Talk:The Bridge (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).

[edit] 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 The rights owner has asked that it be withdrawn.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)

[edit] 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)

• Include a link. - but not to scientomogy.com. I find that Paulhorner's (many) additions of his own sites are usually in poor faith. AndroidCat 00:09, 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)
    • No, please see below discussion about reliable sources. Thanks. ju66l3r 04:41, 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)

[edit] arbitrary section break

• What are the other "more reliable sources" that you have looked into?Paulhorner 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• There is Mark Bunker's site, Xenu TV: The Bridge. Mark Bunker is actually the source mentioned in Jeannette Walls' MSNBC article. Raymond Hill 14:51, 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)

• Modemac - There is an IMDB article on The Bridge - The Bridge (2006) on Internet Movie Database Smee 13:37, 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)
      • There were other comments in that edit by Paulhorner that User:Justanother removed as well, in addition to the rather small portion of his edit that was actually the bolded "vote" part. The "vote" portion of Paulhorner's comment had said "Include a link", bolded. Three words. However, User:Justanother for some reason keeps removing his entire comment. In essence, there were approximately 70 words in Paulhorner's edit, three of which were his bolded "vote". But User:Justanother keeps removing the other 96% of Paulhorner's right to free speech. This reminds me of something.... Weird... Smee 16:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Weird? Weird? Oh, you mean like the time you weirdly kept removing my POV-section tag in List of groups referred to as cults in government reports. See history. And User:JustaHulk (that is actually me) got mad at you and scared you for your personal safety! User talk:Bishonen#Scared. Talk about weird! This is not a personal attack. This is not uncivil. This is actually the weird truth. --Justanother 17:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • PS, it is not my job to refactor Paulhorner's comments so that they are not a second vote. He can come and do that himself. --Justanother 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm new to Wikipedia talk and discussion. I'm curious that if I type three words wrong again will my entire post get deleted like it did last time, or did User:Justanother make a mistake?Paulhorner 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • He made a mistake. One user is not supposed to remove comments on a talk page from another, unless those comments are a personal attack or threat. Smee 18:04, 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).

[edit] 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.