Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:10, 5 April 2007

Film Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Film needs synopsis Template:Filmimage

Archives

November 2006 -

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).

• Start-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles