Talk:The Profit/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Arbitrary section heading

Anyone know where I can Find This? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 (talk • contribs)

See: Their website's FAQ. It's currently still unavailable, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Joe1141 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

What about Freedom of Speech? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 (talk • contribs)

Good question man, good question. Smeelgova 20:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
Haven't you heard? You're not allowed to say anything if it offends someone nowadays. 75.75.110.235 06:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How the fuck does some random local judge have the authority to ban a film from release OUTSIDE his jurisdiction?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.65.187 (talk • contribs).

  • A very good question. Smee 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Answer == Sadly, The United States is not a free country any more. National ID cards, Border Walls larger than the Berlin Wall, needing a passport to go to Canada or Mexico [and] to get back into the US, The Patriot Act, John Warner Defense Act of 2007 (no need for posse comitatus), the end of habeas corpus, torture, phone taps, gun bans, the WHOLE DRUG WAR, gay marriage bans, and countless 1000's of other bans and regulations. Need I say more. But given all this crap, I'll still fight to the death to preserve all the rights taken from you and me.

Welcome to the New and Improved CCCP. Nbbs 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternate movie poster

  • The alternate movie poster fits fine in the article and is not obstructing anything. Why was it removed? Smee 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Only two films banned in the USA?

The Profit is one of only two films currently banned in the United States. The other film is Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, for copyright infringement.
Is there a source for this information? Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The claim that only 2 films are banned in the US is absurd. Famous examples are Traci Lords first films. Most bannings are probably due to copyright infringement though. 71.198.66.132
With Traci Lords the prohibition is child pornography Nodekeeper 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In this instance this refers to a specific court order. Smee 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps the claim should be qualified, then. Clearly, many more than two films are banned, child pornography, for example. JohnnyB 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how equating "The Profit" to child pornography is even remotely close when referring to banned movies.
The latter has forced sexual exploitation of children, while The Profit (and I quote) "...is fiction and has nothing to do with Scientology."
So barring the sexual exploitation of children, there's no reason to ban the movie, The Profit. Nbbs 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The movie is not "banned"; it is under court injunction that it not be released. That is all. --Justanother 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Semantics. FYI- banned: To prohibit, especially by official decree: http://www.answers.com/banned&r=67 Nbbs 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really. A ban is a community action for objectionable content. This is just an injunction by one judge and I understand that it might be lifted very soon. There is a difference. --Justanother 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll reiterate. Semantics. We're arguing over a word? "We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics." http://www.answers.com/semantics&r=67 Nbbs 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

<< Arguing? No, I am just using the correct word. As in correct and non-ambiguous word better than ambiguous and possible incorrect word. --Justanother 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have restored the previously stable version, prior to the edit warring. Smee 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
    • As this version was reverted by Justanother within seconds, I am going to enlist help from a neutral source. Smee 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
      • And you 2RR right back at me, Smee. What is up with that? You could have left it alone while you got your 3rd opinions. What is the harm? Why not just respect my edits without 3rd parties always having to tell you to respect my edits. What is up with that? That is not a change in your behavior. That is same old, same old. --Justanother 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Sigh, you are mistaken. The edit marked 1RR, was my first revert on the article. However, it is most interesting to note that you were edit warring multiple times on this article before did that restoration of the more stable version. In any event, I will now wait for a third opinion. Smee 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
          • Do you feel well, Smee? Here is your 1RR and here is your 2RR incorrectly summarized as 1RR. The are 11 minutes apart! What say you? --Justanother 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Please cut out the bull-baiting/sarcasm. It is most inappropriate. The first diff you provided was not a revert, the second diff is the first revert. At any rate, I am still waiting for a third opinion, this is a moot point getting into semantics at this point. Smee 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Third opinion

There is an unfortunate connotation of pettiness attached to the issue of semantics, but the fact is that semantic differences - while often fine, sometimes even moot - are often valid nonetheless, particularly in the context of an encyclopædia. What you are debating goes beyond mere semantics and affects a reader's interpretation (both conscious and subconscious) of an article's subject. "Banned" has unavoidable inflammatory, provocative connotations that remind one of pornography, extreme horror, and so on. Think of A Clockwork Orange and what its ban (in the UK, certainly) did for its image and popularity. Bans are usually serious and usually permanent or at least long-term. If the film in question is subject to a court injunction - which is, by its nature, potentially temporary - then it should be described as an injunction or court order, not an outright ban. The practical effect may be substantially or wholly the same, but the inference is not. I hope that the two of you can remain civil over this issue, and not get into edit warring. At this time, I will confine my comment to the semantic issue, since that was the primary reason for the request for an opinion. But I will check through the diffs and history in detail anyway. Adrian M. H. 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your detailed opinion. Please do check through the diffs and history as well. Smee 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
    • What do you think of leaving the term as "injunction" in the article, but keeping the wikilink to Banned films, in the See also section, for more info on other films? Though you feel the term "banned" may not apply per semantics in the article itself, the article Banned films is most certainly relevant, even if you feel it is not directly a definitional term. Smee 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
      • Smee, why not wait for the response before reinserting the link. The film is not banned. That is a loaded term and does not apply. Thanks --Justanother 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • That may be so, but surely the article Banned films, is relevant for more information on a related topic. There is no reason it should not be included in the See also section. Let us leave the rest of this space in this section here for third opinion, and continue this discussion in a different subsection, after the third opinion response. Smee 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
          • I think that, provided the true and accurate nature of the injunction and its demands are laid out in the article, then you have some justification for including a link to Banned films. It would be of interest to the reader and a link alone will not adversely colour opinion on this film. It is, of course, very important that this article maintains NPOV throughout. At this time, the article broadly succeeds in this aim, and the nature of the injunction is quite clear: ie, it is not the result of censorship from a film board. I have just got back in, so I'll peruse the history shortly. Adrian M. H. 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That seems to be a fair assessment that I think we can all work with. Smee 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Right, I have studied the history, as well as the discussions on the talk pages of the editors involved (MarkThomas included) and the RfC prep at User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3. It took some time! The two of you certainly have got pretty heated over this issue, and it seems that you have developed some personal issues with each other, Smee in particular. Your comments at Justanother's talk page leave you looking the worse, to be honest. I think that both of you should agree to take a set number of days away from this article and from each other. Take this time to cool your heads and analyse where you fell short and how you could have conducted things better. Maybe even take a complete wikibreak for a couple of days and chill out. Believe me, it helps a lot! I noted that Smee went to ANI on a separate issue, which I have not gone into, since the sub-page in question has been deleted. What has passed is passed, at the end of the day. On a positive note, you have both (just) managed to avoid violating 3RR, despite Smee's attempt to disguise a revert ("stable version"). Disguising edits in that way is totally not on, and I hope that you realise how that kind of behaviour can only weaken an editor's position in any conflict. On another positive note, Justanother is obviously aware of some shortcomings with regard to civility and is actively working to improve, which is to be commended. With regard to this article, I hope that we have now reached a point at which it can remain relatively stable, because only in that state can you really take the time (and the occasional deep breath) to assess the situation objectively. Adrian M. H. 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive 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.