Talk:Born Rich (2003 film)

Luke Weil Link

The "Luke Weil" link is a bit odd - it references the same Born Rich article. Tried to search for him and still ended up with the same article.

I would do something about this if I only knew how.

Please sign your comments, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andreas_Toth I presume. The Luke Weil link is to a review of the Born Rich movie, featuring a quick take on Mr. Weil's futile attempts to block the documentary's exhibit. 12.54.189.122 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Plant

Someone is adding "Taylor Plant" (as far as I can tell a fictitious name) to the list of individuals interviewed in the film. I have removed it, but "Taylor Plant" may reappear.

Someone seems to be adding it to a lot of other articles as well, including Scuderia Ferrari. The359 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BornRich PH611386 lg.jpg

Image:BornRich PH611386 lg.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Per Wikipedia:External_links:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.

And furthermore, those external links aren't to the subject itself, they're to the actors who are in the film. This violates further number 11 in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided:

Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ref Improve

I tagged the article as refimprove because the first two main sections have few, if any, sources. If this movie is notable enough, which it seems it is, then it should have more secondary WP:RS sources to verify these paragraphs.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Luke Weil's lawsuit

JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed information and sources about a well-publicized lawsuit filed by Luke Weil in 2002. JS18WlKlPEDlA has asserted in edit summaries and elsewhere that the statements are not supported by the sources, but this is clearly not the case. The deleted content reads as follows (with the footnotes in small text):

Prior to the film's completion, one of its subjects, Luke Weil, sued to prevent its release, alleging that he had been "tricked" into consenting to his appearance in what he thought would be only a school project. Chaplin, Julia (12 October 2003). "Biting the Silver Spoon That Feeds Him, on Film". New York Times. Retrieved 26 April 2015. A New York court dismissed his lawsuit in October 2002. "Film About Wealthy Can Be Released". Associated Press. October 22, 2002. Retrieved 2015-04-25.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required)

The cited October 22, 2002 Associated Press report expressly supports every statement in the deleted content. In relevant part, the AP report reads as follows:

The judge's ruling dismissed a lawsuit filed against Johnson by Luke Weil, 22, who said in court papers that he was "tricked" into taking part in a project that "embarrassed" and "humiliated" him and his family.

Weil, whose father ran Autotote, a gaming technology company, said that on three dates in 2000 he signed releases that allowed Johnson to use an interview with him for what he thought was solely a school project.

Weil's court papers complained that Johnson "publicly and maliciously" referred to him as an "`heir of a gaming operation,' thus making him an object of disdain, derision and obloquy."

The judge said the releases Weil signed clearly state that the documentary is a commercial undertaking for a professional studio in Beverly Hills, Calif., and because of the unambiguous language, he cannot claim to have been tricked or defrauded.

The full AP report can also be found at the website of the First Amendment Center [1], and the relevant content from the AP report can be found in a variety of online sources, such as the Arizona Daily Sun [2] and the Sun-Sentinel [3]. Numerous other sources discuss this lawsuit in their coverage of the film, including the New York Times article cited in the deleted text.

In an October 25, 2003 report [4], the Philadelphia Inquirer adds this about the significance of the lawsuit to the film:

Jamie Johnson's documentary Born Rich, at 10 p.m. Monday on HBO, begins and ends - as the lives of the wealthy so often do - with both a party and a lawyer.

At the Johnson & Johnson heir's 21st-birthday bash in swank Southampton, N.Y., with an appropriate Roaring Twenties theme, the filmmaker announces with guileless bravado: "At midnight, I'm going to inherit more money than most people will earn in a lifetime."

Johnson's lawyer counsels him against making this involving yet sad movie, which results in tabloid frenzy and a lawsuit, ultimately dismissed, filed by Luke Weil, Born Rich's bluntest and most offensive figure. He alleged he'd been tricked into participating.

"The irony of making a movie about the rich is they have the money to sue you," says Johnson, who narrates the film, part of HBO's America Undercover series, in an unfortunate voice that sounds padded in martini-pickled olives.

As far as I can see, everything here is verified (and can be additionally verified) in first-class sources, and everything is reported with a neutral point of view. The lawsuit was significant to the film's content and coverage. No sufficient basis has been given for the repeated deletions. The content should be restored. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I think this might be a case of COI editing from JS18. Weil has been the subject of various other COI shenanigans, all from a reputation management company named Metal Rabbit Media. See here. We can just see if JS18 continues to revert against the Bold Revert Discuss cycle, and against consensus of editors, and then take it to Administrators-Incidents noticeboard.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Since Shibbolethink has against wikipedia policy deleted / moved an ongoing discussion from his own talk page. I think I have no choice other than to take this up here while an admin see's to that. It's however ironic that his last comment was that he was not calling anyone a sockpuppet and here that's actually all he's doing. Let's get past the personal attacks for a second and just state that the highbeam research article which is suppose to be the 'credible source'(?) for the information of the statement "alleging that he had been "tricked" into consenting" statement is no where publicly visible and the NYtimes makes no mention either. So how exactly is that information cited so everyone can verify it without signing up for anyone's service? This information needs to be from a credible, public and freely available source to use as a cite. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is already addressed above. The source is an Associated Press news report about the dismissal of the case. It can be found in a variety of online locations, as noted above. (And there are plenty of other sources that also report the same facts.) Moreover, your premise is wrong: there is no requirement that a source has to be available as a "public and freely available source". In fact, there is no requirement that a source be available online at all. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Definition of published, and Wikipedia:Offline sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Public and freely available would be the only way to verify a source. Not sure where you're getting the rest. Regardless, I fixed the article to reflect information in the actual cite which says not that Luke was tricked but that some of the participants felt like they were tricked which is a more accurate and complete statement. Hopefully this will settle the issue now. Please do not edit this any further, this is a direct quote from the NYTimes article that was used for the cite "Some of the people who participated in the film said they were invited to do so under false pretenses, saying that Mr. Johnson claimed it was a student film." JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSes do not need to be free and publicly available. They only need to be verifiable from other editors, which has been done here. Luke Weil was the plaintiff in the lawsuit, you cannot remove that well-sourced fact without breaching WP policy. Also the HIGHBEAM article directly supports Luke's motivation behind the lawsuit as the result of false pretenses.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

JS18WlKlPEDlA, your assertion that "Public and freely available would be the only way to verify a source" is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. WP:PAYWALL says "an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." Similar guidance is provided at the other pages I noted above.

In addition to the problems identified by Shibbolethink, I see several other concerns with your proposed rewording. The indirect wording of the sentence about the lawsuit leaves it unclear that only one person filed a legal claim. The use of the phrase "related to the deception" seems to assert that there was actually "deception" by Johnson, when the court ruled otherwise; this is potentially a violation of WP:BLP as applied to Johnson. In addition, as with any developing film article, there is potentially more to be said here, for example about how Johnson incorporated the lawsuit into the film, as well as more about how the film was received by reviewers on its release. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah....Associated Press via HIGHBEAM trumps NYT every time. Associated Press is THE most respected reporting service. I'm taking this to the noticeboard.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the NYT cite was the cite you (Shibbolethink) used, not me. I made constructive edits that correctly reflected what was being said. You, for some reason, are trying desperately to keep all of the focus on Luke Weil even though as the cite says "some of the participants" not "Luke Weil". I made a constructive edit which reflects that, nothing more. There was no removal of reference to anything, I only made changes to reflect that multiple people felt tricked in to appearing which is a more accurate statement about that controversy as shown in the cite. As far as I can tell you seem to be bothered that the focus is no longer directly pointed at Luke Weil which would fall in line with your self stated smear campaign against the Weil family because you suspect they have used Metal Rabbit rep management in the past. I ask that you please keep your edits in a NPOV and not try to focus on one individual when there are multiple people involved as the cite states. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Arxiloxos - I added 'alleged' before deception. It should however be noted that the judge didn't dismiss the case according to the AP cite because he found no deception but because, and I quote "A Manhattan judge says the rich are different partly because they are newsworthy and therefore an heir to the drug maker Johnson & Johnson fortune may release a documentary film about his wealthy peers." JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk)

Arxiloxos - To add to this, I agree there's a lot more to be said about controversy but at this point seems like that's all that's really being said about the film and cited and I'm worried that this article is turning more in to a sounding board about controversy with the participants and their lives than an objective encyclopedic entry about a film itself, what reviewers think about it, ect. If you'll notice for example with Shibbolethink's cites, they're all about redundant articles discussing the participants lives and controversy in them. Starting to be more of a soap opera than a wiki article. There's 5 cites that all essentially say the same things in them. Seems redundant and unnecessary to me. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Added the stated judges reasoning from AP cite to further enhance and clarify the lawsuit statement. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is incomplete and as such continues to violate WP:BLP as applied to Johnson. The judge explicitly found there was no deception. I've already quoted the relevant language in the AP report above. "The judge said the releases Weil signed clearly state that the documentary is a commercial undertaking for a professional studio in Beverly Hills, Calif., and because of the unambiguous language, he cannot claim to have been tricked or defrauded." I propose the following wording for the paragraph:

Some of the participants in the film claimed to have appeared under false pretenses, saying that Johnson told them it would only be a school film. One of the subjects sued to prevent the film's distribution, alleging that he had been "tricked" into participating and signing release forms. In October 2002, a New York court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the subject matter of the film was newsworthy and that the releases had clearly identified the film as a commercial production. Reports before and at the time of its release also stated that some other participants were also unhappy about their depiction in the film.

As far as the multiple cites are concerned, these serve to demonstrate notability and to provide multiple references for readers with more detail about the matters summarized in the article text. There is no need or basis to remove any of them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

References

• Arxiloxos - I think your revision sounds good, I like it. If no one else has any dispute, I vote for that to go current. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think Luke Weil's name should be added after "One of the subjects . . ." Coverage of Weil's role in both the film and the lawsuit is extensive in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think Luke Weil, being the perpetrator of the suit, deserves enhanced coverage. He's literally quoted in the lawsuit and paraphrased in the AP release.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How's this:

Some of the participants in the film claimed to have appeared under false pretenses, saying that Johnson told them it would only be a school film. One of the subjects, Luke Weil, sued to prevent the film's distribution, alleging that he had been "tricked" into participating and signing release forms. In October 2002, a New York court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the subject matter of the film was newsworthy and that the releases had clearly identified the film as a commercial production. Reports before and at the time of its release also stated that some other participants were also unhappy about their depiction in the film.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I fail to see why it's so important to add Weil's name in the article when Shibbolethink has made and won the case that Weil is not notable enough for mention on Wikipedia but any time there's something in a negative light, insists on noting him. The whole article does not feel balanced to me as it is with the majority of the history section focused on this particular controversy and no attempt to add content that's not related to controversy or focused on Weil. I think of we add Weil's name back, to keep things balanced and fair for a special mention some of this recent philanthropic activities should be mentioned as not to solely keep painting him in such a negative light like I feel Shibbolethink is really trying to do: Example: One of the subjects, Luke Weil, who is now a philanthropist(cite here), sued to prevent.... This gives a little more balanced background on the otherwise unknown or referenced individual. Thoughts? JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• JS, incorrect. Shibbolethink made the case that Luke Weil is not notable enough for his own article. That is very different than not notable for a mention. Mentioning that Weil is a philanthropist is irrelevant in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• My position is that I don't feel that Weil should get special mention in such a negative light. I like Arxiloxos's rev suggestion and the real controversy discussion should be focused on Johnson's alleged deception which was stated by more than just Weil. Another hot topic that's relevant in my opinion if we want to discuss controversy is how Johnson was willing to expose his friends but kept his own wealth off the table for discussion in the film and later interviews. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's what i think you're missing, JS18WIKIPEDIA. NPOV works like this, in my experience: You have to include a variety of information well-supported by a few WP:RSes in proportional weight. You shouldn't strive to give equal weight to flattering and unflattering info. And you only include information that is relevant to the subject of an article. Further, you don't give undue weight to certain POVs or info simply because you believe it should be in an article. You only do it if a bunch of WP:RSes regarding the subject of the article also include it. AND finally, you should follow the consensus of other editors on the talk page. If you combine all of these things, it should become clear, Luke Weil's name should be included in the mention of the lawsuit. Most sources that mention the lawsuit also mention him, and a bunch of sources that mention the movie mention both the lawsuit and him. It doesn't matter that he isn't notable enough for his own article, it matters that this act of filing a lawsuit is notable enough, according to WP:RSes standards, to include him in THIS article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about the film, and should mention Luke Weil only as he relates to the film. His connections to the film are two: He appeared in the film, and he filed a lawsuit in an unsuccessful attempt to stop distribution of the film. Those two facts belong in this article. Nothing unrelated to the film belongs in the article, and certainly not Weil's more recent activities. The fact that we have no biography of Weil is completely irrelevant. We routinely include well referenced mention of people who have no biographies in a wide range of articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Emmy awards refs

Please keep in mind that IMDB is not a valid reference for wikipedia, because it is crowdsourced. Please find a reference coming from directly Emmy or from a reliable news source. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Combining statements in history

I think we should combine these two statements:

• Other participants in the film claimed to have been convinced to participate under the same "false pretenses" but Johnson denied that he had "tricked" anyone.
• Reports before and at the time of the film's release stated that other participants were also unhappy about their depiction in the film.

Does anyone agree? How should we do it?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Seems perfectly fine just the way it already is now. If anything we should just remove the "Reports before and at the time of the film's release stated that other participants were also unhappy about their depiction in the film" entirely, as the previous clearly shows that participants were not happy. The fact that they felt deceived is far more news worthy and factual than saying reports say they were unhappy. I think the article is already too bloated with information about controversy around the film. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Born Rich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/born_rich/synopsis.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200310/tows_past_20031013.jhtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.accesshollywood.msn.com/insidestory/0121_bornrich.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718010631/http://gawker.com:80/505657/si-newhouse-iv-settles-down to http://gawker.com/505657/si-newhouse-iv-settles-down

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

* 'deadurl' parameters added in the three formatting changes should be dead-url, which is optional Template:Cite_web#Using_format, and were removed.

* The formatting change from http to https for the archive-url is also optional. Spaces between parameters were also added for two of the above refs, but spaces are not inserted when using the 'Templates' drop down menu on top of the edit box to create a citation.

-Yadap (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)