Talk:The Bridge (2006 drama film)

Previous discussions have been archived:
Archive	Period covered
Talk:The Bridge (film)/Archive 1	October 2006–

"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 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."

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)

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:

Warning

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).

Adding a link to watch/download the film:

• 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)

Request for Comment - Inclusion of external link to film.

• 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).

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)