded" state when I protected it, but will be happy to help enforce whatever consensus arises or other admin tasks. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)