This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• 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)
    • Please discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. Smee 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
      • And please stop wishing for PA's where none exist, Smee, or I will send my EDIT SUMMARY after you. By blowing up everything I say into some perceived PA, you simply perpetuate the situation. -- Justanother 17:26, 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

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)

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)

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)
  • Don't worry, Smee. I do not think I will have much to object to. Same for you now, promise? -- Justanother 06:42, 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).

• • I'm not trying to cause problems, but I do think my placement of the text is clearly better for the reason I mentioned, quite independent of whether or not that question was being debated. Please try to look at it from the perspective of a reader. BTfromLA 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You are encountering Smee's WP:DE. I reverted it. -- Justanother 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, BTfromLA, I actually looked closer and adding it to that section improves the formatting a little bit. It can stay. Smee 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you for taking a second look. BTfromLA 04:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• You're welcome. I must say it is starting to look like you are a cordial and polite editor to work with. Thank you. Smee 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

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:

• EL POV pushing? WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view One link is hardly undue weight.
• There is no ban on "copyvio" sites. WP:EL#Linking_to_YouTube.2C_Google_Video.2C_and_similar_sites
• Policy is by link, not by site. WP:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works
• Is a copy of the film a violation? No, see the credits of the film itself where online use is granted.
• Is the film itself a copyright violation? Hmm. What can be cited to back up this claim? Apparently Brett Hanover said that there were copyright issues (unstated ones and with parties unknown), but the only cites are to IMDB, which mentions nothing, and to a gossip column with Mark Bunker speculating that it was pressure and blackmail. AndroidCat 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• We should utilize WP:CIT, to standardize the citations within the article. I will go ahead and do this soon, but in the future please use WP:CIT to format new cites when adding new information and sources to the article. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

[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)

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bretthanover.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727111806/http://www.nataspsw.org/Documents/Emmy2006WinnerList.pdf to http://www.nataspsw.org/Documents/Emmy2006WinnerList.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)