Talk:Victor Salva/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

I removed information related to expert opinions on recidivism rates of sex offenders. First of all, such information is beyond the scope of this article. Second of all, the information stated was factually incorrect. The Center for Sex Offender Management (US Department of Justice) states in their myth vs fact section: "It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population." http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

More detailed information on this can be found in the following document http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html. Needless to say, an in-depth analysis of recidivism rates among sex offenders is unnecessary for an article of this nature and the statement that was removed does not in any way diminish the impact of what was said or change the substance of the article at all.

What I don't get is why Salva keeps doing this, but what's with the constant showing of boys with their shirts off in his movies? I mean in almost every one there is a young male walking around with his shirt off. --Jorge Kluney

• I'm not sure what to think of it. Knowing his history makes me uncomfortable with the male nudity he puts in his films. However, I'd rather see him put this stuff into his films than act on it and cause trouble all over again. Also, it's worth noting that many films--horror movies especially--involve teenage girls (or teenage characters) who are very clearly eroticized, with nudity and everything. I don't see how that's any better or worse. The directors of those films seem to be encouraging male viewers to get aroused by underage girls, the same way Salva's films do the same for boys. The only difference is, we know for sure Salva has acted on it at least once, whereas we often don't know the history of directors who have the girls take off their clothes. VertigoXpress 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

well... except for Roman Polanski that is... I think a lot of men think of the underage girl thing as 'par for the course' but are way more freaked out when it's boys instead, as they can empathise more easily with the victims. There's always lots of guys saying 'the artist is separate from the art' when it's some guy doing dodgy things to female victims; but as soon as it's a guy on guy thing it suddenly becomes a bigger deal in their minds. I am shocked Salva still has a career though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.223.123 (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Malicious intent

"Winters, who is urging a boycott, is equally emphatic about Salva. 'I don't care what he does with his life,' he says, 'but he should never be around a child again.'" Ref:http://www.vachss.com/mission/disney.html

Let's have a look at that statement about Powder. Salva wasn't "around a child" in the making of Powder. Does Winters think that Salva should find an all-adult planet to live on?

If Winters really didn't care what Salva does with his life, if Winters wasn't trying to drum up noise (the story made Variety) for himself while getting more hide from Salva, he wouldn't have been passing out flyers that read "Please don't spend your money on this movie. It would just go to line the pockets of this child molester." Clue folks: It would "just" go into the pockets of movie theatres (who employ teens) and Disney, film studios, etc. - the one GNP that is still thriving in this country. So yes, let's lose the beautiful message of Powder and crucify Salva for the rest of his life, let Disney and others eat millions of dollars for having dared to let the man (who paid for his crime) make the film. How short-sighted and knee-jerk can we get?

Again, I'm not condoning Salva's action, but neither am I condoning our reaction and the witchhunts that continue a decade after Salva gave a young teen a blowjob. Perhaps we need to take a look at our own issues and motivations, consider why it's so terribly offensive to us... while making a film about some sickos who carve up people while they're still alive (Hostel, Saw, etc.) is entirely acceptable. --JT 19:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, let me think. Perhaps it's because I think that making a horror movie is acceptable, but actually molesting a child is not. You DO realise that movies are just make-believe, right? Pearce.duncan (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. As far as I'm concerned, neither Leigh Whannell or James Wan ever engaged in pedophilia. And if you want to talk about 'sick' filmmaking, Jeepers Creepers was pretty gruesome as well...I mean, we had a scene with a monster chewing out the tongue from a cop's severed head. Is that 'acceptable'?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Convicted pedophiles should not, in fact, be allowed to be around children. 72.2.172.250 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Salva

Salva looks like John Wayne Gacy. I love his films but it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.101.49 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Any reason someone can't put in a recent photo of the guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack567la (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mugshot

The article says that the mugshot is from 2000, but does not state anywhere what incident it's connected with. 75.82.199.218 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Its his sex offender registry photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.73.239 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should change the photo, using mugshots is not standard practice on other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.181.209 (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the word mugshot from the caption. Its an unnecessary biased, characterization of the photo. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

LGBT

On what basis? He's never confirmed his sexuality. I'm removing this tags, because they just seem to assert that because he molested young boys he must be gay/bisexual. Eseress (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this template: there's nothing about his sexual identity in the article, so it's a BLP issue. It also suggests to me an unpleasant and false assumption that child molestation falls under the 'LGBT' umbrella. Robofish (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP isn't a problem.

There is no BLP problem, it has been confirmed by several reliable sources that he has been convicted of sexual misconduct with children and possesion of child pornography. BLP only aplies to potentialy controversial or badly sourced content.★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The information about his conviction is already in the article. I have started a BLP noticeboard report here to get some feedback. I feel that until others with more experience in BLP/crime concerns weigh in, it should not be in the lede. My only concern is WP:UNDUE since the information is there in the article. We need to determine if he is notable for his crimes. The wording as well is an issue as he was convicted of "sexual misconduct", not what was put in the lede. freshacconci talk to me 17:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have commented there.★Trekker (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Quote box

Does the brightly highlighted quote box really belong in this article? I can't think of another example of a biographical article that featured a quote from a critic in such a manner. It seems at best gratuitous, at worst deliberately intended to slant the article against the subject, which is hardly a neutral stance to take. Unless someone can provide a compelling reason why this article needs that box, I will remove it. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As no one has raised any objections, I have removed the quote box. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I don't believe that the words "convicted child molester" belong in the lead. His crime is adequately described in the article and does not need to be featured in the lead of an article so short. It violates WP:HARM in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: An IP has added the phrase "convicted child molester" to the lead on 11 occasions and been reverted 11 times. I have placed a warning on their user page saying that they should discuss the issue rather than continue a pattern of disruptive editing.[1].-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Without that, he's a director who has never made a serious hit. "Convicted child molestor" is the most unique and interesting thing about him, and it is mentioned consistently in any interview with or article about him. Specific to NOHARM, it does not violate any of the three "inclusion" rules -- it is widely documented, it is undeniably true, and it is not given undue weight. Further, you yourself agree it belongs in the article. If it belongs in the article, NOHARM doesn't really apply, since there are no rules there about where in the article it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)