Talk:The Bridge (2006 drama film)/Archive 2

message: *Individuals keep adding this link back into the article, and it keeps getting removed:
<rem EL as per previous compromise - ed> can be seen here. This then included a link to a POV, non-RS site where the video could be viewed and/or downloaded in its entirety.
*NOTE: - NO Compromise was ever worked out regarding this on the talk page.  See discussions above.  
*Per the director's copyright disclaimer:
"'The Bridge' is licensed as royalty-free digital media, and may be distributed online for personal viewing without permission. All offline distribution rights are reserved by Brett Hanover." 
Any statements made after this were a request that the director wanted others to honor, but was not legally binding in any way, shape or form.  Therefore, The Bridge has been for a while now, "licensed as royalty-free digital media", and may be "distributed online for personal viewing", without permission.  This was made explicitly clear.  However, I, personally, will not re-add the link.  Smee 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "compromise was about bit-torrent and was during a period when it was unclear what the distribution rights were. (And of the six that agreed, Netslaveone seems to be a rather one-issue editor who appeared and vanished afterwards. []) AndroidCat 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a link to watch/download the film: 

message: *Include link. - As I had stated above, the credits at the end of the film clearly stated:  
"'The Bridge' is licensed as royalty-free digital media, and may be distributed online for personal viewing without permission. All offline distribution rights are reserved by Brett Hanover."
Therefore, any statements made after this were a request that the director wanted others to honor, but was not legally binding in any way, shape or form.  Therefore, The Bridge has been for a while now, "licensed as royalty-free digital media", and may be "distributed online for personal viewing", without permission.  Smee 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: - Hanover has removed the request not to distribute the film from his website .  Therefore the only citable reference states that the film:  may be distributed online for personal viewing without permission.  Smee 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, actually he has removed ALL mention of the film from his site (except for some meta keywords). I think we can source his request in RS, doncha think? --Justanother 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most reputable source for the film's removal from anywhere is now MSNBC.  I have removed unsourced material and added citations accordingly.  Smee 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, an interesting situation as we all knew it was there and he does not recant on it. Let's let this RfC run its course and then we can look at that issue if it is still in question. Certainly it bears on this RfC to some degree. --Justanother 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously involved editors

message: Should a screenshot from the film The Bridge (film) be used to depict the dedication at the end of the film?  06:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - Dedication screenshot 

message: ;Smee
*Screenshots from films are commonly used in articles about the film.  This is a low resolution screenshot that shows the dedication at the end of the film.  The dedication reads:  For all who speak out - for those who have been silenced.  This dedication written by the director is ironic and should stay in the article - for the director himself was effectively silenced after the film had been released freely by the director without permissions attached - for free online distribution on the internet.  Smee 06:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously involved editors

message: * I mostly agree with ju66l3r above. The screenshot isn't wrong to include, but since it's white text on black background, a simple quote would suffice. A seperate section seems unnecessary, but it's perfectly OK to mention the dedication in the lead and/or the infobox (if the latter has a field for it). This has little or nothing to do with "undue weight" in the sense we use it on Wikipedia. A dedidaction is a fairly significant feature of any film, but it's rarely something that we have enough to say about to warrant a section of its own. --GunnarRene 06:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously uninvolved editors

message: *We should utilize WP:CIT, to standardize the citations within the article.  I will go ahead and do this soon, but in the future please use WP:CIT to format new cites when adding new information and sources to the article.  Thanks.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CIT|Standardizing citations]] 

message: Do we have any information of possible action from Scientology preventing this movie's distribution? The director's terse comments seem to suggest far more than "copyright issues", though I'm aware that this may be the reason used by Scientology to halt the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on Possible Repression 

message: I wonder about the article title change to The Bridge (Scientology film).  
* It's a drama, an (arguably provocative) work of fiction, which in its storyline references Scientology culture and practice.
* The phrasing of the article title is inaccurate: it unintentionally implies association with, creation by, or nonfictional representation of Scientology.  A naive reader unfamiliar with the 2006 documentary will not understand the genesis of the "Scientology film" classification.
* This film was released first (before the documentary), and is a dramatic film (more common than documentaries).  This should establish naming primacy.
* It is not standard Wikipedia practice to classify fictional works by other than author, year, or genre.  There is no such genre as "Scientology film".
Therefore I propose renaming this article to The Bridge(2006 drama) and renaming the San Francisco Bridge suicides documentary film article to The Bridge(2006 documentary). --Lexein (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct. Done. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title -->The Bridge (2006 drama) 

message: I'm not going to turn this into a Scientology Fact VS. Fiction debate however because that's a debate I'm just not willing to touch with a hundred foot e-meter.
*Just change it, semantical arguments like this are annoying and only waste bandwidth/space.
*I agree, it is a work of fiction about a real organization and includes their culture/practices to convey a sense of realism.
*Wikipedia does not have a policy on naming primacy unless something has changed in the last six months since I've logged in here.
*People are supposed to read information available to them on Wikipedia and make their own determinations.  The worst that could happen is people can hit the back-button on their browser.
*If you feel the article carrys a certain point of view, try to change it by editing the page, the title of the page does little for the neutrality or purpose of the article.
*Why do all page-links specifically TO this movie redirect?  Is there some confusion over a persons intent when looking for The Bridge (Scientology film) and the other or is someone making a choice that the film should not be searched for or found? ZBrannigan (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you tried to add is to ScienTOMogy.com...it fails wikipedias policy on external links for this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That (frequently spammed) site is just a wrapper for the video at Google anyway. Also see the last RFC AndroidCat (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change it but for different reasons 

message: - Curious, how does this cite verify the info immediately preceding it: "in an MSNBC entertainment column." ??? This cite is useless, and should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what comes of jumping the gun, not being patient.  Without even seeing this note, the very next edit I made addressed the positioning issue.  All you had to do was be patient. --Lexein (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who is "jumping the gun", with repeatedly insisting on keeping WP:NOR violation in this article for some odd desire. -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to note 

message: = this should be restored. The Emmy Award is a most prestigious award, and it goes to the journalist's credibility to comment on issues within journalism and media issues. It is a grand total of four words. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actors and directors win Emmy awards. How does that make them more qualified to speak on this topic? Heck, from what I can see, he won a Pacific Southwest Emmy Awards, not an Emmy Award. Mixing those two is highly misleading. --Conti|✉ 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If an actor or director won an Emmy Award, it would indeed make them more qualified to speak on the subject of acting and directing. He won an award in the field of journalism and media. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty broad field. He won in the category "Historic/Cultural", with a program called "Border Special". I'm not really sure how that's relevant to cults. Either way, if the award needs to be mentioned, mention the actual award (Pacific Southwest Emmy Awards, that is). I still don't think we should mention such awards at all when mentioning the person, unless it's actually a rather significant and relevant one. --Conti|✉ 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: , as suggested, by , . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Now that we have that as a temporary measure, let us look at how the journalist is described in WP:RS secondary source, The Toronto Star - which describes Bunker as: "Mark Bunker, an Emmy-winning television journalist in Los Angeles who has been critical of the church's affairs for almost 10 years ...". Note that it does indeed simply say, "Emmy-winning television journalist". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, so? Let's not make the same mistake. Note that I still don't support mentioning the award at all, it was more of a "If you do it, at least do it right"-kind of thing. :) Personally, I think winning a minor award (yes, yes, there's the "Emmy" word, but that doesn't change the fact that the award is rather obscure) in a minor category really isn't anything worthy of mention, and gives our readers a false impression. --Conti|✉ 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not make up our own standards of what to say based on your own interpretation of primary sources, but instead rely on secondary sources to determine how to phrase it. "Emmy-winning television journalist" Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether we should mention the fact that someone won an award or not is original research now? Weird. Writing "The award is insignificant and clearly not the same as an actual Emmy award" would be original research. Not mentioning the award at all would be editorial discretion, something we do every day around here, thousands of times. --Conti|✉ 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is any possibility of confusion about the award's nature, lineage, or bona fides, it should be placed a footnote - this is full disclosure, and is also done all the time. I'm a big fan of footnotes. :) -- User:Lexein 07:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I checked. The award is still referred to simply as an "Emmy Award". The organization, "Pacific Southwest Emmy Awards", is not the name of the award - it is a chapter of the main Emmy Awards awarding organization. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: , now included instead in an endnote, rather than in main body text. Good suggestion, User:Lexein, thank you. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, but sorry, I meant move just possible concern or dispute to the footnote not the whole claim. I'm satisfied with the claim, but do appreciate the expansion, which does belong in some kind of 'note.  There doesn't seem to be a link to the endnote - am I missing something? Guess that's why I always lard notes into the references section - consistent access.  Nobody seems to complain. --Lexein (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is exactly like the citations; clicking on the noted letter will bring the reader to the Endnotes subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunker 

message: :Sidebar about the cited author, not intending to interrupt the above indentation.  I was concerned about the inclusion of material from xenu.net, due to prior edit wars here and elsewhere. When the professional recognition in the field of documentary for the cited author (Bunker) was included, my concerns were allayed somewhat.  I see that Hanover "worked with Operation Clambake" (per Doctorow), so that helps. The fact that the content about the film is  hosted on xenu.net (as a strongly POV website, at least historically) seems unfortunate, and I would encourage the search for independent non-interested-party sources about the Clambake event, publicity about and reviews of the film.  This might be a naive view, but this article, though thin, was free of any controversial sources for almost 3 years, and I was happy to contribute in that light. If xenu.net's status as a citable source has been addressed, definitively or not, in discussions/consensus/arbitration decisions, please point me to that. I'm aware that WP should not shy away from sources proven notable, solely due to controversy, or the risk of controversy, so I'm not strictly opposing inclusion. --Lexein (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Xenu.net is an "official source" for information about the film. The film's producer and director, Brett Hanover, stated: "The ONLY official website for "The Bridge" is www.bretthanover.com under the films tab. You can also find udates under news. The only other official sources for information will be xenu.net and xenutv, when the film goes online.". Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that, and that he posted the same 3 September 2006 message on the newsgroups under his own name.  Hadn't considered the "author declares official source" angle.  Fair enough. Don't judge me for being a bit queasy about controversial sources. 8^/> (bearded bespectacled skeptic) --Lexein (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the newsgroup archive link above as backup to the xenu.net copy of the email. --Lexein (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidebar

message: The Tor claim is being reverted because no reliable independent source is being cited. See WP:42 for a concise summary, with links to policy and guideline. --Lexein (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tor claim unsourced 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Bridge (2006 drama film). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bretthanover.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727111806/http://www.nataspsw.org/Documents/Emmy2006WinnerList.pdf to http://www.nataspsw.org/Documents/Emmy2006WinnerList.pdf
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) 05:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified