Talk:The Other Side of the Wind

Was the sex scene actually broadcast?

As anyone who has seen the Oda Kodar sex scene in the One Man Band documentary can attest, it was very explicit for the time. Indeed, even in 2011 it would probably get the film an R-rating in the US were it ever to be released. As such I find it hard to believe the scene would have been shown on a 1975-vintage television special. Do we know for certain the scene was not edited down or censored in some way for the AFI broadcast? 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

redirect

May I suggest a redirect from 'Other Side of the Wind'?Robbmonster (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Karp's book and the embezzlement allegations

At the moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Side_of_the_Wind&oldid=1058721895), the last third or so of the section "1974 production block, alleged embezzlement, and second major pause in the filming," which is already over-free with quoted passages, cites Josh Karp's book, Orson Welles's Last Movie, and quotes it at length. I'm reading that book right now, and apart from the excessive quoted passages, there are some pretty big issues with this section of the article and how it uses the book. The big one is that Karp's book very carefully avoids ever mentioning Gomez's name, probably for fear of litigation- where the quoted passage says "[Gomez]," the actual book reads "the producer's company." One can in fact use external evidence to conclude that this passage is about Gomez, but altering the quoted passage to make it seem like the book is directly addressing Gomez is dubious. The paragraph beginning with "Karp's 2015 book also reproduces contemporary (May 2, 1974) correspondence from one of the film's creditors..." is even more dubious- the photographic reproduction of the letter presented in the book features a black censor bar where the name of the accused is, and nothing in the text of the book links the letter either to Gomez by name, or to "the man" accused of embezzlement. The text merely says the letter concerns "a producer" who tried to pay a local motel owner (Jim Hines) with bouncing checks, and the investigation, warrant, and charges are, in context, clearly to do with the outstanding motel bill rather than embezzlement. Linking it to Gomez at all isn't just original research, it might actually be fantastical- no other sources are cited in the article to link the letter or the motel bill to Gomez. The paragraph as it stands even contradicts itself, opening with a quote alleging Gomez was charged with grand larceny, and ending with a quote alleging Gomez (again unnamed in the actual book passage quoted) has "never been charged."

The book ultimately argues, as well, that it's equally possible that the alleged embezzlement never occurred, and the cash shortfall was simply a result of Welles's poor money management, but the way it's cited and quoted in this article uses only the parts that are apparently condemnatory of the alleged embezzler.

Anyway, I think the linking of these passages to Gomez in particular probably counts as original research, and parts of the section as a whole possibly violate BLP policy in that they're using original research to link a living person to alleged crimes- that is, the alleged crime and the identification of Gomez as the alleged perpetrator are sourced to reliable sources, and are thus probably fine, but the misleading use of passages from Karp's book is dubious, as is the unsourced, parenthetical aside about an "audio tape" inserted into the quoted passage of Gomez's memoir above. I don't quite want to just hack the whole section out, because parts of it are fine, but it needs badly to be rewritten.

NB: This entire section seems to be reproduced verbatim on Gomez's own article, too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Vicente_G%C3%B3mez). Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)