Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2
  • 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).

  • Smee, I thought you took this page off your watch list? That is what you told the admins, isn't it? --Justanother 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please keep your comments to content, not contributors. And yes, I had taken this article off of my watchlist to avoid harassment. Now that this issue is settled with the bogus 3RR, I put it back on my watchlist. As stated, I personally will NOT re-add the link itself, however I have said my piece regarding that it should go back into the External Links section, as stated above. Thanks. Let us leave space to see what others think now and not go back and forth. We all know what you feel about the link in question. Smee 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
      • See Smee, this is exactly what I mean. There is nothing inappropriate about me asking you that question and normally I would have simply asked it on your talk page. But have "banned" me from your talk page so I have to ask it here. There is nothing inappropriate in my asking and all your protests in the world will not make my asking inappropriate. --Justanother 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE - Smee's claim that there was no compromise is just flat wrong. See "The torrent" issue above and these lines (emphasis added):

    Left. Yes, that is what I mean. OK, do we have a compromise here? --Justanother 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, we have a compromise. Netslaveone 18:29 GMT+2 03/11/06

    Smee, please be more careful. Thanks. --Justanother 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion of link's inclusion not finished: - Note: Please also see section above that was titled: Link to watch the film, in addition to commentary I made in this subsection above. Please leave room for other editors to comment below. Thanks. Smee 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Note - Also please note that the compromise reached above included (6) editors from all sides of the issue and we all came together that the link stays out while a descriptive line as agreed upon stays in. We already have a compromise but we can certainly reinvent the wheel, if we want to. That is the nature of this place. But until and unless we reach a new compromise, let's stick with the existing one, please. --Justanother 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, let's not. The very fact that editors keep on adding the link back in is testament to the fact that there are many that feel that this is a form of censorship. Smee 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • No, let's do. The link is inappropriate. That has been discussed ad nauseum here and a reasonable compromise was reached and you, all by your lonesome, want to throw that over. Not OK, Smee. --Justanother 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
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. [[1]]) AndroidCat 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please include this link: http://www.netskrill.com/the_bridge_movie.php

Request for Comment - Inclusion of external link to film.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Talk:The Bridge (film) - Should an external link to watch the film The Bridge (film) be allowed, in the External Link section of the article? 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • NOTE: - While the subject EL being reinserted is often a specific link to a site critical of Scientology, this discussion is not about linking to any site in particular, simply about providing a link to the film on a site, such as YouTube, or Google Video, or other site where the video is also available. 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Previously involved editors

  • 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).

NOTE: - Hanover has removed the request not to distribute the film from his website [2]. 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).
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)
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).
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)
  • Keep it out as per existing compromise. - Covered above in previous discussions. Very questionable copyright status. The rights owner has asked that it be withdrawn. The most frequest reinsertion of the link is to a Scientology smear site; POV, non-RS; but it is an inappropriate link wherever the video is found. Violates WP:COPY and WP:EL on the copyright issue (WP:CONVENIENCE, while an essay, especially makes it clear). Compromise already reached by (6) editors from all sides of the issue that the EL stays out but an agreed-upon descriptive line stay in. --Justanother 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

  • Include link. - because 1) the statement in the credits at the end of the film grants free online distribution; 2) I can't find any statement on Brett Hanover's site canceling the statement. Raymond Hill 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include link. - because 1) Wikipedia can NOT be held accountable or liable linking to the video of 'The Bridge' movie especially when the content has been deemed 'Fair Use' as the Bridge Movie clearly states in the credits; 2) Brett Hanover requested that all copies of the video be returned and anyone hosting the site to please remove it. Is Wikipedia hosting the video? Can this comment by Brett be found anywhere? No to both questions. So why is the link not up already?

Also, 'Justanother' - Are you a Scientologist? Just curious.

Paulhorner 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Paul Horner

The following has been added here to prevent counting this editors vote twice, however his comments should be included as part of his original vote. Anynobody 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A link to the video needs to be on the Wiki article. It's a hard search to find the video on Youtube or Google video and if it is found it has usually already been pulled. We've already decided that linking to the movie is fine. There's been three solutions presented here that all work. The editors need to decide on one. -1) The Modemac site -2) Impartial site -3) XenuTV.com Paulhorner 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Look at my user page --Justanother 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that. So, what's the hold up? Why is the link to the video not back up? Paulhorner 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Paul Horner

Paul, are you critical of Scientology? --Justanother 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You're seen his site. AndroidCat 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, did not know it was his. --Justanother 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Additions of mine are usually in poor taste? That hurts AndroidCat. I would disagree with that statement. Also, am I the only one here that finds it truly ironic that a Scientologist has the final say in whether a film critical of Scientology gets linked to or not? Paulhorner 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not include. If the link in question is to scientomogy.com, then the answer is unequivocally no, because the site fails the attribution policies for reliable sources. If any other link would like to be discussed, it should be introduced here on the talk page for discussion before insertion. Linking to the video is a questionable action, even if the full rights are granted by the movie itself, because it is somewhat self-serving and borders on violation of primary sourcing guidelines for that very reason. ju66l3r 03:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input. I agree with you %100. Let's talk about another link. How about this one - http://www.scientomogy.com/the_bridge_movie.php? It contains no links to anything that might not sit well with justanother or his organization. Like I said in my post below and what justanother is hinting at is that you could just link to a Youtube or Google video page. Unfortunately this will not work. This movie is getting removed by someone (Not saying the Church of Scientology) all the time. So it would become a dead link once every couple weeks and I know Wikipedia does not like to see dead external links. So I hope my page I just put together will make all parties here happy, because that is my true goal in this matter Paulhorner 04:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input. I preferred that the links not be put on this talk page pending the outcome of this RfC. But we are just talking a YouTube or Google Video link. --Justanother 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
How is Scientomogy.com not a reliable source? How is any website a reliable source? Should CNN host this? Or are they reliable? A lot of people would say they are not. Rights to the movie are granted for online distribution according to the movie's credits, I think this has already been covered. It is not self serving to link to this movie. Someone (Not saying the Church of Scientology) has gotten this movie removed from Google, Youtube etc atleast once every other week. It takes someone, like myself, that has a DVD of the movie that can keep uploading the video when someone (Not saying the Church of Scientology) gets the movie pulled again. I have been the only one that has kept a page for this movie updated with torrents, downloads, reviews and a working copy of the movie %100 of the time. Notice if you search Google for "bridge movie" or "bridge film" I'm number three. If Google agrees with me, would that make me a reliable source? Paulhorner 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the attribution guideline for what constitutes a reliable source. In particular, the Scientomogy website runs afoul as a questionable source which makes it unreliable:
  • A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, tabloids, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see the self-publication provision of the policy.
Considering the header image for your site starts with a photoshopped image of L.Ron Hubbard with a Hitler mustache and hair style, it's pretty clear that you are running an extreme anti-religious website. I personally have no qualm with the strength of your convictions on this subject, but unfortunately, your site is a self-published, anti-religious website with little editorial oversight, meaning that it fails our guidelines for a reliable source. I also still contend that even if CNN were hosting the movie, there is still the problem that inclusion of the movie itself as an external link is self-serving and primary sourcing, neither of which make it a very good external link. ju66l3r 04:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you see what I did here - http://www.scientomogy.com/the_bridge_movie.php Does this satisy the Wiki Gods? Paulhorner 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly does look a lot better and NPOV. Smee 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Please remain civil. There are no "Wiki Gods" here. To answer your question about the newly redacted version of the page, I still say no. The fact that you can take 10 minutes to remove all of the over-the-top anti-religious templating from one of your own webpages exemplifies why self-published sites are not good sources or external links. It should not be the onus of every other editor to constantly monitor every external link to verify that a self-published source hasn't reverted, "updated", or otherwise modified their content in a way that could significantly affect the content of the page and its relevance/quality pertaining to the subject matter. This is exactly why editorial oversight is important and why we require reliable sourcing and exactly why your site does not adhere to that guideline. ju66l3r 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. Well then lets have an impartial web site with an impartial web page that shows the movie - http://www.netskrill.com/the_bridge_movie.php. NetSkrill.com is an LLC that I own. It's like a lendingtree.com type of website. Please view my home page or index. I would never alter my mortgage lead generating site to become a Scientomogy.com type critic site, it would not make sense to do that. Nothing would link to this page that has the Bridge Movie on it except Wikipedia. Also, if you have any doubts that I might alter the site in the future (to become one sided), I won't. I know editors like User:Justanother are there to catch me slip up and I won't let them. Paulhorner 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your promise here does not a reliable source make. I think I've made it abundantly clear the kind of coverage that would satisfy the guidelines so I'm not going to quote them again. But I will add yet another one that's applicable: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. I've attempted to find other more reliable sourcing myself and can find nothing that would suffice and there's still the issues I brought up earlier of linking to the film being self-serving and self-publishing (meaning the director, not your website, in this context). There's nothing at this time about directly linking to the film (or one of your webpages with the film on it that makes me feel that the guidelines are being met. ju66l3r 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

  • Well, that's the problem. I searched on Google for sources that would satisfy our guidelines and also reported on the film/film's content or even maintained a copy of the film. I could not find any. There were a limited number of related hits and most were blog entries describing the fact that Scientology lawyers were threatening lawsuits against other sites related to the content of the movie and/or the removal of the movie from the blogs for that same reason. Blogs aren't reliable sources for our purposes here. I found a page at the New York Times that simply lists the director and one or two other basic facts that only establishes that they know about the film, but no review or articles related to the silencing of the film by Scientologists. Finally, there is a minor blurb in an entertainment-related column at MSNBC, but it comments little on the film other than to reinforce that sites are requested to remove the film...something that seems well-enough established and is unrelated to actually linking to a copy of the film, which is the point of this discussion...so in the end "what other more reliable sources?"...the answer I come up with is "none"...thus I don't feel there should be a link to the film since we can not find a suitable one to do so. ju66l3r 06:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely a link should be included.Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral entity which can allow people to see both sides of the coin.Scientologists may choose to live in a world where what they see and hear is contolled by their Church.The general public,or 'wogs' as Scientology calls us,choose freedom of speech and freedom of information.Why does Scientology find this film so threatening?Surely if it isn't true,it shouldn't be a problem.Vincentsinclair 07:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) — Vincentsinclair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You are quite wrong if you think that we Scientologists are limited in what we can see or hear. Scientologists, as a whole, IMO, avoid heavily-biased, vindictive misrepresentations of something that they know quite a bit about and, with the exception of a vocal few, critics know little about, most critics simply parrotting biased misrepresentations that they read on the internet. The film is not "threatening". It was heavily laden with copyright infringement and the maker had to withdraw it. It could have been made without the copyright infringement and I, for one, would have no problem with that. I liked the film. It was not an accurate portrayal of what it is like to be a Scientologist or how auditing works or just about anything but it could have served as a topic for discussion had not it been such a blatant copyvio problem. Oh well. --Justanother 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. The article should be neutral in presenting the facts surrounding this film, from its creation to its eventual disowning by its director. Unfortunately, there is nothing about describing everything relevant to this film that requires or requests that the film itself be linked. Even if we were to choose to do so, can you provide a link where it would be appropriate and within guidelines to do so? ju66l3r 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I wrote a review of the film myself and host it on my own Web site: http://www.modemac.com/wiki/The_Bridge -- what's more, a link to my review and others was already on this article until JustAnother removed it. I know that posting links to my own Web site is frowned upon here at Wikipedia, so I can only leave it to others' judgement to decide whether my review is considered an "acceptable source of information" about to the movie. (And yes, JustAnother (and Terryeo), my Web site is biased against Scientology. That's why it's on my Web site and not here.) I submitted the review to the Internet Movie Database, but it is not there because there is no IMDB entry on the movie (and probably won't be until the movie becomes legally available without Scientology attacking it). --Modemac 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a pleasant surprise. There was actually another movie released in 2006 called The Bridge, and for a while this was the only one listed in IMDB. --Modemac 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: - User:Justanother, It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to remove Paulhorner's comments here. Please do not do this again. Thanks. Smee 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
    • For those who do not know, Paulhorner attempted to put another comment here in this subsection, which User:Justanother interpreted as what he called in the edit summary a "double vote" (even though there is no such thing as a "vote" in an WP:RFC). He then proceeded to remove this comment three times: DIFF 1, DIFF 2, DIFF 3, DIFF 4. I cannot restore it, but someone else should, for it is highly inappropriate for one editor to remove another's comment on a talkpage, unless it is a blatant threat or personal attack. He must REALLY not want other editors to read what Paulhorner said... Smee 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Good, do not go past 3RR. I would prefer that you abided by 1RR, myself. It accomplishes the same purpose and is less disruptive. An RfC is designed to guage community opinion on an issue and see if there is consensus for any particular position. It is a "vote". And it is one vote to a customer. PaulHorner already voted include (in bold). You were careless in not checking more closely before reverting my removal of his second vote. I was careful and I checked carefully including checking the history and the diff on his first vote before I removed his second vote without prejudice. I wish you would exercise the same care. This is not a personal attack. This is not uncivil. --Justanother 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
So where do we all stand? A link to the video needs to be on the Wiki article, that's already agreed on. The movie is a hard search to find on Youtube or Google video and if it is found it has usually already been pulled. We've already decided that linking to the movie is fine, but obviously we can't link directly to Youtube or Google video. There's been three solutions presented in this discussion here that all work fine in my opinion. The editors here need to decide on one and add it. 1)The Modemac site - Critical of Scientology 2) Impartial site 3) XenuTV.com - Critical of Scientology

Paulhorner 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, you already typed those three words once and that constituted a vote in this RfC so you should not have double-voted. I figured that you were not familiar and I removed your post without prejudice. You are free to write whatever you like that is relevant to the discussion but is not a double-vote. I also object to including "live" links here as such links are the very subject we are discussing. We already know what we are talking about, Google Vid or YouTube. Your critic site is obviously no-go. I would also speak against your commercial site as being commercial. Assuming that any link at all is allowed, of course, which I have already voted against. --Justanother 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please include link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.252.246 (talk • contribs). Please include the following link in this article: http://www.netskrill.com/the_bridge_movie.php

A review of the movie by a Scientologist would be most helpful. --12.27.177.240 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I put one here. But I don't know about getting it anywhere that will show up in the article. --Justanother 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, no offense meant, some of your "review" was intriguing, but I could not understand the bulk of it because of all of the Scientology jargon usage. Smee 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm the official worldwide distributor of 'The Bridge' movie. See here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907842/companycredits. Justanother, I just noticed you deleted an external link to the movie on my site that someone else posted. Please correct your mistake, or explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs).
Paul, how can you have those rights when the rights holder withdrew the film? Also, any chance of a scan of the letter giving you rights going up on your site? --Justanother 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, are you saying IMDB is not a reliable source?Paulhorner 05:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that it has been decided that IMDB isn't a reliable source in previous cases. AndroidCat 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
IMDB is currently a wiki-like, user-edited site making it a non-reliable source of information. ju66l3r 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All information submitted is reviewed by independent managers working for IMDB. It is not, simply a "wiki-like, user-edited site", for it has independent review and oversight, prior to any submitted changes being implemented. Smee 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • While they now have staff to perform some sanity checks and weed out vandalism, much of their input still comes from outside sources.[3] For a film like The Bridge, how they could know anything than what they were told by someone, and how could they check who the distributor (if any) really is? AndroidCat 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing my name to this last post of mine. Still getting the hang of things here  :) Paulhorner 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no prob. As an aside, see your talk page, subsection "Userpage", for some fun "Userboxes" and other things to do with your Userpage if you're bored... Smee 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey thanks Smee. I appreciate your help! Paulhorner 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an [unprejudiced] avid user of Wikipedia. I am neither for or against Scientology. I believe that you should include an external link to the movie "The Bridge" unto your wikipedia pages, if appropriate to the query material. To ban such a link, would make me question the unbiased validity of Wikipedia. I VOTE TO USE A LINK~ IF NEEDED, MAKE IT A LINK TO XENUTV.COM: http://www.xenutv.com/bridge/index.html. THANK YOU!! -DENISE 199.91.34.33 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.91.34.33 (talk • contribs).

  • Denise, if you wish to differentiate yourself from the potential other individuals that have edited under that IP address, and build up your own style, I would suggest that you create a username and account on Wikipedia. Welcome! Smee 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Voting section

Include the link assuming caveat not fulfilled. As I understand this type of copyright, what owner did was calculated to allow distribution by others to continue, and I'll explain why. Simply issue a statement saying that the copyright holder wants material to stop being distributed, means nothing unless that person is willing to pursue action himself in court. I'm assuming he was threatened with a lawsuit, and in order to avoid it he ceased distribution and made a public statement. Bear in mind the CoS still doesn't own the rights for the film, so they can't sue distributors on his behalf. Further, I think he has to change the film's copyright status through a court before he could actually start suing anyone. If it can be shown that a change in copyright status was made through a court ruling, we should not include the link (obviously) Anynobody 08:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Include a link: The fact that a site is critical of scientology should have little bearing, as the content of the film being discussed is also critical of scientology. I think this satisfies the provision for using a questionable source. Quoting from above: "Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves;."

This is a movie made by scientology critics, hosted on the web largely by scientology critics. I find it absurd that no reliable sources can be found to link to even though the film is readily available on the web, simply because none of the sites are neutral. Of course they're not. Silver bow 09:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

forgive me for being a layperson here,i am not used to message boards. anyway, i am compelled to speak out for the publication of a link for the movie "The Bridge." i dont understand what the deal is!! WIKIPEDIA is well known for its neutrality, and its ability to show EITHER SIDE of a topic, allowing its reader to see "both sides of the coin." if there arent any issues related to copyright infringement and whatnot, then allow the link! "The Bridge" is a significant movie that should be available to the public, when the public is trying to research/ learn about scientology. it would be UNFAIR to selectively show critical sites, and to freely show non critical sites. BOTH should be available. This topic should have never come this far! If Wikipedia decides to censor a link to "The Bridge," then i will DEFINETLY acclimate myself to message boards, and make sure that the public is aware of such biased actions. thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion, and have a great week!! --DENISE. [SMEE: thank you for the advice! As soon as I can, I will create a username/ account here on Wikipedia.]199.91.34.33 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Include a link or is wikipedia run by the Scientologists?:)Merkinsmum 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why is there not a link to this movie up already? I'm going to post a link again. 'Justanother' will delete it saying something like we haven't decided on it yet or something like "Wikipedia is controlled by Scientologists so back off Wog". Paulhorner 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Include a link This whole debate is silly. Perhaps I'm not assuming good faith, but when I see a bunch of people arguing Copy-Vio against an indirect link to a piece of media that has distribution permissions legitimately embedded into it and some others arguing bias against the same link because it's hosted by people who support the views expressed in the film (As opposed to what?), then it becomes very hard to assume good faith for the whole lot of them. (PS. I have no vested interest in this page. I just followed a link from the main page. I have gotten into the habit of checking talk pages and couldn't resist adding my own two cents.) APL 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Undue weight to dedication

I see that someone has added a lot of undue weight to the dedication in what seems to be an effort to turn an article on a short film into an anti-Scientology propaganda piece. The film was an anti-Scientology propaganda piece; that is fine. Our article should not be. Undue weight should not be given to the dedication unless such weight is found in RS. And if not then please remove the screenshot, the cquote, the section. A mention in the body of the article is certainly appropriate. Thank you. --Justanother 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the undue weight and moved the dedication to the intro; perhaps that is more than necessary but I was looking for a compromise. If contested, I can start an RfC if there is not sufficient NPOV input here. Thanks. --Justanother 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Undue weight" is itself a POV term. Including screenshots from a film are common in article's about said film. You have seen the film. What additional screenshots would you like to include and I will work on including them? Thanks. Smee 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Please explain how a screenshot from the film in the article about the film is not appropriate. Thanks. Smee 03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Smee, please do not add whole sections without consensus that change the character of the article from a fairly NPOV little piece to a propaganda piece. Such edits as the "Dedication" section will not stand 3rd party scrutiny. And why in the word would you call "undue weight" a POV term? --Justanother 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In other words and to make it crystal clear. The film gets to make any dedication it likes and, as it is a propaganda piece, it chose that one. Fine. You don't get to make the same dedication in the article complete with screenshot, dedicated section, cquote. That is old school, Smee. That is how articles used to be made here. It doesn't work anymore. There's a new sheriff in town. Sorry. You missed the Wild Wild Wiki-West. --Justanother 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dedication (disputed section)

Screenshot from The Bridge, dedication, before credits.











Comments

Undue weight, propaganda, attempt to add a highly POV "dedication" to a wikipedia article (in other words as if the article carries the dedication in addition to the film). Highly inappropriate. --Justanother 04:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the dedication and screenshot as a subsection of this article are encyclopedic. This is not the same as "undue weight". Undue weight would be if someone felt that Scientology had made this movie to use as a prop to show their muscle. That person then adds as much context and information about their theory (using wholly reliable sources, mind you) as there is for the rest of the article about the movie itself. That would be undue weight for a fringe theory. It should carry the same informational standing as the rest of the entire article, because nobody but that one person supports that idea.
But back to my original point, I still agree with the outcome of removing it, because it is essentially a Memoriam which is one of the things that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. A blocked off quote and screenshot and subsection for the dedication alone (all 20 seconds or so of the original film?) is unnecessary to an adequate description of the movie. The article should be descriptive of the film and any potential controversy surrounding it and not a secondary means of portraying the sentiments of the film. If the fact that the movie was dedicated to a particular person or group of people is relevant to describing the film, then it is simple enough to say so: The film was dedicated to "so and so". or Brett Hanover chose to dedicate the film to "(a certain group of people)". So, while I don't agree that it falls under undue weight, I do believe it is immaterial to a good description of the movie in its exampled state. ju66l3r 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand how this could be interpreted as POV in any way whatsoever. It is the dedication of the movie, period. Smee 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry if your "minutiae" is inappropraite, Smee. Go ahead and do an RfC if you don't want to take our words for it (different reasons, same outcome). --Justanother 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Dedication screenshot

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).

Previously involved editors

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).
    • COMMENT: - Justanother, in this particular RFC I would most appreciate it and I request that there is no commenting below others' comments ad nauseam. Let us all see what other editors have to say, simply after the comments that we have both already stated, without feeling the need to comment below everyone else's comments. You don't need to respond to this, but if you do, please respond below your comment. Thank you. Smee 06:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Justanother
  • Undue weight, undue prominence, if you prefer, in the article to a dedication in the film; screenshot, separate "Dedication" section; cquote; serves to change a nice little fairly NPOV article about a small anti-Scientology propaganda piece; change the article into a propaganda piece itself. It even manages to make it appear as if the article itself carries the "dedication". Sheesh! --Justanother 06:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ju66l3r
  • See discussion section above. Unencyclopedic and can be covered by a single sentence commenting on the fact that there was a dedication in the film. Reporting on the irony of the dedication is original research. We are not here to interpret or commentate on how the film has resolved in the same manner as what the director was intending to expose. That's for the reader to decide, etc. Interpretation of the film is OR. Describing the movie and any controversy around it does not require a subsection for the dedication, along with a screenshot, along with graphically quoted text, along with 8 line breaks to isolate it. ju66l3r 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

  • 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)
Comment from Smee, compromise, end RFC.
  • Thank you GunnarRene, for providing your comment: 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). I have implemented your comment into the article and I believe this particular RFC is ended thanks to your help. Yours, Smee 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Please notice, Smee, that that is exactly what I did for you at the start of this. Please see here. You are likewise wasting a lot of time over at the template, Template talk:ScientologySeries. IMO, you are wasting your time trying to POV-push a minor point that, if history is any indication, will go against you. Why bother, man? I would put this in your talk but you have banned me from there. --Justanother 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • For the purposes of this RFC, this discussion related to content is done. For other issues, you have refused to communicate with User:Anynobody for what you perceived as offensive behaviour, and I feel I must do the same for you. My apologies. Yours, Smee 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

""""I moved the dedication reference to the "synopsis" section, where I think it fits much better, logically, since that's the place where details of the film's content are discussed. OK? BTfromLA 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You don't understand. Neutral editor GunnarRene, and others above have already weighed in on this. The issue wasn't actually whether to include the dedication in the intro, the issue was whether to include a screenshot of the dedication in the article. The dedication in the intro was agreed upon by all involved. Smee 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The movie's POV

Justanother, please explain your reasons for continuously deleting (a) an image from the movie, (b) a link to an online copy of the movie. The excuse that it's POV-pushing just won't wash. The Bridge is a movie critical of Scientology. That's it's POV. Does this mean that we can't show any images from the movie? And if an extremely relevant EL like where to actually see a copy of the movie can be chopped because you have decided that it's a POV site, well, there are plenty of other ELs that could likewise be removed. I suggest that you re-read WP:EL. AndroidCat 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That screencap is gratuitous and was inserted by Smee to simply push the Clambake site. The article already contains a good screencap, no need for that one too, a screencap of a simple computer screen. Also, even neglecting the blatant copyvio nature of the film (the reason it was pulled from circulation) there is no need to promote a problematic POV copyvio site. Go ahead and get a WP:3O if you doubt my take on it. --Justanother 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You're both wrong. Although it's true the second screenshot was a gratuitous Smee-ism, it really does no harm in the article and I don't see why Justanother would take such a stand on it. On the other hand, there's no excuse for AndroidCat defending the inclusion of an EL that points to a copyvio-fest like xenutv. wikipediatrix 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
'Trix, that screenshot is totally boring and adds nothing to the article. It only exists to get a second hotlink in to Clambake. There is already a more appropriate link to Clambake in the body of the article. I don't know if you guys followed the recent wiki-furor over an article on a business.com site that told how to game Wikipedia to push your company or to minimize criticism of it. One of the "pushing" techniques is the use of images as the eye naturally goes to images. Gratuitous use of images to further a POV is inappropriate. --Justanother 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL. This isn't the "Durks"/Horner site. Ignoring the huge amount of original works presented on the xenutv.com site, the videos used with permission, the issues with fair use of archives of 20 year-old news programs, and other issues, let's go straight to Wiki's guidelines and policies:
The xenutv site blatantly admits that it is showing the video against its creator's wishes: "Brett asked for the movie to be removed from the net under pressure from Scientology. I took the film down at his request but multiple others reposted it to GoogleVideo and elsewhere. To pretend it doesn't exist while people continue to view the film no longer seems logical to me so I have decided to link to one of the many copies of the film found on the net." Therefore, by xenutv's own admission, it is abetting in the theft of Brett's intellectual property and violation of his copyright, with the lame excuse that "well, others are doing it". Any "online use" notice in the film's credits obviously came before its subsequent withdrawal. wikipediatrix 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Rehash of old news. "'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." and Talk:The Bridge (film)#Request for Comment - Inclusion of external link to film. AndroidCat 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean it was licensed. By your own source's own admission, the online distribution permission has now been revoked by the film's creator. wikipediatrix 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Re-read the RfC, all that was discussed already. AndroidCat 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to my satisfaction. You're pushing a vid link that openly admits that the film's creator asked that the film be pulled from the web. Brett's copyright trumps this RfC you keep clinging to. wikipediatrix 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Contrawise. You and Justanother are pushing for the removal of a link that was argued over (including request vs. granting permission-free distribution) and decided months ago. If you feel that there is anything new to be discussed, start another RfC to see if you can get a consensus that's favourable to your point of view. I do have to laugh at the shifting reasons given for removing the link. Obviously getting the link gone is the important thing. AndroidCat 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope. YOU start an RfC if you don't like my reasons for removing the link, which I will continue to do as long as the source linked to openly acknowledges that it is linking to pirated work. That's always been my reason and it hasn't "shifted" one iota. wikipediatrix 17:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
A wish is not a legal statement ordering its removal: it's just a wish. I give more weight to the ending credit of the movie, and to the previous request for comment. There is no logic in not linking to it because the director expressed a "wish". Personally, all I know is that he doesn't support the movie — hence the complete removal from his web site, with no mention forbidding its free distribution. By your logic, that would that make me, or anybody else not closely involved, an appropriate source for linking. I reinstate the link. Raymond Hill 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not buying it. The owner of the film no longer wishes it to be disseminated. Make all the Clintonian word-parsing gymnastics you like about what "wish" means, but his wishes trump yours. wikipediatrix 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I was told he would not support it anymore. So that would make me a proper source to link to, as per your logic. Or anybody else who had no contact with B. Hanover would also be a proper source, again as per your logic. Using M. Bunker's statement as the rational to not link to the movie is improper: only Brett Hanover, through official mean (his web site would be a good place) can make an attempt at forbidding the free distribution of the movie. M. Bunker's statement has no weight on whether the movie should be distributed or not: the credit at the end of the movie is what is left, and because of that, the movie can be freely watched online. Respect the previous request for comment of that matter please. Raymond Hill 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are extrapolating beyond reason Mark Bunker's "Brett asked for the movie to be removed". We don't know what was the nature of the conversation, and we also don't even know whether Brett Hanover has the right for the movie to be removed. What is known though, is that the movie allows free online distribution, as seen in the credit. Taking Mark Bunker's statement as a proof that it's illegal to distribute the movie is erroneous. Now, above you say to AndroidCat to "start another RfC" as he also disagree with the removal of the link. You need to start a new RfC, since you are the one disagreeing with the last agreed upon RfC. Raymond Hill 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I do know that with software, after something has been released, you can't retroactively impose a more restrictive license or permission on that release. You can make it less restrictive (copyleft), or change the permission in a later release (the one with the bug fixes), but you can't tell people to quit using software that you originally gave permission to use and distribute. I'm sure there's a good explanation of this somewhere and why it applies to works in general. (And no I'm not going to look for one while there's a perfectly valid RFC on the topic already.) AndroidCat 01:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This a copyrighted work that the author (and his estate after he dies) will own for a long time. They certainly do have the right to control how their copyrighted material is distributed. Just because he allowed people to freely disseminate the material at one time does not mean he gives up ownership or control of his copyright for all time. Licenses are often revoked by the people that give them out. Just type in "revoke license" in google and you can see that it is certainly possible to do so. In some cases the license is only revokable if certain conditions are met as specified in the license. There certainly is NO REASON to use the site XenuTV.com as an external link, especially since that site is not even hosting the video. The video is hosted by Google Video here (at least until Google Video receives yet another take-down notice and removes the film yet again for violating copyright.) Vivaldi (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please produce a cite of what Brett Hanover's current wishes are. AndroidCat 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Standardizing citations

Information on Possible Repression

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)

Article title -->The Bridge (2006 drama)

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)

Absolutely correct. Done. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change it but for different reasons

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)
  • Everytime a link is posted for the information referenced it is removed. Seems like they don't want to keep with the way this is supposed to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.95.197 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)


WP:NOR violation

This edit by Lexein (talk · contribs) is a violation of WP:NOR. This fits the very definition of original research - use of a primary source in order to somehow "verify" that something is not there. This should be removed from the article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This = is still WP:NOR violation. It does not matter if it is hidden and tucked away in a footnote. The text "As of 2007, the notice was taken down." is still WP:NOR violation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
How many places do you want to have this discussion? It's hardly fair play.
  1. Examine the article history. The first time the absence was noted, by another editor, was contemporaneous: 2007, per the accessdate. I surmise this happened while verifying citations. I merely established that in web.archive.org, and updated the accessdate, and _now_ it's unacceptable to you?
  2. Slow down. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and no need to panic, or yell, or insist. Notes are exactly the correct place for such information. I'm trying to find again the guideline which supports it, and I will certainly cite it for you. Please refrain from using "violation" - no such thing. Footnotes are very commonly used for citing facts observed by article authors - it's literally done all the time without being flagged by you as OR. The footnoted cited fact does not meet the grand definition of OR at all, nor does it rise to the level of "violation" of anything. There's no "hiding" and no "tucking". The note is placed in plain sight. Please also refrain from jumping ahead too far, too fast, and too angrily. --Lexein (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You incorrectly infer about emotional states. The content is WP:NOR violation. It should be removed. Wikipedians should not infer and make assumptions based on primary sources, that is what secondary sources are used for. -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand in what sense it is original research to observe that a notice was removed from the website in question. Is it simply because the editor who made that observation did so on the basis of looking at the website with their own eyes, or is there some other subtlety that I'm missing? Please help me understand. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. A Wikipedian would have to go check the website in the first place, in order to check that the initial comment was there.
  2. A Wikipedian observes that the notice appears to not be there.
  3. A Wikipedia checks other pages on the website, and fails to find the comment on other sections of the same website.
  4. A Wikipedia makes the determination on their own that the notice was removed.
  5. Keep in mind this was a comment made by a WP:BLP, and it is a comment within a very controversial topic, Scientology, subject to restrictions from two ArbCom cases, WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI.
  6. No, in this context, this type of WP:NOR violation should not be permitted in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that, as a Scientology article, this article is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than most. Nonetheless I'm having a little trouble understanding why WP:OR applies to "By 2007 this notice had been removed" but not to, say, "In 2007 this website said". Would it be acceptable to use links to both "before" and "after" links, and say only that the notice did appear at a specific URL at one time and that it no longer appeared there at the later date, to avoid even a small degree of synthesis? Tim Pierce (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It would really just be ideal to rely on secondary sources as much as possible. But I suppose that is a logical suggestion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, of course. I just don't agree that this is a useful definition of "original research." Ultimately everything that goes into Wikipedia gets filtered through an editor's eyeballs and restated. You have to allow for at least a very small amount of reinterpretation. Otherwise we could reasonably say that, for example, citing MSNBC as a source for saying "MSNBC quoted an Emmy-award-winning journalist...." is original research, or that citing Allmovie as a source for describing what Allmovie said is original research, or citing the Commercial Appeal as a source for what the Commercial Appeal said is original research. All of these require an editor to visit what is essentially a primary source for those statements, even if it is a secondary source for the article's subject. They all require the editor to interpret their perception of the source. Indeed, interpretation is inevitable -- the point of the policies is to keep it to a minimum. So I think WP:PRIMARY permits references to primary sources, such as bretthanover.com, if they are very carefully worded to avoid any synthesis (e.g. my suggestion above). Even for Scientology articles. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No, there is a difference when secondary sources are used for such statements, and primary sources. A newspaper article is a secondary source. A website that is the official website of a film is a primary source about the film. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, the article looks a bit better now, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved to note

[4] - 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)

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)
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)

Please disregard, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bunker

[5] = 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)

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)
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)
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)
 Done, as suggested, by Conti (talk · contribs), [6]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Update:  Done, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Added the newsgroup archive link above as backup to the xenu.net copy of the email. --Lexein (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tor claim unsourced

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)

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:

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) 05:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Bridge, Brett Hanover, Dedication, before ending credits., September 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bridge_(2006_drama_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1038531096"