Talk:The Bridge (2006 drama film)/Archive 1

message: "The Bridge to Total Freedom" has been published by the Church of Scientology for many years, at least since 1980 and probably much longer.  The video of a similar name might become a portion of a larger article which could be titled The Bridge to Total Freedom or simply, The Bridge because it is most widely know by the brief name.  There are many copies in various sizes and there were a number of changes (mostly minor) over the years since its beginning.  But its basic form of a processing side and a training side have been standard on all the copies I have seen.  I'm not sure we could put a whole copy here, but it is a pretty well known piece of information. Terryeo 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject matter of this article has nothing to do with the CoS publication. We might want to mention that there is a CoS publication with a similar name, and maybe create an article for it if there's enough to write about it, but this article is about a specific video and should stick to describing that video. Vpoko 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bridge 

message: , Hanover's website, talks about "the Bridge" and says 
"The Bridge" was a narrative feature which I directed in 2006.  Due to copyright issues, I have asked that this film be removed from circulation.  Please do not contact me regarding this production.
: This article presents Hanover's work as a "Docudrama".  That is a complete mis-statement.  A "Docudrama" combines elements of documentary with drama.  Hanover presents his work as a narrative.  He does not claim it documents anything and he does not claim there is any element of it which is documentary in nature.  It is not a documentary.  Therefore the article should present it (if this is going to be an article) as Hanover states; "A NARRATIVE".  If we deny Hanover this attribution we should not present his article. Terryeo 21:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and moved to The Bridge (film) accordingly Glen 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Docudrama" (not according to Brett Hanover) 

message: Yes, I deliberately removed the graphics and the attribution line.  The graphics seem unecessary and distracting (I don't agree that text blocks need spicing up that way), but I won't quibble.  The attribution line should go, though, because the the quote we are now using is not dated, and Hanover's name is redundant.  Sorry to seem a stick-in-the-mud.  BTfromLA 22:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, now you've actually cited a reason I agree with you. I'll revert my edit :) Thanks for clarifying Glen 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote template 

message: It's a no-brainer that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be pointing readers to where unauthorized copies of the film can be downloaded. Anyone who knows how to operate a search engine and wants to find it can easily do so anyway. Let it go. wikipediatrix 16:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  enough, already 

message: I was disappointed in this film because, while it had the trappings of Scientology included in somewhat altered fashion, it failed to show the sense of Scientology and why the girl would even want to continue in it; she never has one win, one cognition; and she looks so down all the time. But this morning (while in the shower but that is probably way more than you wanted to know) I realize that the film maker had actually crafted a true representation of something, something that can be a part of Scientology, though it is not supposed to happen. The film shows what happens when the tech is bent to someone's personal agenda. That is considered suppressive in Scientology and the head of her org is a good candidate for an SP declare. He is squirrelling Scn tech to steer the girl where he wants her to go. In an actual session there is none of that "psych-style" evaluation you see going on, especially in the clay table part. You can see that she gets no gains from those actions and that is how it would be in a squirrel session. He invalidates her state of Clear by cutting her off in that unrealistic "graduation" (Scientologists give three hip hip hoorays as a sign of respect on occasion but not always and never as robots over and over again). I think he embezzled the funds for LRH's office and that is why it is missing. Of course, in any actual org the door is always open but roped off to prevent entry. I just thought it interesting that, in this light, it is quite a true film; it just is not really about Scientology but some alteration of it. --Justanother 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True, but probably not as the maker imagined (spoiler alert) 

message: Rogue9 pointed out (above) that the copyright holder had granted a license to redistribute his work. The revokability of such a license without the legal element of consideration (without somebody "paying" for the right) is very questionable (a court would probably allow him to rescind the permission), but without a judgement (or at least a DMCA takedown notice sent to Wikimedia) to the contrary, I don't think we have any obligation to remove the material. Vpoko 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I quite agree.  Rogue 9 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well put.  Smeelgova 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogue9's comment should end the debate 

message: I don't want to get in an edit war over this, but I can't understand how "several people have made a conscious effort to repost the movie on as many sites as possible following an outcry after the movie's censorship" belongs in the article.  The fact that people are still posting the digital file is clearly implied by the previous sentence, "digital copies of the film continue to circulate on the internet."  "Censorship" implies that there was some sort of governmental ban, and there is no reason to believe anything of the kind is true.  What I think you want to say is that some people believe the church of scientology threated the filmmaker in order to suppress the film.  While that may well be true, there's no evidence for that that I'm aware of, I don't see how it belongs in the article either.  But the censorship bit is plain false. BTfromLA 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a little time.  I've added the  notice.  Also, I have added a sourced citation from MSNBC, which makes it a secondary source, about this.  Smeelgova 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also see the article censorship, it is not just governments that engage in this.  Smeelgova 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see how that sentence helps matters.  The Mark Bunker quote is pretty marginal, but at least it is attributed and it makes the point more directly--I again suggest that "censorship" line be removed; it's bad writing on multiple counts--what does it add? (And that Wikipedia article on censorship looks pretty bad in its own right... you might want to look into some outside sources if you are trying to better understand the concept.) BTfromLA 20:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have voluntarily changed the word in question from "censorship" to "removal".  Smeelgova 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, thanks, but I still don't understand why you want that line in there at all.  BTfromLA 20:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we can agree to compromise.  Smeelgova 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They key point here is that we're all just speculating about why the film was withdrawn... all we know is that the filmmaker withdrew the film and withdrew from making further comment.  I can't see how it is appropriate for Wikipedia to say more than that at this stage in the story. BTfromLA 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We now have a secondary source for this from MSNBC that has some interesting information.  If given time, more sources/citations will show up.  I think for now we have conceded a bit on each side and have a good compromise going.  Smeelgova 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a gossip column quoting the wild speculation of a critic. How is that encyclopaedic? --Justanother 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to agree with justanother on this one. Our "compromise" is one of politeness, not agreement: you really haven't made a case for including this stuff, Smeelgova.  At best, the Mark Bunker quote might be justified as documentation that speculation about Scientology's involvement in suppressing the film exists, but even then, it really doesn't seem encyclopedic.  If the story comes out, we can document it, but we shouldn't rumor-monger in the meantime.  BTfromLA 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It was taken and cited by a valid secondary source.  Smeelgova 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how any of this is rumor mongering, we are simply stating the facts.  Smeelgova 05:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a self-proclaimed gossip column. Gossip is by definition not fact and is not held to journalistic standards. It has no place in an encyclopedia. --Justanother 05:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your concerns, I was not using the blockquote to assert any particular type of "rumor mongering", merely the fact that the issue was reported on MSNBC.  I will make a further edit that should be an acceptable compromise.  Smeelgova 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you did now. If consensus is to leave the mention then the quote at the bottom should be removed; that looks bad stylisticly. --Justanother 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fair compromise.  Lots of articles provide elaboration in the references/footnotes sections.  Smeelgova 05:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your opinion, and I also understand you have a POV on this, as I do.  But please note that I am trying to compromise here, with yourself and with User:BTfromLA, as you may note from the article's edit history.  Thanks for engaging in dialogue on the talk page.  I feel this is productive and relatively congenial.  Smeelgova 05:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I see any compromise here.  You want it in; you left it in. You are just juggling it around a bit, as far as I can see. --Justanother 05:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you browse through the edit history and read this full discussion section from above, you'll see I compromised on another matter as well.  Smeelgova 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re POV. Mine is that fair representations of Scientology and of the the misdeeds of Scientology have a place in wikipedia. Wild speculation and misrepresentation does not. What is your POV? --Justanother 06:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, beyond the fact that I don't appreciate various organizations' suppression of information and Freedom of Speech, I don't like to get into my personal life or POV.  But I acknowledge yours.  I'll make another gesture of good faith and remove the blockquoted portion.  Smeelgova 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Censorship" 

message: To involved editors: 
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] Warning