Talk:The Profit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Profit was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Profit article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is not a forum for general discussion of Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.

Contents

[edit] Standardized cites w/ Citation templates

  • I standardized all the cites in the article with WP:CIT. In the future if you add new sources/citations to the article, please use the citation formatting. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. Is there a precedent for a "Taglines" sections? If there is, please show me an example of a GA/FA that includes it and that will be fine. Otherwise, I don't see why this information needs to be its own Level 2 heading, if present in the article at all (especially since the taglines can be seen in the posters and could easily be incorporated into the prose of the article).
  2. The plot section should conform to WP:FILM's plot guidelines and should contain far more detail about the events of the film, rather than the general synopsis that is its current state.
  3. "(taken by some observers to be a parody of L. Ron Hubbard)" (Plot) requires a citation because it looks like original research in its current state.
  4. The lead should conform to WP:LEAD, which it comes close to doing, but does not quite satisfy. There is no mention, for example, of the plot in the lead (which will definitely need to be there once the plot section is expanded).
  5. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
  6. The direct quotes in the "Reception" require citations immediately following them, even if they are contained in the reference at the end of the paragraph.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing points from GA review

Thanks for doing the GA review, I will address the above points, and note them here, below. Cirt (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

  1. Y Done - Removed the Taglines section, as suggested above. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
  2. Plot expansion - pending. Will address this within the seven days allotted. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
  3. Y Done - Moved a cite to specify/back up the L. Conrad Powers/L. Ron Hubbard comparison in plot section. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
  4. Lead expansion (summarizing plot a bit more). Will address this within seven days. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
  5. Y Done - Merged small one/two sentence paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
  6. Y Done - Added citations after direct quotes in Reception section. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

Have updated the review accordingly. For the plot section, it can probably be shorter than is standard but, since the film has debuted (at Cannes), there should be some more information on the plot. In any case, just let me know when you want me to take another look at it if you get it done early - otherwise I'll be back once the hold is up and review it given the circumstances. Cheers, CP 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, will do. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Please give me a teensy bit more time, I've had a lot on my plate but I will try to get on this soon. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
      • No problem. This article is close enough and obviously enough has been done that I have no problem extending the hold. Cheers, CP 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article seems to have become stale after the extended hold. For this reason, I am going to fail the article at this time. As the article is very close to being a Good Article, please let me know when these concerns have been addressed and the article has been renominated, and I will give it a second review immediately, so that you don't have to wait another month. If you feel that this decision is in error, you may take it to good article review. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Completely understandable, and I will do just that. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Court order

Please explain to me how a local judge has the authority to block a film's release nationwide? If it were released outside of Pinellas County, Florida, would that not be completely outside the judge's jurisdiction? 76.123.216.96 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sure exactly, we can only go on what's said in verifiable sources. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Likely it was blocked at the point of entry or distribution, so they couldn't do anything really except appeal which might have been rejected.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mentioning leaks of a supressed film

How does mention of the fact that this film has been leaked a violation of WP:OR? Frotz (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen any mention of this in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source? Cirt (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is a YouTube video good? Or how about a link to the actual leaked video (which may be deleted soon)? --Metallurgist (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope. Gotta be mentioned in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't, you are wasting your time. This is not a matter of opinion. The film is OUT, for better or worse. WillOakland (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is out, we can acknowledge that here on the talk page, sure. But unless that is mentioned in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, that info cannot be added into this article - it is an obvious violation of WP:OR - Unless you can explain to me how that would not be the case? Cirt (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed my citation to something at wikinews.org. Given that it has been marked as ready for publication, I presume that it's okay to cite it here. Frotz (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see my reply on your talk page. Wikinews is not acceptable to be used as a source on Wikipedia in such a manner. The only thing that Wikinews has gained even a small amount of traction for source usage on Wikipedia, would be for citing direct interviews done by editors on Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. And for the rest of you, I've had a discussion with Cirt here about how to mention this new development. He suggests that we wait until some major news source picks up on this and THEN cite one of those. I have therefore reverted all my tinkering with this article including the very mention of the leak. Cirt has stated that he will do this himself. I'll just back off now. Frotz (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of leak to the internet

Personally I think the fact that it was leaked to the internet AND is barred from distribution is noteworthy. Thoughts? Hohohahaha (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not have been notable before, but the letter from Bob Minton's attorney to Luke Lirot of The Profit makes it noteworthy - and even though that is a primary source, it is good enough simply to attest that the letter happened. I'll put that in there soon. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have already put it in, an anon IP keeps removing it. Hohohahaha (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is great, two obviously biased editors (Cirt has written [1]) trying to argue their point. Weak. --81.227.71.199 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take a moment to read over WP:NPA, and keep your comments on content, not contributors. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"You are biased" = Personal attack? The "weak" referred to your actions, not your person. 81.227.71.199 (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


If this is how you are going to begin dialogue on discussing changes for wikipedia, "This is great, two obviously biased editors?" Let me shift gears a bit to match you.....

Ok... got it.

81.227 is a poopie-head!, Stinkerpants!

I can do that way, and if, at anytime, you wish to discuss the article, I'm hereHohohahaha (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment - external links section

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a link to Pirate Bay with a copy of this film and Digg.com (itself a link to Pirate Bay) be allowed in the WP:EL section of this article? 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the links in question are:
  • [The Pirate Bay torrent]
  • [Internet news site Digg covers movies leak to the net]
Cirt (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to include

The Pirate Bay And Digg links were included to give verification to the statement "The complete film was leaked to the internet in late March 2008" contained on the page. A statement like this is meaningless unless backed up with evidence. These two links provide irrefutable evidence, therefore are entirely relevant and appropriate. The Pirate bay link being primary evidence is therefore highly appropriate. Primary evidence supersedes secondary evidence and hearsay ( as in the case of the lawyers letter )Wogglelump (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Wogglelump (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogglelump (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons not to include

  • The distribution of this film by Pirate Bay is not sanctioned by the filmmakers, see: Please Discontinue Distribution of "The Profit" (at http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=21), post by attorney for the film's producers, Luke Lirot. It is not that hard for an internet user to find copies of the film on the internet on their own, but the Wikipedia article about the film should not be linking to it, especially with this express notice given by the film's attorney. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to the above statement by Wogglelump (talk · contribs) I should clarify that direct links to the film, in order to illustrate that the film has been leaked to the internet, is bordering on WP:OR. But in any case, the source used for that particular sentence in the article is:
McGowan, Thomas H.. "Scientology/ Minton Letter", Hosted at website for The Profit, www.theprofit.org, March 24, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-02. 
So direct links to the film at Pirate Bay/Digg.com are not needed to satisfy WP:V for this information in the article. Cirt (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

No, no, and thrice no. Links to non-licensed copyrighted material or even just links to sites which explicitly provide a gateway to such material can get Wikipedia in a lot of trouble. That's why there are certain restrictions to the types of links one can include in articles. As the guideline says, "without exception". Steve T • C 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed with Steve. The article could be altered to specificy who the leaker was, if desired, but links to the site itself are completely unnecessary, and those links in particular don't meet WP:EL requirements anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have removed the copyright-violating links. While this RfC is still ongoing, the nature of the links is such that they should be removed. Anyone who has a problem with this action, please feel free to bring it up with an admin or some such; I'll not hold it against you. All the best, Steve T • C 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In addition, at WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works, it says:

      ...if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

      While there is a distinction to be made due to the fact that The Pirate Bay technically only hosts the .torrent files, we all know that were their servers kept in the United States, they'd have been shut down long ago. Steve T • C 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closed. - Closing RfC due to definitive comments from 2 editors. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] My edit listing who the main characters were based on

My edit listing who the main characters were based on was reverted as it was "WP:OR and POV interpretations of who cast represent". I'm not sure if Cirt saw the movie, but the characterizations are thinly veiled. It's not an interpretation when it is made to be super obvious. Zach Carson, for example, is based on Jack Parsons. The name is barely changed. The "Babalon Working" is now the "Caliban Working". Carson put in $20,000 instead of Parson who put in $21,000 into selling sailboats. Legend has Parsons evocating Bartzabel to summon a typhoon in retribution, in the movie Carson evoked Satan. How obvious does it have to be not to be considered POV? Chiok (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up your personal interpretations into the film's plot? If not, this is your own WP:OR interpretations of the film - which does not belong in the plot section, or anywhere in the article for that matter, as it is unsourced. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)