Talk:Scattershot (book)

Reference?

Can anybody substantiate the claims that Oprah and Leonardo DiCaprio are interested in this book? This looks more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article about the book. Dzhastin 02:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the reference given? There's an entire section in the article about the Oprah people and DiCaprio's interest. Goes a little something like this:

Why Oprah and Leo DiCaprio are interested in ‘Scattershot’ To get published, they say, write a great book, for starters. Then it really helps to know someone. For David Lovelace, author of “Scattershot,” that someone came in the form of Bill Monahan, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of “The Departed.” Lovelace’s wife, Roberta, knew Monahan from high school in Gloucester, Mass., and before he made it big, he spent some time at the Lovelace’s home while they were away, working on his novel “Lighthouse.”

After Lovelace wrote a few chapters of “Scattershot” and thought they looked pretty good, he sent them to Monahan.

“He said, ‘This is great; it’d make a great movie,’ and he sent it to an agent he knew,” Lovelace said. “That opened the door.”

From there came the book deal with Dutton and talk of a film. Monahan and Leonardo DiCaprio are both attached to the project, which in Hollywood parlance means they’re interested and little more. As Lovelace said, he’s not holding his breath.

“Bill is still looking for a studio,” he said. “It’s a huge rabbit hole that I don’t want to jump down right now.”

But buzz for “Scattershot” is already strong. Lovelace was on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” Thursday, and the Oprah people are interested in having him on her show. For an author looking to publicize a book, it doesn’t get much better than that.

Please remove the tag when you are done. Feel free to incorporate this recent review [1] into the Reception section and even to do any copyediting you might feel it requires.Once on a vending machine (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because Lovelace says that Oprah and DiCaprio are interested, that doesn't make it so. There are no independent, verifiable sources to confirm it. Puff pieces from the local hometown paper don't cut it. And the statement "Oprah people are interested" is empty talk. It means nothing. A cameraman for the show could be considered "Oprah people." That doesn't mean there's a television appearance in the works. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzhastin (talk • contribs) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You have shown an ignorance for fact. This independent verifiable source confirms it. I have included a second independent reference.Once on a vending machine (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* Please see Notability (book) and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. An interview in the Vail Daily (the author used to work at Breckenridge) and a blurb on a publishing website do NOT meet any of the criteria for notability for books.dzhastin (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please speak English. I do not understand your first sentence, nor your second sentence. What about the notability of the book? Whose crystal ball? Which author used to work at Breckenridge and why is this relevant? What is wrong with the interview in the Vail Daily? Have you uncovered a conspiracy there? What is wrong with a publishing industry paper? It was not a blurb for a book but rather one of two articles Publishers Weekly has done on Scattershot. What is this criteria for notability for books? You seem to be working from an argot that I have not yet learned. Lets try to stick with the book and not introduce weird issues. Once on a vending machine (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would click the links that I created in those sentences, you would understand what I'm talking about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball wp:NOTCRYSTAL is an article that describes what Wikipedia is and is not. Unverifiable claims of future projects are discussed on this page. You should also click the link for wp:NB, describing what is and is not acceptable for verifiable sources, and what constitutes a notable book. The article in the Vail Daily, which is really an interview where the author provides the information about the interest in his book, does not fit the criteria. If you read my links instead of just dismissing my "argot" you would understand what I'm talking about. If you're going to create an article for Wikipedia, please read the guidelines for what Wikipedia is and is not. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an advertising venue to drum up interest in a book/project with unverifiable claims. Where is the proof that Oprah or DiCaprio is interested in this book? The author's say-so? That's not factual, verifiable information - it's a rumor and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Please, please, please read the guidelines for how to write a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzhastin (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, refrain from citing those policies. I am not familiar with them, and even after attempting to read a few I am not totally certain which policies are to be applied where. There seems to be contradictions between some policies but that is neither here nor there. The DiCaprio interest is cited by two independent sources, Publishers Weekly and Daily Vail. I'm not sure what your problem is with the Daily Vail article. Why would the author make stuff up? If you know something (as in are trying to actually say something here in a roundabout way) please just say it! Or say that you won't say it, but want things this way. I am confused by your "argot" and disagree with your reading of the Daily Vail article. The journalist wrote an article based on his journalistic researches which involved in one instance a phone interview as he clearly states in his article. You are not privy to his notes. He is an independent journalist. A reliable source. Really, this is all very weird. It is not advertising to explain that this book, unlike another book, has generated interest by certain parties. That's pertinent to this book, right? So it's relevant and interesting. BTW, what is the "future project"? This book? Anyhow, what is this all about? Once on a vending machine (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you two are just polar opposites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caverty (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. If you refuse to read the Wikipedia policies for what constitutes an encyclopedia article then you have no business contributing in the first place. It doesn't matter why the author would or wouldn't make this stuff up...that's irrelevant. If you're going to make the claim that Oprah is interested in this book and Leonardo DiCaprio is going to make a movie about it, then the burden of proof is on the editor to show that it is actually the case. You have failed to do so. The Vail Daily is not a verifiable, reliable source. An article where the only source is an interview with the author is not a verifiable source. If you read the policy, you would understand. I give up trying to explain this.dzhastin (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so belligerent? They have shown interest and nothing else. That is all that is said. and now your reaction is to delete the article? Once on a vending machine (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not belligerence, it's simply making sure that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic. We keep coming back to what constitutes "verifiable." Why are you so obstinate about refusing to read Wikipedia policies? The line that "celebrities are interested in this project" is a line used by aspiring screenwriters to pick up girls at cocktail parties, not a verifiable statement. Just because you provide a link to some newspaper of no repute doesn't make it true or verifiable. If there was a contract with a studio, a scheduled appearance on Oprah, that would constitute verification. We have none of that. Publishers Weekly says that there is "supposedly" interest. "Supposedly" does not constitute verification. Right now that's just a rumor that was reported, to the Vail Daily, by the author of the book. dzhastin (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You apparently have not gone to college, or else you would have developed your logic. You say "If there was a contract with a studio, a scheduled appearance on Oprah, that would constitute verification." That is a totally new fact that would be added to the article then. I am including information in this encyclopedic article that demonstrates interest from certain parties. No "contract with a studio", or "scheduled appearance on Oprah" is implied by interest. Please read more carefully. Once on a vending machine (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Dzhastin; and I don't think he's being belligerent, just appropriately pedantic :-) And "Once on a vending machine" (is that really you name?), ad hominem attacks are pointless. IMO, the Vail Daily should probably not be considered a good source for the DiCaprio and Oprah movie interest, since Lovelace had been a member of that local community - Dzhastin, is that your rationale for rejecting Vail Daily? Its possible non-independence, rather it being a small paper? (I'm getting familiar with the policies myself and want to understand.) And Publishers Weekly's weasel word "supposedly" just about does it for them. I do have one other source to add though, a PDF version of the Dutton Gotham Books Fall 2008 Catalog; on page six, Scattershot is featured; a blurb reads "Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Monahan, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of The Departed, are both attached to this property in Hollywood, and a deal with a major studio is expected shortly". This certainly seems more definitive than the other sources, but is this disqualified because it's from his publisher? It seems fair to me to at least include this quote and attribute it to the publisher. What say you? Albrodax (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"celebrities are interested in this project" is a line used by aspiring screenwriters to pick up girls at cocktail parties, not a verifiable statement.

Somehow dzhastin has come to the above conclusion, that the idea that "'celebrities are interested in this project' is a line used by aspiring screenwriters to pick up girls at cocktail parties, not a verifiable statement." What is Dzhastin talking about? Where is this new policy of his? I am unable to communicate with Dzhastin so if someone else will tell me what is wrong with the following passage I would appreciate it:

Prior to the book's release, The Oprah Winfrey Show has shown interest in the memoir, and within the film industry there has been some interest on the part of actor Leonardo DiCaprio and writer Bill Monahan.

Isn't this a proper description of what has happened? Also, Dzhastin, not knowing at all what he's talking about apparently, thinks that David Lovelace is a screenwriter?!? This is totally bizarre. Once on a vending machine (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

There are two claims here: interest by Oprah, interest by DiCaprio; and for each, two issues: Is it verifiable? Is it encyclopedic?

The answer to the first issue (is it verifiable?), is yes, for each claim. All comments about who refuses to read Wikipedia policies and who has no business to contribute aside ... Wikipedia: Verifiable says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Vail Daily is a published source, specifically a mainstream newspaper. While that's at the lower end of the scale at Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources, it is on that scale. And the article does not say "the author claims", so that should not be read into it. Considering that this sort of subject, a heartwrenching recent book, is exactly the sort of thing that The Oprah Winfrey Show does shows on, I don't think it's a particularly tendentious claim to require a higher standard than that.

Thanks. This makes more sense. Once on a vending machine (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

GRuban, what kind of wording would you use to mention the Oprah interest?Once on a vending machine (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have used the phrasing: "Additionally, The Oprah Winfrey Show is interested in having Lovelace on the show to discuss his memoir." It is almost verbatim what the Vail Daily article says.Once on a vending machine (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the second issue, Dzhastin has a point. "Namedrop is interested in my book" really does seem more like gossip than stuff that belongs in an encyclopedia article, specifically because nothing could come of it. Frankly, I'd recommend replacing the Oprah interest with the comment that Lovelace already was on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, at a specific date, discussing the book, mentioned in the same paragraph in Vail Daily. That, at least, is concrete, it's an actual appearance, and not speculation. And for the DiCaprio interest, I'd change it to focus on the fact that a movie is in negotiations on being made from the book, with Monahan and DiCaprio. A book becoming a movie is of prime interest to an article on the book, which is what this is, and it has two sources, both Vail Daily, and Publisher's Weekly. PW is even a step higher on the WP:SOURCES scale, it's a magazine published by a reputable publishing house (136 year history). Note, however, that, unlike PW doesn't back the claim directly, merely states that Dutton, the book's publishing house, claims that a movie is being negotiated, to be written by Monahan, and to star DiCaprio. We should say as much. Note that E. P. Dutton isn't a fly-by-night outfit either. --GRuban (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the additional information provided by Albrodax above: "I do have one other source to add though, a PDF version of the Dutton Gotham Books Fall 2008 Catalog; on page six, Scattershot is featured; a blurb reads "Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Monahan, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of The Departed, are both attached to this property in Hollywood, and a deal with a major studio is expected shortly"." That makes for three independent reliable sources. Once on a vending machine (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Same advice; focus on the movie, and note that it's a claim by Dutton. --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the following to the "Reception" section -- "According to the book's publisher, there may be interest in a movie adaptation; the section of the Dutton Gotham Books Fall 2008 Catalog on the book reads: Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Monahan, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of The Departed, are both attached to this property in Hollywood, and a deal with a major studio is expected shortly." -- is this neutral enough to put this deletion threat to bed? Thanks. Albrodax (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is excellent and clear. Could you add the thing about Oprah if it is alright?Once on a vending machine (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I think this is settled (as long as we keep the Oprah thing out)dzhastin (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You sure you still don't want to delete this article?Once on a vending machine (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Old information...

It's all old information that hasn't been rehashed. I removed it for those reasons. Any problems with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caverty (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scattershot (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813020444/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6585191.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6585191.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910214944/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6593450.html? to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6593450.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)