Talk:Apt Pupil (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apt Pupil (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Apt Pupil (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Resources

I've gathered some resources about the film at User:Erik/Apt Pupil (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apt Pupil (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA pass: GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article looks great! Nicely sourced, written and great info! Wildroot (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

The cast section is laid out to provide a simple list of the actors and their roles for easy navigation. It is also laid out to reduce extraneous white space in the article that exists when it is just one column. In addition, the margins are lined up for easy reading. Cast lists in undeveloped film articles are single-column bulleted lists so they can be edited with ease, but this developed article is just about complete in terms of casting coverage. After the list of actors and their roles, the main ones are discussed in prose. This is in contrast to the "fat bullet" presentation before. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starring

Regarding the "Starring" field in the infobox, it is most appropriate to identify just McKellen and Renfro. We need to avoid listing names in the infobox indiscriminately per WP:IINFO, and for this particular film, the other actors are indiscriminate compared to these two. This is reflected by a lack of coverage of these actors in the body of this Good Article. Per WP:IBX, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". The film infobox guidelines state to use the billing block as a guideline, and this is because there has been certain edit warring about the cutoff point when it comes to a larger main cast. For films like this one, it is more straightforward to surmise the starring roles since there is a significant gap between McKellen/Renfro and the others in a story-wise and real-world context. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic on Bryan Singer

'Nobody Is Going to Believe You' at The Atlantic

Article mentions Apt Pupil, especially the lawsuit involved. The "Lawsuit" section can be expanded with more details. Not sure about including Valdovinos's account. Others are welcome to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit question

The article states that the civil case arising out of the shower allegations was dismissed due to a lack of evidence. It cites a 2006 book entitled "Apt Pupil: The Hollywood Nazi-as-Monster Flick" by Picart and Frank for this proposition. I see another source (https://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bryan-singer-sexual-assault-rape-allegations-timeline-1201903868/) that agrees. However, I also see four other sources (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/bryan-singers-accusers-speak-out/580462/, https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/millennium-films-backs-bryan-singer-allegations-60608012, https://www.apnews.com/e8275873de3b4218a50d6550b8e5006b, https://keprtv.com/news/entertainment/bryan-singer-keeps-directing-gig-following-allegations) that say that the case was settled. I do not have access to the 2006 book. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to proceed? SunCrow (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SunCrow, I referenced that book. It seems like the newer sources are better; it is possible that the book's authors got something wrong or got the wrong information at the time of writing. Go ahead and change it based on the newer sources. I would go with AP as the most reliable source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screenshot of the passage in the 2006 book. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Erik. I am perplexed by this one. The more I look around, the more I see sources pointing in different directions on this question of settled v. dismissed. I see a bunch of sources on each side. I am not comfortable going either way. I am going to go ahead and edit the page to reflect that there are conflicting reports. SunCrow (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can mention both settled and dismissed. You can use WP:CITEBUNDLE to group the sources on each side. I would say that a legal source would trump all of them, if one exists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition to Israel

Was it the death camp survivor or Dussander who got arrested and his extradition to Israel arranged? 69.74.193.226 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]