Talk:The Profit (film)/Archive 1

message: Anyone know where I can Find This? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 (talk • contribs) 
:See:  Their website's FAQ.  It's currently still unavailable, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Joe1141 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question man, good question.  Smeelgova 20:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you heard? You're not allowed to say anything if it offends someone nowadays. 75.75.110.235 06:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section heading 

message: *The alternate movie poster fits fine in the article and is not obstructing anything.  Why was it removed?  Smee 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate movie poster 

message: There is an unfortunate connotation of pettiness attached to the issue of semantics, but the fact is that semantic differences - while often fine, sometimes even moot - are often valid nonetheless, particularly in the context of an encyclopædia. What you are debating goes beyond mere semantics and affects a reader's interpretation (both conscious and subconscious) of an article's subject. "Banned" has unavoidable inflammatory, provocative connotations that remind one of pornography, extreme horror, and so on. Think of A Clockwork Orange and what its ban (in the UK, certainly) did for its image and popularity. Bans are usually serious and usually permanent or at least long-term. If the film in question is subject to a court injunction - which is, by its nature, potentially temporary - then it should be described as an injunction or court order, not an outright ban. The practical effect may be substantially or wholly the same, but the inference is not. I hope that the two of you can remain civil over this issue, and not get into edit warring. At this time, I will confine my comment to the semantic issue, since that was the primary reason for the request for an opinion. But I will check through the diffs and history in detail anyway. Adrian M. H. 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: *I standardized all the cites in the article with WP:CIT.  In the future if you add new sources/citations to the article, please use the citation formatting.  Thanks.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized cites w/ [[WP:CIT|Citation templates]] 

message: Please explain to me how a local judge has the authority to block a film's release nationwide? If it were released outside of Pinellas County, Florida, would that not be completely outside the judge's jurisdiction? 76.123.216.96 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court order 

message: How does mention of the fact that this film has been leaked a violation of WP:OR?  Frotz (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen any mention of this in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source?  Cirt (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've changed my citation to something at wikinews.org.  Given that it has been marked as ready for publication, I presume that it's okay to cite it here.  Frotz (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my reply on your talk page.  Wikinews is not acceptable to be used as a source on Wikipedia in such a manner.  The only thing that Wikinews has gained even a small amount of traction for source usage on Wikipedia, would be for citing direct interviews done by editors on Wikinews.  Cirt (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  And for the rest of you, I've had a discussion with Cirt here about how to mention this new development.  He suggests that we wait until some major news source picks up on this and THEN cite one of those.  I have therefore reverted all my tinkering with this article including the very mention of the leak.  Cirt has stated that he will do this himself.  I'll just back off now.  Frotz (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.  Cirt (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mentioning leaks of a supressed film 

message: Personally I think the fact that it was leaked to the internet AND is barred from distribution is noteworthy. Thoughts? Hohohahaha (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not have been notable before, but the letter from Bob Minton's attorney to Luke Lirot of The Profit makes it noteworthy - and even though that is a primary source, it is good enough simply to attest that the letter happened.  I'll put that in there soon.  Cirt (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already put it in, an anon IP keeps removing it. Hohohahaha (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is great, two obviously biased editors (Cirt has written ) trying to argue their point. Weak. --81.227.71.199 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a moment to read over WP:NPA, and keep your comments on content, not contributors.  Cirt (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "You are biased" = Personal attack? The "weak" referred to your actions, not your person. 81.227.71.199 (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of leak to the internet 

message: The Pirate Bay And Digg links were included to give verification to the statement "The complete film was leaked to the internet in late March 2008" contained on the page. A statement like this is meaningless unless backed up with evidence. These two links provide irrefutable evidence, therefore are entirely relevant and appropriate. The Pirate bay link being primary evidence is therefore highly appropriate. Primary evidence supersedes secondary evidence and hearsay ( as in the case of the lawyers letter )Wogglelump (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to include

message: No, no, and thrice no. Links to non-licensed copyrighted material or even just links to sites which explicitly provide a gateway to such material can get Wikipedia in a lot of trouble. That's why there are certain restrictions to the types of links one can include in articles. As the guideline says, "without exception". Steve T  • C 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: My edit listing who the main characters were based on was reverted as it was "WP:OR and POV interpretations of who cast represent".  I'm not sure if Cirt saw the movie, but the characterizations are thinly veiled.  It's not an interpretation when it is made to be super obvious.  Zach Carson, for example, is based on Jack Parsons.  The name is barely changed.  The "Babalon Working" is now the "Caliban Working".  Carson put in $20,000 instead of Parson who put in $21,000 into selling sailboats.  Legend has Parsons evocating Bartzabel to summon a typhoon in retribution, in the movie Carson evoked Satan.  How obvious does it have to be not to be considered POV? Chiok (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source to back up your personal interpretations into the film's plot?  If not, this is your own WP:OR interpretations of the film - which does not belong in the plot section, or anywhere in the article for that matter, as it is unsourced.  Cirt (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit listing who the main characters were based on 

message: The producers of the film had a court hearing on March 5, 2007 to ask that the injunction on the film's distribution be lifted.  On April 7, 2007, attorney Luke Lirot announced on the official website for The Profit that "We have absolutely no exposure for any repercussions from the court order."  Lirot also stated that there was still an impediment to the film's release, writing "all that's stopping the release of the movie is the legal battle with the partner who was compromised by Scientology (Robert Minton) and is currently using his power as partner to stop the release of the film."
The complete film was leaked to the Internet in late March 2008, and in response Thomas H. McGowan, attorney for Bob Minton, sent a letter to Luke Lirot. In his March 24, 2008 letter, McGowan wrote: "To say the least, I was astonished to learn that in spite of our correspondence, and in spite of what I know of your understanding of the misuse of proprietary materials to be, a complete version of the film 'The Profit' is now streaming on the internet." McGowan asserted: "I am not persuaded in the least that the direct responsibility for what has happened lies anywhere but directly at Mr. Alexander's feet." McGowan requested that Alexander take action to remove the film from the Internet. Luke Lirot responded to McGowan's letter on March 26, 2008, and wrote: "In response to your latest letter, I can unequivocally state that my people (Mr. Alexander and his affiliates) had absolutely nothing to do with the unauthorized distribution of the film "The Profit" and we have gone to great lengths to stop any further transmissions." In his letter Lirot asserted "... my people believe it was either Mr. Minton, or one of his agents, who posted the film illegally, in order to give some manufactured or false grounds for some type of adverse actions or action against my client, so that Minton can fulfill his presumed agreement with the Church of Scientology to find any means whatsoever to 'harass and destroy utterly' his former 'partner,' Mr. Alexander, as is the policy of the entity whom my people believe is your actual client, the Church of Scientology."
----
Some of the above links are now dead links. Moved some info to talk page, pending further research. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved some info to talk page 

message: Substituted at 06:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment