Jump to content

Talk:Bryan Singer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryan Singer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bryan Singer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bryan Singer. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men

i remember hearing something about Singer being signed on to write an arc for Ultimate x-men. The comic book. But really haven't seen or heard anything about it. I would write it into his future plans section, but what I just wrote is all I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhold1 (talk • contribs) 05:49, January 9, 2007

"This biography is written by Rebecca Flint of All Movie Guide."

I don't understand what the significance of this statement is, or even how it's true, given that other editors have contributed to the article. Wikipedia is collaborative, no? Is this an act of vanity, a legal statement, advertising, or something else? Furthermore, the entire bio is full of unsourced claims and POV statements singing the praises of Singer and his films. --Misterwindupbird 19:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Tagging as copyvio - see [1]. Tearlach 10:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Singer's sexual orientation

Various anon IP editors keep removing the mention of Singer's homosexuality from the "Biography" section. I'm not sure why — he's not closeted, and even discusses hohttp://variety.com/2014/film/news/x-men-director-accused-of-sexually-abusing-teenage-boy-1201158645/w growing up gay influenced his interpretation of the X-Men films in the BBC interview linked at the bottom of the page. Sure, it's not the be-all and end-all of his identity, but it's verifiable and relevant and ought to remain in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just keep restoring it. Since they never explain why they are deleting that particular detail, who knows what they are up to. AlistairMcMillan 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's probably just because they think it's not true, because it usually is vandalism.--86.43.64.115 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
An intext note would probably help.--Fallout boy 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
more likely they want to obscure the fact while he weathers accusations of pederasty. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/x-men-director-accused-of-sexually-abusing-teenage-boy-1201158645/ 121.220.101.89 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
He's obviously assigning one of his minions the task of scrubbing the page of anything he thinks he can get away with deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.167.121 (talk • contribs)

King Kong

Having just bought and watched Peter Jackson's Production Diaries, I felt it fitting that Bryan Singer get a mention of his small contribution to the film. There is now a small piece of the article noting this. ViceroyInterus 21:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Was this for real? I couldn't tell from the videos whether this was genuine or just a stunt for the videos? AlistairMcMillan 01:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I doubt they used his takes of the scene, but he did help out Peter Jackson, if only by letting the studio think progress was being made while the real director slept. ViceroyInterus 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused by the text here. It opens up saying that there was an " elaborate joke" but then never states what the joke was. I assume from direct being in quotes that Bryan didn't actually direct anything, however, I don't see how it was a joke. A ruse perhaps, but nothing about it is funny. For that matter, it doesn't seem very elaborate either. Could someone who knows what happened clarify it?216.174.134.2 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bryan Singer

Template:Bryan Singer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Superman sequel

Anyone who thinks that the Superman sequel that Singer was planning to make is still in active development, is invited to include a recent citation when they remove the current disclaimer that points out otherwise. Until then, the paragraph requires a statement indicating that none of the (former) facts reported about it are still valid. Warner is back to trying to figure out what to do with the Superman franchise, and if wiki gives a damn about the truth, it needs to report that, not obviously outdated press releases. Naturallyblind (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Triangle

He directed/produced The Triangle mini series in 2005. Should be noted somewhere Morder (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the Triangle and IMDB both say someone else directed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The credits in the show itself show otherwise. Morder (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bah, looks like it was Produced By I should pay more attention :) Morder (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resources

Biographical resources
  • "Singer, Bryan". Current Biography. The H. W. Wilson Company. 2005.
  • "Bryan Singer". Newsmakers (3). Thomson Gale. 2007.
  • "Bryan Singer". Authors and Artists for Young Adults. 44. Gale Group. 2002.
  • "Bryan Singer". Contemporary Authors Online. Gale. 2004.
Further readings, part 1
  1. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, October 23, 1998, p. 11P.
  2. Boston Globe, January 12, 1996, p. 31.
  3. Boston Herald, October 18, 1998, p. 78.
  4. Chicago Sun-Times, August 13, 1995, p. 8.
  5. Gazette (Montreal, Canada), April 30, 2003, p. D6.
  6. Globe and Mail (Canada), September 21, 1995; August 21, 2006, p. R5.
  7. Guardian Unlimited, October 31, 2006.
  8. Independent (London, England), August 18, 2000, p. 11.
  9. Newsweek, April 28, 2003, pp. 59-60.
  10. New York Times, July 9, 2000, sec. 2, p. 9; June 27, 2006, p. E1.
  11. Oregonian (Portland, OR), March 29, 1996, p. 27.
  12. Ottawa Citizen, September 15, 1995, p. C14.
  13. Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 22, 1998, p. 2E.
  14. Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), June 28, 2006, p. 14D.
  15. Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, CA), May 2, 2003, p. TK21.
  16. Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), September 3, 1995, p. 9F.
  17. Toronto Star, January 23, 1998, p. C6; October 23, 1998, p. D6.
  18. Toronto Sun, October 14, 1998, p. 68; June 25, 2006, p. S12.
  19. Washington Post, August 18, 1995, p. G1.
Further readings, part 2
  1. Advocate, October 27, 1998, p. 75.
  2. Broadcasting and Cable, February 26, 2001, p. 12.
  3. Christian Science Monitor, May 26, 1995, p. 10; September 5, 1995, p. 12.
  4. Cineaste, spring, 1996, John Fried, review of The Usual Suspects, pp. 53-54.
  5. Electronic Media, February 26, 2001, p. 33; July 9, 2001, p. 4.
  6. Entertainment Weekly, August 25, 1995, Lisa Schwarzbaum, review of The Usual Suspects, p. 92; February 9, 1996, Ty Burr, review of Public Access, p. 61; August 21, 1998, p. 36; October 23, 1998, Lisa Schwarzbaum, review of Apt Pupil, p. 48; November 6, 1998, p. 56; July 21, 2000, Jeff Jensen, "Generating X," pp. 26, 50; December 1, 2000, p. 71.
  7. Los Angeles Magazine, November, 1998, James Greenberg, review of Apt Pupil, p. 120.
  8. Los Angeles Times, February 1, 1993, p. F1; January 27, 1995, Kenneth Turan, "Sundance's Unusual Suspects' Movies," p. 1; August 16, 1995, Kenneth Turan, "Going Along for a Wild Ride with `The Usual Suspects,'" p. 1; April 22, 1997, pp. F1-2; October 18, 1998, p. 22; October 23, 1998, Jack Matthews, "`Apt Pupil' Looks at Seductive Power of the Face of Evil," p. 8; July 14, 2000, Kenneth Turan, "Gen-'X'; the `X-Men' Movie Pulses with the Comic Book's Superpowered Outsider Characters," p. F1.
  9. Nation, November 2, 1998, pp. 34-35.
  10. New Statesman & Society, August 25, 1995, Lizzie Francke, review of The Usual Suspects, p. 29.
  11. Newsweek, August 28, 1995, Jack Kroll, review of The Usual Suspects, p. 58; October 12, 1998, David Ansen, review of Apt Pupil, p. 88; July 17, 2000, p. 40; July 24, 2000, Jeff Giles, "It's a Mutant, Mutant World," p. 56.
  12. New York Times, August 16, 1995, p. C15; September 1, 1995, p. C8; February 2, 1996, p. D26; October 30, 1998, p. E1; November 12, 1998, p. E1.
  13. People Weekly, September 18, 1995, p. 27.
  14. Variety, September 14, 1998, Todd McCarthy, review of Apt Pupil, p. 35; July 27, 200, p. 25.
  15. Wall Street Journal, August 18, 1995, Joe Morgenstern, "Not Your Usual Thriller," p. A8.
  16. Washington Post, August 18, 1995, Hal Hinson, "`Usual Suspects,' Unusual Suspense," p. G1; October 23, 1998, p. B1.
Suggested readings (possibly redundant)

Suggested Reading: All Movie Guide (on-line); Chicago Sun-Times (on-line); Entertainment Weekly p48 Oct. 23, 1998, p27+ July 21, 2000, with photos, p49+ May 9, 2003, with photo; New York Times (on-line) Aug. 16, 1995; Newsweek p88 Oct. 12, 1998; Salon (on-line) July 14, 2000; Variety p20 Jan. 24-30, 1994; Washington Post (on-line) Aug. 18, 1995

Some references that could be used to improve this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumored projects

I can't help but notice that a few of his future projects are listed as "Rumored". Isn't it against Wiki policy to state rumors? Even with the sources, until it is actually confirmed that he's doing these projects, shouldn't they be removed from the table?71.190.182.22 (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Below material was tagged for needing sources for over a year, and as this is a BLP it is particularly inappropriate for the information to be in the article without references. Please feel free to add this material into the article with appropriate sourcing. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Professional Career
After a screening of Lion's Den, Singer was approached by someone who knew of a Japanese company that funded low-budget films. Singer wrote the concept for Public Access with high school friend Christopher McQuarrie, and fellow USC student Michael Feit Dougan wrote the first draft in ten days about a supposedly idyllic small town. Ottman again served as editor but this time also composed the score for the film. At the 1993 Sundance Film Festival the film was named as co-winner of the Grand Jury Prize.

While attending the 1993 Sundance Film Festival, Singer and McQuarrie began discussing an idea that McQuarrie had for a story where "five criminals meet in a police line-up". The film, The Usual Suspects, won a number of awards including the 1995 BAFTA Award for Best Film and Saturn Award for Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film. Writer McQuarrie won the Academy Award for Writing Original Screenplay and the BAFTA Award for Best Screenplay, composer/editor Ottman won the BAFTA Award for Best Editing and the Saturn Award for Best Music and actor Kevin Spacey won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

In 1998, Singer directed Apt Pupil from a screenplay written by Brandon Boyce, another of his friends. The story, adapted from a Stephen King novella of the same name (collected in the book Different Seasons), tells of a young boy who develops a morbid fascination with a Nazi war criminal.

Singer was initially approached by 20th Century Fox to direct X-Men after directing The Usual Suspects, but not being a fan of comics and being unaware of the characters, Singer turned them down. However his friend, Tom DeSanto, a big fan of the comics and partner in his production company Bad Hat Harry Productions, eventually persuaded Singer to reconsider and, after reading the comics and becoming familiar with the characters, Singer signed on to direct. Rejecting all the scripts and storylines that were developed over a decade of failed production attempts, Singer developed the story for the film with DeSanto in a week and then worked on the script with writers Ed Solomon, Christopher McQuarrie, Joss Whedon, and finally David Hayter (who had started out as Singer's driver). Only Hayter received onscreen credit for writing the film. Singer won the 2000 Saturn Award for Best Direction for X-Men.

In early 2001, Singer was planning to direct Confessions of a Dangerous Mind with Johnny Depp in the lead role, from Charlie Kaufman's script based on the Chuck Barris book of the same name. Financial troubles delayed production and Singer moved on. The film was later directed by George Clooney for Miramax Films with Sam Rockwell in the lead role. Singer has said that he was "very impressed" by Clooney's debut as a director, and the film itself.

In late 2001, Singer was planning to help DeSanto produce a new Battlestar Galactica television series for Studios USA (now NBC Universal Television Studio) and the FOX network. Singer was scheduled to direct the mini-series which would have served as a backdoor pilot for a potential series. Speaking to Variety in February 2001, Singer said he was "confident that the Galactica brand is a sleeping giant. It was a show I watched during its initial run, from the pilot to the final episode. The essence and the brand name is quite potent in a climate where there's a great deficit of sci-fi programming." Despite his enthusiasm, production delays caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks meant Singer had to drop out due to his commitment to direct X-Men 2. FOX then lost interest in Galactica and Studios USA took the project to the Sci Fi Channel and a different production team. This resulted in the new Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series and 2004 television series.

In June 2002 filming began on X2 in Canada with Singer again directing, this time from a screenplay written by David Hayter, Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty. In 2004, X2 was nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form, but lost to Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

In 2002, having learned that Singer was a lifelong Star Trek fan, Patrick Stewart arranged for Singer to visit the set of Star Trek Nemesis and appear in the finished film as a Starfleet officer on the bridge of the Enterprise.

On November 16, 2004, a new medical drama debuted on FOX called House, with Singer attached as an executive producer. He also directed the pilot and the third episode, then appeared in a brief cameo as himself in the twelfth episode.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryan Singer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Weinstein Effect

The first line of this paragraph is:

"Allegations against Singer were revived following the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations in 2017, as well as those against frequent collaborator Kevin Spacey."

Singer and Spacey have worked together twice, on The Usual Suspects (1995) and Superman Returns (2006). It is my opinion this hardly qualifies them as 'frequent collaborators'. I would like to change 'frequent' to something a bit less 'weasel-wordy', ie 'some-time'. Anyone else mind if I make this change, as I don't feel two collaborations in a 23 year span will meet anyone's definition of 'frequent'.Robbmonster (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"against Kevin Spacey, with whom Singer had collaborated on two films"? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
That would work for me. Anyone else?Robbmonster (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Frequent collaborators

This section seems to composed solely of actors from the X-men franchise. Given that, does it make sense to have a section on frequent collaborators? The fact that such a section exists suggests that Singer tends to choose to collaborate with the same people, when in fact everyone was merely working together as a side effect of having been cast in a popular franchise. It seems misleading.--Soraciel (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd support removing any actor whose sole collaboration with Singer has been through the X-men films. If that means wiping out the section, or reducing it to a point where deleting it entirely may make more sense, so be it. DonIago (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
In agreement with the sentiments above—I.E. treating the X-Men franchise as a single project—I reduced the section to mention those who Singer worked with on multiple non-X-Men films. ―MJBurrage(T•C) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bryan Singer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

contains a lot of content, though lacking in sources, and style

Last edited at 01:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that all these accusations seem to result in nothing should this section be removed? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I did ask for this to be discussed before removing the section, but since no-one seemed interested, I've just removed it. As I said in the edit comments, you have one case that was dismissed for lack of evidence and two cases that were withdraw by their accusers. Surely we should be expecting something a bit more substantial before sticking the words "child abuse" in the table of contents of someone's biography. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You waited 1 day to remove this, without possibility of any reply, which I'm almost tempted to consider bad-faith editing. The fact that he was accused, and so notably so, is indeed encyclopedic, and worth mentioning in the article, despite whatever reasons the accusations were rejected: eg see Jian Ghomeshi, etc. I will not revert your edits yet, because I want to give other editors a chance to weigh in, but I do recommend that the section be reinstated, under the title of "child abuse allegations". BrxBrx (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It was certainly a notable incident: there was quite a bit of press coverage. I believe it should be restored, under the heading "Child abuse allegations". I don't believe it is giving undue weight to the incident because of the volume of coverage in reliable sources. Both the complaint, which was withdrawn, and the response of Singer's team are mentioned, so it doesn't fail the neutrality test (on that count, at least). MisterRandomized (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with this. Retain the information but emphasize that we're talking about allegations. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
All I know I came to this article to get a summary of what the accusations had been, and was surprised to see absolutely nothing. True or not, the allegations were a notable issue and it harms coverage of the person as a subject to not mention them at all. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Imma give this another day or so before putting it back in then. BrxBrx (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So just so I understand this, someone can accuse you of molesting them as a child with zero evidence, with zero convictions (criminal or civil), with a story that is proved to be false in the case of Michael Egan, and for the rest of your life any time anyone discusses you, you should be referred to as an alleged child abuser? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If the allegations receive significant coverage in major media, the consensus here at least appears to be that it is not inappropriate to discuss the allegations. And allegations are just that, allegations. I could call myself an alleged murderer and it wouldn't mean anything. If the course of this discussion troubles you and what appears to be the current consensus doesn't change, you would of course be welcome to pursue dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sex abuse in Hollywood is a particularly important issue at this time, i.e. is notable/newsworthy, but a large amount of information regarding allegations against Singer along that line was recently deleted from this entry. I've undone those deletions and updated this entry, but I suspect further attempts will be forthcoming.Soraciel (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section

The section should be removed, which I will do with reference to similar issues noted here first, then here, and and once again, here. In those very similar edits, the users were new editors who apparently were unfamiliar with the guidelines explained. The section makes up over 25% of the article! --Light show (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

In light of new coverage of the January 2019 allegations which reinforce the previous lawsuits, I believe the section constitutes due weight and should remain in the article. — Newslinger talk 00:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The section should unquestionably stay, given the way these allegations have impacted on him professionally and on the public perception of him (projects suspended, fired from film, left out of award nominations, etc.), leaving it out would make what happened inexplicable, and make no sense at all. As with Harvey Weinstein, the allegations have become a major part of the person's life, and should therefore be given the appropriate prominence and warrant a separate section. I do however think that the section could be trimmed a little. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The big difference to Weinstein is that Weinstein does not categorically deny the occurance of any sexual activity at all, he just denies that it was unconsensual or that it would constitute rape. Singer's case is much more similar to Kevin Spacey's legal case, where (although Spacey, just like Weinstein, also does not deny sexual activity, especially not sexual activities that took place in public) just like in Singer's case the only reason that the accusers weren't legally sentenced themselves for sex crimes and/or libel was because they voluntarily dropped their legal charges before evidence against them was heard in court (where in Spacey's case, the accuser would've otherwise been charged with the crime of having sexually provoked Spacey by means of public groping as the very act that the accuser had sued Spacey over). --2003:EF:13DB:3B66:1865:2804:51FE:C4F1 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Singer targeted in teen sex abuse lawsuit

This is not CNN. Please refer to BLPCRIME

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
Even tough Bryan Singer is NOT relatively unknown, there is a cadre of editors that lunge at every article attempting to insert any and all salacious content. The same people do not bother to go back and remove the information if the party is NOT convicted. The point is, what encyclopedic value does it serve at this early point to include this suit, which may in fact be tossed out. If it proceeds to trial, then there may be some basis for addition. Bobsd (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I've seen no mention of criminal proceedings at all so far, only a civil lawsuit, so the bit about convictions doesn't really apply. That said, I agree with erring on the side of caution and not including it for now, at least until it becomes a bigger story or until litigation begins in earnest. Evan (talk|contribs) 07:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The standard practice on wikipedia is to include high profile rape or sexual asssault accusations. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Brock_(musician), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Travolta#Personal_life, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger#Sexual_assault_allegations

Three examples do not a rule make ... BTW, 90.220.55.100, get an account, make contributions, and then sign your posts if you are going to taken seriously quoting "standard practices". Bobsd (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The three examples are a strong indication of how this topic is usually treated. I can find more if you want, and I certainly can't find any support for your arbitrary "proceeds to trial" rule. Please address the topic at hand if you want to be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.55.100 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bobsd: "...there is a cadre of editors that lunge at every article attempting to insert any and all salacious content." There is also a cadre of editors who resort to rhetoric about innocent until proven guilty to insist that even alleged offences have no place in entries. This type if editing war happens with high profile crimes such as those of Ariel Castro as well as those of celebrities. You, Bobsd, have misunderstood the essence of due process which is accorded to accusers as well as their alleged assailants. The mention of allegations is not synonymous with a declaration of guilt but your deciding to pretend they don't exist is nothing short of suggesting that the accuser is a liar before a court of law has heard the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.110.229 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear 180.12.110.229. Nothing that you said in your rant has any bearing on my point. I do not misunderstand the essence of due process. Nothing I said " ... is nothing short of suggesting that the accuser is a liar ..." My point is that Wikipedia has guidelines. It is not primarily a source for current events. The fact that it can be up-to-date is wonderful, as long as it does not diminish it's veracity. The reason there are guidelines is to guide editors. I suggest you actually read BLPCRIME or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." BTW, 60.241.96.232 vandalized my User Page on April 17 @ 7:51 pm. I guess he didn't like my position of following guidelines either. Bobsd (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the opening paragraph should mention that he's a deviant, considering how many times he has been accused. 2003:F4:1F12:DE01:4C90:842E:3C52:5D89 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead already makes reference to this in the final paragraph. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bryan_Singer/Archive_1&oldid=1239787529"