Talk:Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography/Archive 1

Problems with this Article
On the list of references, when one clicks on a link he either gets information about the date the article was published or on the publicatons themselves. There is no info on the acticles they are susposedly quoting. Studying this article thoroughly, one will see that there is no source that references that Paul Barresi was part of this project in the making. If you look at the discussion on the Paul Barresi article, there are many blanked areas because blocked editors have tried to use unreliable or self-published sources as references.

Another concern is that there's an information box on this article on Scientology. The subject of this article is clearly not Scientology. The box should not be here but should be on the Scientolog article. Perhaps listing Scientology under the 'See Also' section would be a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.154.12 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a citation after every single sentence to back up each sentence. Please specify a specific sentence or source that you have an issue with.  Cirt (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
 * You may also wish to read through WP:LAYOUT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Citations seen in the References section do not require external links to the articles in order to satisfy verifiability.  Plenty of information is given for the reader/editor to go and look up the actual sources cited.  Cirt (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
 * The line where Paul Barresi was hired by Andrew Morton is not verified by any reference listed in this article. Also the tag here saying that this is a book release in the future is untrue.  The book was released today 06 Jan 2008.  It has been on the news and the Scientologists have stated they are suing Norton and the Publisher.  There are sources in magazines and on the Net that Barresi offered his information to Norton but no verifiable source saying that Norton hired Barresi.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.125.84 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, please specify a specific source you have an issue with, and/or a specific sentence. Otherwise not sure how to respond to that.  Cirt (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Doing much research on all the references cited in this article, I have clearly deduced that NO REFERENCE cites that Paul Barresi was "hired." Reference # 25- is irrelevant to this article it is a performer page for a small-scale gay porn co. including nude pictures of Paul Barresi (warning should be included with reference). Reference # 26 is a blog-style bio listing several adult films Barresi performed in and no mention of this book or Norton.  Reference #27 - certainly verifies that Barresi was involved but does not state he was "hired"; it suggests that Barresi volunteered information.  Reference # 28 is simply an internal link to Wikipedia's article on "The Daily Telegraph,"again, totally not necssary here!  I am also in possession of 2 USA magazine articles which include interviews with Paul Barresi where Barresi specifically states Norton did not hire him but he did volunteer his own researsch information. So, the 4 citations listed for a specific quote do not verify the text! Fuzzyred (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the way cites are used in Wikipedia. These are not "internal links to Wikipedia's article" on "The Daily Telegraph" - that is just part of the cite itself.

These cites verify this information. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed EL

 * Contents of Andrew Morton's unauthorized biography of Tom Cruise revealed
 * I removed this link from the external link section, added initially by . If others have a reason why it's appropriate for the external links section, I'm all ears.  Cirt (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Misleading aspects of Tom Cruise's response

 * In a statement to The Associated Press, Cruise's lawyer, Bertram Fields, said Wednesday that Morton's book is "absolutely loaded with false statements" and "Mr. Morton should be ashamed of himself for telling such vicious lies about a child to hype sales of his book."

Generally, a statement by a person's lawyer is taken to represent the person himself. So to say he has made no response is misleading. It implies that he has no disagreement.

Better to say it this way: or simply:
 * Cruise released a statement through his lawyer, saying ...
 * Cruise's lawyer, Bertram Fields, said Wednesday that Morton's book is "absolutely loaded with false statements"

We don't want to endorse the bio's claims; nor do we want to label those claims as false. We should reveal the fact that there is a dispute about whether those claims are true. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, the current phrasing states exactly what Bertram Fields said in his statement, why put our own POV interpretation and spin into that statement? Cirt (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the intro, I saw only footnotes [4][5] and no statement. I think readers need to know what the subject of the book thinks about its credibility.


 * Where is the POV and spin on my suggestions? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the first example you cited was just the full quote from Cruise's attorney, but you wanted to put some sort of explanation in front of it, which would be interpretation. But in any event, the phrase "Prior to the book's publication, legal counsel for Cruise made statements to the press regarding the author's research." is exactly what occurred.  Cirt (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC).


 * All right, let me ponder that a moment. Meanwhile, here's a quote:


 * Mark Harris, Entertainment Weekly: Morton touches familiar boyhood bases (dyslexia, constant relocations, mean daddy). He compiles stout testimonials to the star's heterosexuality while carefully, non-libelously palpating rumors to the contrary.
 * I just want the article to be neutral: not agreeing or disagreeing with Cruise's biographer or the biographer's critics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the majority of the article contains criticism and statements from Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology. But that's okay, over the next couple days I will expand the article with info from 100 more sources.  I've been remiss in updating it lately with all the news coming in so fast.   Cirt (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Article follows in chronological order
A "Controversy" section would be fraught with POV interpretation of what should or should not go in there. Keeping the article in a chronological format, is much easier to follow, and self-evident as far as future organization. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Explanation for "NPOV" tag
Please explain, or it will be removed. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC).


 * By you? I'd rather you didn't do that. Please review the NPOV dispute guidelines below first:
 * What is an NPOV dispute? It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
 * The tag itself says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." You have not explained on the talk page why you placed the tag on the article.  Cirt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Yes, I have.
 * You are not supposed to remove the NPOV dispute tag before the discussion even gets started. What is your rush? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will work with me to examine and fix all neutrality problems in the article, such as our dispute over how to describe Cruise's response (through his lawyer) about the 'falsehoods' in Merton's book.

For example, you wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cruise:_An_Unauthorized_Biography&diff=185091174&oldid=185081592 "Controversy" is POV. Let's just write about the events and present the subsections in a Chronological order, which is more self-evident.] I assumed, as would most editors, that the reason you reverted my edit is that you felt I was expressing a POV. I want to work with you to make sure that no viewpoint of mine is expressed in the article - rather that both sides of the controversy between Merton and his critics are "expressed fairly". --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But the author's name is Morton, not Merton.  Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Then please address the issue I raised above in the "Misleading aspects of Tom Cruise's response" section. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed, I do not see a POV problem in this article. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See below, "Lack of balance". --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit Number 2 spot on Amazon.com top sellers
I think it was CNN that reported it hit the Number 2 spot on Amazon.com top sellers recently. (You can check for yourself, it's Number 2 top seller right now, but that would be WP:OR.) If anyone finds the secondary source for this, that'd be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Hrm, okay, maybe it wasn't CNN, but I saw it somewhere. Still looking...  Cirt (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
 * It is actually #1 now :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay! Okay, I guess we can wait for someone to report on that good news.  Congrats to Mr. Morton, the buying public has spoken with their wallets and pocketbooks.  :)  Cirt (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
 * ✅. :)  Cirt (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC).


 * This is interesting and could be added: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Also, this interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22664012#22664012 contains quote good material that could be cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps in a "response by author to Church of Scientology/Cruise response to book" type of paragraph. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Lack of balance
True to my word, I will not be slapping the NPOV tag back up any more, but the NPOV dispute is still not resolved. Not to my satisfaction, anyway. I protest the mindset which says that an NPOV tag can be removed before the problem is resolved. It is not right to swoop in and deleted the NPOV dispute tag before trying to understand what the dispute is about. There is no burden of proof on someone who wants to place the tage. The burden is really on someone who wants to remove it.

The NPOV dispute started when Cirt reverted my initial edits, calling them "POV". I disagreed with his assessment of my edits. So that is where the NPOV dispute began. A quick glance at the edit history of the article, combined with comments on this page will show where he and I disagreed about neutrality.

I had made my initial edits, because the article seemed to me biased in favor of the author. Now, ironically, it has swung the other way: biased against the author. This is not neutral either.

I won't consider the NPOV dispute resolved until the article is balanced, i.e., until it is not possible for the casual reader to know what we as contributors believe about which side is correct: Cruise et al., or Morton.

I beg you to consider replacing the NPOV tag, because it provides a signal to potential contributors dropping by that we could use some help neutralizing the article. It also automatically lists the article in Category:NPOV disputes, which is a handy reference for those contributors having a taste for helping out with this sort of thing.

Nonetheless, I will bow to the "consensus", but I wish you would consider leaving up the NPOV tag until all parties to the dispute are satisfied. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag, so that we can address your concerns. What we need is a proposal from you about what needs to be changed to make the article balanced. The reason I say this, is that I do not see any problems with the article in its current format, so I cannot do anything about fixing something which I do not see as broken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to include information about supporters of the author. Has anyone said that the author is telling the truth? If not, then the POV of the article is that Morton wrote a false tell-all biography.


 * Whether you or I like Tom Cruise or Scientology is not the issue. The issue is whether the article balances anti-Morton views with pro-Morton views. Otherwise, there is no controversy. Are you and Cirt saying there is no controversy? Hence, nothing to balance and no POVs to describe fairly? Am I seeing a controversy where there is none? If so, we can take out the "controversial" in the first line of the intro.


 * But if there is a controversy, then we must identify the two sides. That is my proposal. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now a significant amount of material in this article that is negative about the book. We already have a large portion of the article dedicated to 1) Responses from Cruise's publicists and lawyers, 2) Responses from the Church of Scientology's publicists and lawyers, and 3) Negative reviews of the book. If anything, this article is over negatively weighted at the moment, and should include a couple more positive reviews, and more on Morton's responses to the unfounded allegations from Cruise and the Church of Scientology made about him and his book.  Cirt (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I have been unable to find any such positive reviews, as most mainstream media has shown an unfavorable view of this book. As for the "unfounded" allegations, we do not know if these are so, only that Morton says they are; but I agree that we need text with the counterpoints presented by Morton in the numerous interviews he has given about the book. If we do so, we need to be careful not to cherry-pick quotes, and present neutrally what the interviewers say as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. And as to "most mainstream media has shown an unfavorable view of this book" - From what I have seen so far, that is simply the media repeating the claims made by the Church of Scientology and Tom Cruise's lawyers.  So far, the only independent reviews of the book itself that I have seen, separate from commenting on the issues surrounding it, are The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Entertainment Weekly.  Cirt (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

I hope you understand my desire to place a tag on the article. It's not meant destructively. I don't want to condemn anyone's work. In fact, since I've started watching its progress, both you and Jossi have done terrific work.

First it seemed to anti-Cruise, now it seems too anti-Morton. I have not studied it word for word 3 times like Jossi. Nor have I contributed substantially. You don't even have to listen to my opinions.

I just want to have a well-balanced, neutral article on what seems to me a controversial topic. If you guys don't think the book or any of its aspects are controversial, then maybe I'm wrong. Why, just last week I made a mistake. No one's perfect. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming from you, who at first thought it was too "anti-Cruise" - that now you think it is too "anti-Morton" - perhaps we can remove the tag and go from here? Cirt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC).


 * I'd rather keep the tag until all 3 of us agree that we have attained balance. For one thing, we still need text with the counterpoints presented by Morton. Don't you agree? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree, but I don't think the article is "unbalanced" without it, just lacking some info that will be added soon. That does not necessitate a tag, especially if you no longer feel the article is "anti-Cruise", which means the tag served its purpose.  Cirt (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I agree with Cirt here. We are making good progress. Let us do away with the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

New review
Here: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kewl, thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Ah - that's a dup - looks like the same review by Teresa Budasi is in both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I have 26 stories (very large javascript), and a whole lot more that haven't been indexed or weeded for dups yet. AndroidCat (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh, thanks, if you want to post them in a new section below here on the talk page, I'll work through them. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Eh, no need to post them here, I'll take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Second in command"
Now that the book is out, has anyone found the page that says this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.253 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to using secondary sources, and avoid citing the book itself directly, in the article about the book. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. Does the book say this or not? If not it goes, no matter what secondary sources have said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.253 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, for something that is this controversial, best not to rely on primary sources, and use secondary sources as much as possible, so as to avoid WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which secondary source do you dispute, FOX News, National Nine News or the Daily Mail, or all three? Cirt (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also balanced by the response from the Church of Scientology, which is quoted in the section Response from Cruise and Church of Scientology.  Cirt (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So tell me, hypothetically, if the book does not make that claim at all, how long should it be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.31.253 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll find the page number as well, I loaned the book to a friend recently. But Morton himself has said that this is in his book, in numerous sources.  Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added this info back in, I have yet to get the page number, but I added an interview with the Associated Press with the author where they asked him about "second in command" and he responds. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources to add



 * Reviews of audiobook




 * Will add this later. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other claims of the book
The article "Cruise biographer: Star has Tinseltown scared" by Bob Minzesheimer, punlished by USA Today on January 15, 2008, makes the following claims regarding the book:
 * That Katie Holmes has private concerns about the marriage and feels "isolated and alone",
 * Nicole Kidman was, after she cut back her involvement with Scientology, "reduced" to Internet camera and e-mail as her means of contacting her adopted children, and,
 * That Cruise is at least uncomfortable around gay men, and possibly homophobic, evidently due to belonging to a "macho religion that claimed to cure homosexuality".

Other statements from that article include David Miscavige being as "controlling, competive, and macho" as Cruise, and that several people in Hollywood were "scared of talking publicly and candidly about Tom Cruise" because the Church of Scientology is "extremely litigious and can be quite intimidating."

The Church including in its response the statement that "British publishers rejected the book because of Morton's inability to prove the truth of his allegations," from the same article. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - suggested wording for this recommended addition to the article? Cirt (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Suri's Parentage
Two of the sources used in the article make references to the allegation that Suri Cruise was somehow conceived with frozen sperm from L. Ron Hubbard, yet the article has no content on the matter. I have myself seen several articles reference the matter. Morton himself said in an interview with USA Today that he thought the idea was absurd, but that the hysteria with which the pregnancy was greeted made it plausible that some of them might have believed it. Perhaps some sort of statement regarding it should be included? John Carter (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe something to the effect of what Morton said here, that the idea had been mentioned on the Internet before his book, and that while he himself says it is "absurd", it's plausible some members of the Church itself might have believed it. So maybe,
 * The book also makes mention of the theory that Cruise's daughter by Katie Holmes was conceived using frozen sperm from L. Ron Hubbard. While the author himself has stated he finds the theory absurd, he holds open the possibility that some members of the Church might believe it. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It "sounds fine" that we violate WP:BLP with that trash? --Justallofthem (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - please explain your assertion of how you feel this recommended addition to the article suggested by John Carter would violate BLP? Cirt (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(left) Sigh. Try the first line of the policy: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."or this one, not soon after:"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist..."Yes, a sensationalist "biography" repeated some even more sensational internet suppositions (how is that for a "source") but even Morton did not take them seriously. Repeating those claims in an encyclopedia is inappropriate unless those claims and their connection with the Morton book is extremely notable, for example if those claims formed the basis of a notable lawsuit against Morton. Simply repeating outlandish and ill-sourced BLP claims because they happen to be in the subject book shows a clear lack of understanding of the basic nature of the BLP policy and of Wikipedia, IMO. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) And here is one that exactly fits and that the proposed edit exactly violates:"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"Q.E.D. Changed your mind yet? --Justallofthem (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - I am surprised that a USA Today report recommended by John Carter upon a book that comes from a reliable vetted publisher would prompt this reaction from you. If you like I will take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, why don't you think for yourself? Do you really not understand the policy and the bit about not repeating gossip that the source itself does not believe? Do you really think that portraying a real child with a real life as some internet critic caricature shows a "a high degree of sensitivity" and is "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy". How about this one: "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." Think for yourself, Cirt, and please stop trying to mirror tabloid crap on Wikipedia. In fact, why not take a stand against mirroring tabloid crap on Wikipedia? Do you really think that ridiculing a child has anything to do with the criticism of Scientology? Or with Wikipedia? Are you a parent? --Justallofthem (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Cirt probably is thinking for himself. Please note that, as I said, two of the sources already used in the article explicitly reference this allegation in their titles. Those articles are evidently considered reliable enough for inclusion, and if, as is the case, those articles found that particular statement important enough for them to include not only in the article, but in the title of the article, that it probably qualifies as notable enough for inclusion. It should also be noted that the allegation is one which the author himself describes as "absurd", clearly indicating that it is a statement the author himself discounts.
 * This article is primarily about the book itself. That allegation is clearly an important part of the book, receiving mention in the title of at least two articles from generally reliable sources. I do not see personally how adding a statement that "some people may, absurdly, believe X is Y" is in any way damaging to the subject, who in this case is, I think, Suri, Tom, or Katie. While some might say that the statement is insulting to the theoretical believers of that statement, I don't think BLP is intended to apply to unnamed members of the general public. If I am wrong in any of what I have said or concluded above, of course, I would welcome being told where. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Current UK publication status
Regarding and  - does anyone know of reliable sources to back up this new info? Cirt (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of none, and can't find any immediately on the google search. I do see that Amazon UK is selling the book, but it is also listing the book by its US cover price, which would make no sense if it were published in the UK. The most likely answer is that the Amazon UK is allowed to sell books printed outside the UK, but that is a far different matter than saying that it was printed there, as the evidence indicates it was in fact printed in the US. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, this piece from Slate, published January 2008, is right now the most recent piece I can find regarding the subject, and it indicates that as of that time it still was banned from publication in the UK. Will keep looking. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for looking into this. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is from June 2008; it was still banned then. Jayen 466 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it's banned per se in that article, just that Macmillan "decided not to print it." Of course, jail time is generally a fairly good way to convince people. I suppose it might be possible that the ban was miraculously rescinded at around the time Macmillan said it wouldn't publish the book ;), but that would need some sort of sourcing to verify. Based on what I can see, though, the "ban" doesn't seem to have been clearly lifted. Good job finding the source there! John Carter (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it does say "While Tom Cruise succeeded in preventing the publication in this country of Andrew Morton's unauthorised biography of him ..." Jayen 466 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I purchased a copy of this book in London recently, so it has been published here (could scan the receipt?). A search on the Waterstones (British bookshop chain) website has it listed. Foyles (the London independent bookshop) has a website which lists a book titled Tom Cruise, author's name listed simply as Morton (many of their book listings are missing some info); listing for this book states they have three copies in stock at their Charing Cross Road, London branch. Seems highly unlikely there are two books on Tom Cruise by authors with the last name Morton published at roughly the same time. The sources seem to be from the scuffle a year ago and some of them are a little vague, nothing saying it has been banned outright. Amazon UK sells it, with the UK price (Amazon UK sells it for £5.18, while Amazon US sells it for $7.99). Amazon UK also states it is dispatched from Amazon UK with next day delivery to the UK, so it doesn't seem to be an import. Starhunterfan (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know much about how publishing is done in the UK, but I can buy books published in the UK at stores in the US, when copies are shipped here. And, in cases when books are "banned from publishing" in the UK, it is possible that they might order in some copies for possibly technically legal distribution of material published elsewhere. Maybe. Do you happen to know who the publisher is, so we might be able to check whether it's listed in the publishers list of titles? That would probably be the best source for information like this. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's being sold in the UK by St Martin's, which is the (US-based) worldwide publisher for the book (they published it in many countries -- one of the sources you posted says "the book has been published in Vietnam, China, Poland, Hungary..."). The sources are all very clear that the book was never banned -- St Martin's simply made a choice not to publish in Britain at that time (and it is pretty common for publishers to hold off on controversial material until the fuss has died down). Now it is being sold widely in British book shops and there are reliable sources. Unless all these major book sellers flew to the US and smuggled copies to sell illegally without St Martin's knowing about it, that means St Martin's changed their minds and decided to publish in Britain. Publication does not mean a book has to be physically printed and bound in that country. Starhunterfan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
 * That link you provided here above indicates a publication date of March 2, 2009, which leads me to think that the book has only very recently become available there, but that it is now there. I can't speak as to whether it counts as a reliable source per se, but I have to assume that it does. Any other opinions? John Carter (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it makes any difference but it's 3rd of Feb (same date as on Amazon UK), in Britain dates are written day/month/year. I also found a link saying the book was published and became a #1 bestseller in Australia. Seems to be available on some but not all Aus bookchain sites. I don't think there is any evidence it was banned or not published full stop anywhere. Doesn't seem to be anyone else commenting -- could do an RfC? Starhunterfan (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some stuff. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the AbeBooks source is most likely okay simply for information on their own bestsellers, but I have proactively taken it to WP:RSN. Please see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So... we're not going to reword the intro, "not published in the UK, Australia or New Zealand"? Seems like at the very least there is reasonable doubt that is not accurate. Starhunterfan (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some info to the lede . Cirt (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080121094527/http://canadianpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gi2ILpMTEyM_2o4rOKSi9vj1lnxQ to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gi2ILpMTEyM_2o4rOKSi9vj1lnxQ

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. 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/20110613071204/http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1067952 to http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1067952

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307065203/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5heELOXbk_8qWowwJGtd3RrEXdqgQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5heELOXbk_8qWowwJGtd3RrEXdqgQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)