Talk:The Bridge (Scientology film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

1 The Bridge
2 Documentary
3 "Docudrama" (not according to Brett Hanover)
4 Quote template
5 BitTorrent
6 enough, already
7 True, but probably not as the maker imagined (spoiler alert)
8 "The torrent" issue
9 Rogue9's comment should end the debate
10 "Censorship"
11 Link to watch the film
12 WP:3RR Warning

The Bridge

"The Bridge to Total Freedom" has been published by the Church of Scientology for many years, at least since 1980 and probably much longer. The video of a similar name might become a portion of a larger article which could be titled The Bridge to Total Freedom or simply, The Bridge because it is most widely know by the brief name. There are many copies in various sizes and there were a number of changes (mostly minor) over the years since its beginning. But its basic form of a processing side and a training side have been standard on all the copies I have seen. I'm not sure we could put a whole copy here, but it is a pretty well known piece of information. Terryeo 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject matter of this article has nothing to do with the CoS publication. We might want to mention that there is a CoS publication with a similar name, and maybe create an article for it if there's enough to write about it, but this article is about a specific video and should stick to describing that video. Vpoko 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Documentary

This isn't a documentary, it's a fictional drama based on true events. The page needs to be moved to an accurate title and the article fixed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The link, [1] (the one hour movie which apparently was seven hours) is obviously not a documentary. Wikipedia should not attempt to present it as a documentary. Part of the content of the movie has a white shirted person listening to a female who talks, and it might appear to half-informed person as a documentary of an auditing session. But let me tell you, no auditor would ever run a session like that. He doesn't use a communication cycle. He adjusts the meter's TRIM KNOB during session !!! You would have to be educated about a meter to know what a horrible complete wrongness that is ! An auditor who did that would spend a lot of time restudying his auditor training. That particular guy would start with TR 0 because his communication cycle is completely out ! He doesn't acknowledge his preclear, he doesn't direct his preclear, he orders his preclear, "pick up some more data" and all of these are complete out-ethics, complete out communication, completely against the Auditor's Code. It certainly isn't a documentary and should not be presented so. Terryeo 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yeah fair enough. Critics of say, Fahrenheit 911 or, well, any of Moore's films use a similar argument. And, like you they have a point. So I just looked at The Bridge article and (please correct me if I am wrong) no point in the article does it actually use the word documentary? If uses docudrama, but they are considered vastly different beasts. Docudrama implies just that, drama... a slight "creative license" on the part of the film-maker.

And you think that the guy in the film's communication is out? I thought he handled the picketers quite well! *rolls eyes* - even I, with no first hand personal knowledge of tr drills or scientology training thought that was off. Glen 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Terryeo, the article doesn't say it is a documentary, so your comments are a bit off-point, though, as you say, the film certainly isn't a documentary. (By the way, the fact that the file size of the downloadable version was compressed does not imply that six hours--or even one second--was cut out of the films running time.) The article does label the film a "docudrama," which means a fictionalized film that depicts real historical events. I think even "docudrama" is wrong in this context; it is a fictional film about Scientologists, but as far as I know it does not claim to tell the story of some particular real person. I think it should just be labeled "film." BTfromLA 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Docudrama" (not according to Brett Hanover)

[2], Hanover's website, talks about "the Bridge" and says

"The Bridge" was a narrative feature which I directed in 2006. Due to copyright issues, I have asked that this film be removed from circulation. Please do not contact me regarding this production.

This article presents Hanover's work as a "Docudrama". That is a complete mis-statement. A "Docudrama" combines elements of documentary with drama. Hanover presents his work as a narrative. He does not claim it documents anything and he does not claim there is any element of it which is documentary in nature. It is not a documentary. Therefore the article should present it (if this is going to be an article) as Hanover states; "A NARRATIVE". If we deny Hanover this attribution we should not present his article. Terryeo 21:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and moved to The Bridge (film) accordingly Glen 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote template

Yes, I deliberately removed the graphics and the attribution line. The graphics seem unecessary and distracting (I don't agree that text blocks need spicing up that way), but I won't quibble. The attribution line should go, though, because the the quote we are now using is not dated, and Hanover's name is redundant. Sorry to seem a stick-in-the-mud. BTfromLA 22:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, now you've actually cited a reason I agree with you. I'll revert my edit :) Thanks for clarifying Glen 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

BitTorrent

Here is a place for y'all to discuss the BitTorrent availability issue. Yours, Joe1141 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Sure, thanks. It is an easy one. The owner of an intellectual property has pulled it from distribution due to having violated copyright in creating it (i.e. he created something that he cannot legally distribute). Wikipedia should not mention in the article on the property that torrents are available; the torrent being illegal of course and against the stated wishes of the rights owner. That is encouraging illegal download. --Justanother 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. Brett Hanover released the online distribution rights; it says so in the credits of the film. Such permission is irrevocable once granted. To quote:

"'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."

So no, it is not in the least encouraging illegal download. Mr. Hanover removed his say in the matter of his own volition, and the Church of Scientology has not filed any suit. And if they did, well, they could go screw themselves. Fortunately, it hasn't happened, so nobody has to evade any legal point here. Rogue 9 10:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All very interesting points, I am still new to this article so I have some questions, and please anyone else feel free to contribute to discussion:

Was there ever any lawsuit brought anywhere that said it violated copyright?
Isn't there precedent on Wikipedia to refer to locations of things that have become internet phenomenon ?
It seems from Hanover's exact wording that he didn't say anything specific about torrents just that it be removed from circulation. As far as I know, torrents aren't exactly circulation, more like file-sharing. And the next thing Hanover says is Please do not contact me regarding this production. Well, that's easy, no one has to contact him directly to get the torrents. Seems like this all goes with abiding by his wishes, actually.

But what do y'all think? Yours, Joe1141 19:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Hi, glad to have you over here. I do not think there was a suit. More likely he was contacted by CoS lawyers and told it violated copyright and that he needed to "cease and desist". Don't know if you have seen it but, to me at least, it obviously violated copyright. I doubt the owner disagreed. I don't know if there is anywhere else here on wikipedia where you will find a veiled recommendation to illegally download something. As far as P2P not being "circulation"; all due respect but PUH-LEESE. --Justanother 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am pulling it out again. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." --Justanother 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please source something other than your opinion that it is a copyright violation. AndroidCat 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an encyclopedia article is not the place to find out how to obtain a video contrary to copyright issues. (Disclaimer: Not being a copyright lawyers myself) it would seem to me that a court ruling on the CoS copyright issue wouldn't be necessary - the creator of the video holds a copyright on it and is the only one who can dictate distribution terms. Vpoko 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AndroidCat above. There is no evidence anywhere that this is a copyright violation of any kind. The video is available on thousands of other sites. It seems silly not to provide a location for it here as well. It is available on Google Video, so clearly they see no problem with allowing it. Smeelgova 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

enough, already

It's a no-brainer that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be pointing readers to where unauthorized copies of the film can be downloaded. Anyone who knows how to operate a search engine and wants to find it can easily do so anyway. Let it go. wikipediatrix 16:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but probably not as the maker imagined (spoiler alert)

I was disappointed in this film because, while it had the trappings of Scientology included in somewhat altered fashion, it failed to show the sense of Scientology and why the girl would even want to continue in it; she never has one win, one cognition; and she looks so down all the time. But this morning (while in the shower but that is probably way more than you wanted to know) I realize that the film maker had actually crafted a true representation of something, something that can be a part of Scientology, though it is not supposed to happen. The film shows what happens when the tech is bent to someone's personal agenda. That is considered suppressive in Scientology and the head of her org is a good candidate for an SP declare. He is squirrelling Scn tech to steer the girl where he wants her to go. In an actual session there is none of that "psych-style" evaluation you see going on, especially in the clay table part. You can see that she gets no gains from those actions and that is how it would be in a squirrel session. He invalidates her state of Clear by cutting her off in that unrealistic "graduation" (Scientologists give three hip hip hoorays as a sign of respect on occasion but not always and never as robots over and over again). I think he embezzled the funds for LRH's office and that is why it is missing. Of course, in any actual org the door is always open but roped off to prevent entry. I just thought it interesting that, in this light, it is quite a true film; it just is not really about Scientology but some alteration of it. --Justanother 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"The torrent" issue

The word "encyclopedia" is a Greek word. "EN-CYCLO-PEDIA" Something that includes the knowledge. (As a Greek i don't have to be an expert to know the meaning of the word). So let's keep that in mind. In this very site we see under "illegal drug trade" how drugs are distributed through borders and the internet. We even see pictures. Does this mean that Wikipedia wants us to learn how to do it ourselves? Of course not. It's just a fact that we should know about. Wikipedia would never promote the illegal drug distribution Now let's see... Isn't it a fact that some torrent sites have the torrent file and NOT the file itself, for "The Bridge (film)"? Yes it is and this makes the article not complete. The director removed the film but with a torrent client someone can download it. After I tried a couple of times to add this fact to the article, the user VPOCO removed it. He probably also removed the phrase that said sites like "youtube" and "Google video" hosted the actual file. I never wrote which sites had the torrent file and that people should download it, just like the article about illegal drug trade never even mentioned that we should use the methods of drug trade to our benefit Netslaveone 01:55 GMT+2 03/11/06

This is different from drug trade. The appropriate place to mention that you can download copyvio by BitTorrent is in the BitTorrent article. Not here. The only point of putting it here is to encourage downloading of a specific copyvio property against the wishes of the owner. That is inappropriate. --Justanother 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He does make a good point though. No one is mentioning specifically how to do anything about getting the torrent. Just pointing out that there is that possibility and others have made it available. This is not instructions, just factual. Joe1141 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

So Joe, I assume that you are siding that it should be in there? Did you look at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. You don't have to explicitly name the process and spell it out step by step to be pointing at copyvio. He wants to point at copyvio. --Justanother 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, I think an extreme example is necessary here: the article for Child pornography doesn't give clues where one can find kiddie porn, directly linked or not. wikipediatrix 02:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha ha, I might be willing to consider User:Justanother's argument, but that last comment by User:Wikipediatrix is ridiculous, my apologies. I just can't see comparing those two issues, whatsoever. At any rate, no, I do not see how telling people a factually accurate statement that a cult-following over the video has developed throught torrents, is in any way pointing towards copyright violations. (I also think it's weird how everyone on Wikipedia says "copyvio", like its a new language or something). Anyways. That's my 2 cents. Joe1141 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

I am not saying copyright violation and kiddie porn are comparable subjects. They don't have to be. They're both illegal and that's all that matters for purposes of discussion here. I think it's enough to note that pirated copies of the film are circulating on the net, without specifying BitTorrent. wikipediatrix 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Joe I just learned about "copyvio" too but it is a lot easier than writing "copyright infringement", don't you think? So despite our arguments you are clearly siding with inclusion, right? Need to know to see if we can get a consensus here or if I need to to bump this issue. --Justanother 03:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that it should be included, I don't think mentioning that it is available through torrent is the same as equating that with directly explaining to someone how to get it. What do you mean by needing to know if you should "bump" the issue? Joe1141 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

If we cannot reach consensus then I put it up for comment. See WP:RfC. That is dispute resolution as we appear to have a dispute. --Justanother 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't think it was so much of a "dispute", at least not yet, but more of a discussion. I had hoped more people would comment other ideas here on the talk page first, and give it some time. We shall see. Joe1141 04:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Dispute to me; Three editors say no; one plus the OP say yes. I will wait a day or so to see who else chimes in. Or you can come over to our side and revert your last edits. It all depends on which you think is in the best interest of wikipedia. We feel that promoting copyvio is clearly not. I think the OP has an agenda. You feel that it is valid information. --Justanother 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point on why you feel this is a dispute. What does "OP" mean? Joe1141 06:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Sorry but the Child pornography example by Wikipediatrix is not right. In this article we read "File sharing program searches, popular online chat mediums, and usenet postings make child pornography readily available". So we see that in most cases we are informed in general where to find something illegal. Sorry guys but I believe you should come clean. I've heard that Scientology has messed with Wikipedia before, and I feel that either Wikipedia does not want another debate or someone from the inside is here with us. Conspiracy theory? I hope so. Netslaveone 09:53 GMT+2 03/11/06

just want to say that where the bridge was originally posted is a fact (it was hosted in the past with the director's consent at sites as "youtube" and "Google video"). To add that the file is still available even though the director has asked for its removal is a fact and an action. people should be both informed that it is still somewhere out there but that by taking action for it they are not only going against the law but also the current wishes of the man that made it. by the way the comment on child pornography is seriously out of lines and quite false... looked it up has various general ways of how people get their hands on child pornography. I do not approve but it is a fact. Irinid d 10:51 GTM+2

OP = Original Poster. --Justanother 13:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the current wording (not mentioning torrents but mentioning that the video is still available through unofficial channels) acceptable to all? I feel VERY strongly that we should not be giving people information on how to infringe a copyright. It's like putting into the article on Microsoft Office "Though it can be purchased, a cracked version can also be downloaded for free on various P2P sites." <strikeout>It's unacceptable. Vpoko 14:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then you might as well word it "but the video continues to be shared illegally and against the stated wishes of the rights owner that it not be distributed". Because that is a truer statement of the case. So if you think that line is appropriate to a wikipedia article then I might could agree. I don't think it is but if we are going to include then let's "do it right". --Justanother 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you; I don't think there should be ANY mention of the video's availability through illigitimate channels. I was merely proposing my wording as a compromise, though this may not be the place to compromise. IMO, we should bring in a few more editors to help with this discussion. Vpoko 15:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For my money, we go with wording similar to mine (do not sugar-coat it) or we go to RfC but I am certainly willing to see what others have to say. We have no consensus. I think Irinid is supporting inclusion with wording such as I propose. That may end up being our compromise. --Justanother 15:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is for Vpoko. It's not the same as writing that a cracked version of Microsoft office is available on the internet, because Microsoft never intended to distribute their products free unless is a Beta version. "The bridge" is a film that originally was created for free distribution that's why I feel is important to mention that it is still available through illegal channels. The way that the article is right now, I feel that covers the whole situation. I believe now we all can be happy and satisfied. Netslaveone 17:42 GMT+2 03/11/06

Actually, we are not done yet. This is very much still in progress. Since you yourself mention the illegality of the channels are you OK with my proposed wording? I am trying to move in the direction of a true compromise, not one declared by fiat. --Justanother 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*Netslaveone, you're making a distinction that doesn't have any bearing on the issue (whether the author ever meant for it to be distributed). Copyright law allows a copyright holder to withdraw a license at any time if there is no contractual element of consideration in granting the original license (ie, if you didn't pay for the license). It allows existing copies to be kept and resold if they're on a tangible medium (see the doctrine of first sale), but it does not allow others to continue to distribute the video (distribution is one of the five exclusive rights granted by copyright). The fact that Microsoft never meant to distribute the software makes it no more illegal than if they HAD meant to distribute it but then changed their mind. It's not a matter of presenting the whole story, it's a matter of appropriateness. Vpoko 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that i disagree with you Vpoko, and it's not me who makes final decisions Justanother. All I am saying is that the fact that this movie is available in the internet adds to its myth and is something that will always follow the reputation of this film. Anyway, if you ask my opinion, the current wording is all I would like to read, in case i wanted to know more about this film Netslaveone 18:09 GMT+2 03/11/06

Well, we should all be able to make a final decision we can all live with - I don't want to push my views, I want to explain them and get you (and anyone else) onboard. Do you think it would be enough to say that the video was distributed on the internet for a time, but has been pulled by the author? People know that when it comes to the 'net, once the cat is out of the bag it's out of the bag forever, and if they don't realize that it's not our place to remind them. Vpoko 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But, Netslaveone, will you accept my proposed wording as a compromise between my position (no mention) and yours (happy with present wording). Vpoko, I am just seeing if there is a possible compromise here. --Justanother 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Justanother, if you mean this:"but the video continues to be shared illegally and against the stated wishes of the rights owner that it not be distributed", yes, personaly if think it should do it. Netslaveone 18:21 GMT+2 03/11/06

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

OK, I am still not comfortable with pointing at copyvio but I have to be careful because of my POV that a misrepresentation of Scn should not be promoted. So I will accept the compromise and leave the decision to others. In effect, I say that certainly myself and possibly Netslaveone have an agenda so let's leave the decision to editors that do not. I should mention that I am aware of my POV but my POV also includes allowing critics of Scientology to have their say. I am just saying I may have a bit of a "blind spot" here. I edit from my understanding, not my POV, and my understanding of wikipedia policy here is weak so I may be defaulting to my POV a bit. --Justanother 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all academic anyhow, because Wikipedia forbids pointing to illegal and/or copyvio material and if the article persists in doing so, it will be reported and nipped in the bud by admins. So go out, enjoy the sunshine, hit a Starbucks, do some Xmas shopping. wikipediatrix 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

i dont think it is pointing at it, it says it exists and that it is illegal to use. I am of the belief that to point out that something is illegal is better than to close our eyes and let it be. we should point out everything even the things that are not necessarily just. If the bridge has become such a topic it is because of its ban and the people that try to pass it along. Someone who reads the article should know that even when they find it, that downloading it goes against laws and the wishes of the director. will not comment on this again, wish you all the best in resolving. ps i am happy with the wording of Justanother on this. irinid d

Rogue9's comment should end the debate

Rogue9 pointed out (above) that the copyright holder had granted a license to redistribute his work. The revokability of such a license without the legal element of consideration (without somebody "paying" for the right) is very questionable (a court would probably allow him to rescind the permission), but without a judgement (or at least a DMCA takedown notice sent to Wikimedia) to the contrary, I don't think we have any obligation to remove the material. Vpoko 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I quite agree. Rogue 9 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well put. Smeelgova 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

"Censorship"

I don't want to get in an edit war over this, but I can't understand how "several people have made a conscious effort to repost the movie on as many sites as possible following an outcry after the movie's censorship" belongs in the article. The fact that people are still posting the digital file is clearly implied by the previous sentence, "digital copies of the film continue to circulate on the internet." "Censorship" implies that there was some sort of governmental ban, and there is no reason to believe anything of the kind is true. What I think you want to say is that some people believe the church of scientology threated the filmmaker in order to suppress the film. While that may well be true, there's no evidence for that that I'm aware of, I don't see how it belongs in the article either. But the censorship bit is plain false. BTfromLA 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Give it a little time. I've added the ^{[citation needed]} notice. Also, I have added a sourced citation from MSNBC, which makes it a secondary source, about this. Smeelgova 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Also see the article censorship, it is not just governments that engage in this. Smeelgova 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

I still don't see how that sentence helps matters. The Mark Bunker quote is pretty marginal, but at least it is attributed and it makes the point more directly--I again suggest that "censorship" line be removed; it's bad writing on multiple counts--what does it add? (And that Wikipedia article on censorship looks pretty bad in its own right... you might want to look into some outside sources if you are trying to better understand the concept.) BTfromLA 20:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have voluntarily changed the word in question from "censorship" to "removal". Smeelgova 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Better, thanks, but I still don't understand why you want that line in there at all. BTfromLA 20:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad we can agree to compromise. Smeelgova 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

If a film-maker illegally uses another's intellectual property without permissions (going well beyond "fair use" if such has applicability in fictional films) and the rights owner threatens the film-maker with legal action if he does not withdraw it (all assumptions on my part) how is that somehow "wrong" or "censorship"? The film-makers could have edited out the objectional bits and re-released. They apparently made the decision not to. --Justanother 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

They key point here is that we're all just speculating about why the film was withdrawn... all we know is that the filmmaker withdrew the film and withdrew from making further comment. I can't see how it is appropriate for Wikipedia to say more than that at this stage in the story. BTfromLA 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We now have a secondary source for this from MSNBC that has some interesting information. If given time, more sources/citations will show up. I think for now we have conceded a bit on each side and have a good compromise going. Smeelgova 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

We have a gossip column quoting the wild speculation of a critic. How is that encyclopaedic? --Justanother 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree with justanother on this one. Our "compromise" is one of politeness, not agreement: you really haven't made a case for including this stuff, Smeelgova. At best, the Mark Bunker quote might be justified as documentation that speculation about Scientology's involvement in suppressing the film exists, but even then, it really doesn't seem encyclopedic. If the story comes out, we can document it, but we shouldn't rumor-monger in the meantime. BTfromLA 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It was taken and cited by a valid secondary source. Smeelgova 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

I do not see how any of this is rumor mongering, we are simply stating the facts. Smeelgova 05:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

It is a self-proclaimed gossip column. Gossip is by definition not fact and is not held to journalistic standards. It has no place in an encyclopedia. --Justanother 05:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your concerns, I was not using the blockquote to assert any particular type of "rumor mongering", merely the fact that the issue was reported on MSNBC. I will make a further edit that should be an acceptable compromise. Smeelgova 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

I see what you did now. If consensus is to leave the mention then the quote at the bottom should be removed; that looks bad stylisticly. --Justanother 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a fair compromise. Lots of articles provide elaboration in the references/footnotes sections. Smeelgova 05:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

It amounts to giving an inappropriate forum to wild speculation. It reduces wikipedia to a gossip column. It does us all a disservice. --Justanother 05:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, and I also understand you have a POV on this, as I do. But please note that I am trying to compromise here, with yourself and with User:BTfromLA, as you may note from the article's edit history. Thanks for engaging in dialogue on the talk page. I feel this is productive and relatively congenial. Smeelgova 05:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Not sure if I see any compromise here. You want it in; you left it in. You are just juggling it around a bit, as far as I can see. --Justanother 05:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you browse through the edit history and read this full discussion section from above, you'll see I compromised on another matter as well. Smeelgova 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Re POV. Mine is that fair representations of Scientology and of the the misdeeds of Scientology have a place in wikipedia. Wild speculation and misrepresentation does not. What is your POV? --Justanother 06:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, beyond the fact that I don't appreciate various organizations' suppression of information and Freedom of Speech, I don't like to get into my personal life or POV. But I acknowledge yours. I'll make another gesture of good faith and remove the blockquoted portion. Smeelgova 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Fair enough. You brought up the subject of POV. I have no problem with your last edit though I do see a bit of an effort to use wikipedia to further an otherwise obscure rumor rather that simply report on the film. --Justanother 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to watch the film

Two problems with this: first, it is hosted on a problematic site - the scientomogy site is polemical in nature - which is not provably associated with the subject. Second, it appears to violate the originator's copyright (WP:EL, links to avoid). Please get over the "suppression of information" stuff and discuss this per policy and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first the copyright issue. I shall quote myself from nearly a month ago:

No, it is not. Brett Hanover released the online distribution rights; it says so in the credits of the film. Such permission is irrevocable once granted. To quote:

"'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 the host is hardly a problem; I just restored the last one used. There are several hosts; I'll try to find a different one. Though I should point out that the content of the video is the same no matter where it's hosted. Rogue 9 18:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Would RapidShare do, or do we require a more "proper" website? Rogue 9 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should wikipedia have to evaluate the legality of the copyright issue? The rights owner clearly asked that it be withdrawn. The purpose of wikipedia is not to promote this movie; the only ostensible intersection of wikipedia and this movie is an article on it due to its notability in the "criticism of Scientology" circle. We have that. Linking to the movie, no matter who hosts it, is clearly a "link to be avoided" as it gets involved with legal issues that are equally clearly beyond the scope of this project. --Justanother 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate the object in question. The same reason we bother with fair use images when necessary. Rogue 9 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Movies are generally "illustrated" with just a poster or cover shot which we already have. --Justanother 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rogue 9 seems to have elaborated on this point fairly well - there are simply zero legality issues here. All that exists is a request by the director, after he had already released the video into the public space. Smeelgova 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

WP:3RR Warning

To involved editors:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of decision, I am taking this particular article off of my watchlist for a while, as a self-imposed block/break to myself on that article. Smee 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC).