Talk:The Profit (film)/Archive 1

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

Request for comment - external links section

The following discussion is closed. 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)

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)

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. (March 24, 2008). "Scientology/ Minton Letter" (PDF). Hosted at website for The Profit. www.theprofit.org. Retrieved 2008-04-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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)

• Update: 2 more links which are inappropriate have been added to this article's WP:EL section. Both have no real value to this article, and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Moved some info to talk page

The producers of the film had a court hearing on March 5, 2007 to ask that the injunction on the film's distribution be lifted. On April 7, 2007, attorney Luke Lirot announced on the official website for The Profit that "We have absolutely no exposure for any repercussions from the court order." Lirot also stated that there was still an impediment to the film's release, writing "all that's stopping the release of the movie is the legal battle with the partner who was compromised by Scientology (Robert Minton) and is currently using his power as partner to stop the release of the film."

The complete film was leaked to the Internet in late March 2008, and in response Thomas H. McGowan, attorney for Bob Minton, sent a letter to Luke Lirot. In his March 24, 2008 letter, McGowan wrote: "To say the least, I was astonished to learn that in spite of our correspondence, and in spite of what I know of your understanding of the misuse of proprietary materials to be, a complete version of the film 'The Profit' is now streaming on the internet." McGowan asserted: "I am not persuaded in the least that the direct responsibility for what has happened lies anywhere but directly at Mr. Alexander's feet." McGowan requested that Alexander take action to remove the film from the Internet. Luke Lirot responded to McGowan's letter on March 26, 2008, and wrote: "In response to your latest letter, I can unequivocally state that my people (Mr. Alexander and his affiliates) had absolutely nothing to do with the unauthorized distribution of the film "The Profit" and we have gone to great lengths to stop any further transmissions." In his letter Lirot asserted "... my people believe it was either Mr. Minton, or one of his agents, who posted the film illegally, in order to give some manufactured or false grounds for some type of adverse actions or action against my client, so that Minton can fulfill his presumed agreement with the Church of Scientology to find any means whatsoever to 'harass and destroy utterly' his former 'partner,' Mr. Alexander, as is the policy of the entity whom my people believe is your actual client, the Church of Scientology."

---

Some of the above links are now dead links. Moved some info to talk page, pending further research. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Profit (film)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*8 citations, 2 fair-use film posters. Smee 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)