Talk:Clownhouse

Fair use rationale for Image:Clownhouse01.jpg

Image:Clownhouse01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki not a podium for personal issues

I deleted the references to the director's "molestation" conviction, as they have literally nothing to do with an article on the film. Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to be used as a pulpit. --JT 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very important to the history surrounding the film.

Honestly.--CyberGhostface 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

CyberGhostface, you're beginning to get on my nerves. YOU have issues. Stop personalizing this, and stop attacking me for putting an unemotional perspective to all of this. The director giving a young teen actor a blowjob has NOTHING to do with the film itself. I've deleted your quoting me, since you can't do that in context. People can read what I've written if they feel like it, but your convenient quotes and paraphrases are both inaccurate and constitute an inappropriate personal attack. Please limit your debate to the subject. --JT 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How are you giving an unemotional perspective? From what I've read, you have a very strong bias for Salva. And since the director giving the teen a blowjob was a major incident sparking the film, it IS notable with the film's history and removing it is white-washing.--CyberGhostface 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, I have no bias FOR Salva. Until today, I didn't even realize that he's the same director for all of these films. What I have a bias AGAINST is the imposing of one's personal morality and using Wikipedia as soapbox to do so. Secondly, there are links to Salva, and within HIS history the incident may be significant, but it's entirely irrelevant to this film. Adding it is simply sensationalizing, and drawing focus from the film itself to the "dirt" on Silva.

As a separate subject, if you're going to be involved in Wikipedia so actively again, please remove the Break flag. I would have written you privately about this increasingly aggressive posture you're taking towards me, but the flag was up. Feel free to pursue the discussion on my Talk page, but please do stop with the personal attacks, etc., and stop stalking my writing.:P --JT 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial claims

The "Controversy" section seems to be mislabelled. There is nothing controversial in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.122.233 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)