Talk:Bryan Singer

Bryan Singer targeted in teen sex abuse lawsuit
This is not CNN. Please refer to BLPCRIME
 * A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.


 * Even tough Bryan Singer is NOT relatively unknown, there is a cadre of editors that lunge at every article attempting to insert any and all salacious content. The same people do not bother to go back and remove the information if the party is NOT convicted.  The point is, what encyclopedic value does it serve at this early point to include this suit, which may in fact be tossed out.   If it proceeds to trial, then there may be some basis for addition.  Bobsd (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've seen no mention of criminal proceedings at all so far, only a civil lawsuit, so the bit about convictions doesn't really apply. That said, I agree with erring on the side of caution and not including it for now, at least until it becomes a bigger story or until litigation begins in earnest. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 07:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The standard practice on wikipedia is to include high profile rape or sexual asssault accusations. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Brock_(musician), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Travolta#Personal_life, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger#Sexual_assault_allegations
 * Three examples do not a rule make ... BTW, 90.220.55.100, get an account, make contributions, and then sign your posts if you are going to taken seriously quoting "standard practices". Bobsd (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The three examples are a strong indication of how this topic is usually treated. I can find more if you want, and I certainly can't find any support for your arbitrary "proceeds to trial" rule. Please address the topic at hand if you want to be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.55.100 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bobsd: "...there is a cadre of editors that lunge at every article attempting to insert any and all salacious content." There is also a cadre of editors who resort to rhetoric about innocent until proven guilty to insist that even alleged offences have no place in entries. This type if editing war happens with high profile crimes such as those of Ariel Castro as well as those of celebrities. You, Bobsd, have misunderstood the essence of due process which is accorded to accusers as well as their alleged assailants. The mention of allegations is not synonymous with a declaration of guilt but your deciding to pretend they don't exist is nothing short of suggesting that the accuser is a liar before a court of law has heard the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.110.229 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear 180.12.110.229. Nothing that you said in your rant has any bearing on my point. I do not misunderstand the essence of due process. Nothing I said " ... is nothing short of suggesting that the accuser is a liar ..." My point is that Wikipedia has guidelines.  It is not primarily a source for current events.  The fact that it can be up-to-date is wonderful, as long as it does not diminish it's veracity.  The reason there are guidelines is to guide editors.  I suggest you actually read BLPCRIME or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories."   BTW, 60.241.96.232 vandalized my User Page on April 17 @ 7:51 pm.   I guess he didn't like my position of following guidelines either. Bobsd (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the opening paragraph should mention that he's a deviant, considering how many times he has been accused. 2003:F4:1F12:DE01:4C90:842E:3C52:5D89 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead already makes reference to this in the final paragraph. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal issues
Given that all these accusations seem to result in nothing should this section be removed? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did ask for this to be discussed before removing the section, but since no-one seemed interested, I've just removed it. As I said in the edit comments, you have one case that was dismissed for lack of evidence and two cases that were withdraw by their accusers. Surely we should be expecting something a bit more substantial before sticking the words "child abuse" in the table of contents of someone's biography. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You waited 1 day to remove this, without possibility of any reply, which I'm almost tempted to consider bad-faith editing. The fact that he was accused, and so notably so, is indeed encyclopedic, and worth mentioning in the article, despite whatever reasons the accusations were rejected: eg see Jian Ghomeshi, etc. I will not revert your edits yet, because I want to give other editors a chance to weigh in, but I do recommend that the section be reinstated, under the title of "child abuse allegations". BrxBrx (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was certainly a notable incident: there was quite a bit of press coverage. I believe it should be restored, under the heading "Child abuse allegations". I don't believe it is giving undue weight to the incident because of the volume of coverage in reliable sources. Both the complaint, which was withdrawn, and the response of Singer's team are mentioned, so it doesn't fail the neutrality test (on that count, at least). MisterRandomized (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with this. Retain the information but emphasize that we're talking about allegations. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All I know I came to this article to get a summary of what the accusations had been, and was surprised to see absolutely nothing. True or not, the allegations were a notable issue and it harms coverage of the person as a subject to not mention them at all.  Wickedjacob (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Imma give this another day or so before putting it back in then. BrxBrx (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So just so I understand this, someone can accuse you of molesting them as a child with zero evidence, with zero convictions (criminal or civil), with a story that is proved to be false in the case of Michael Egan, and for the rest of your life any time anyone discusses you, you should be referred to as an alleged child abuser? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the allegations receive significant coverage in major media, the consensus here at least appears to be that it is not inappropriate to discuss the allegations. And allegations are just that, allegations. I could call myself an alleged murderer and it wouldn't mean anything. If the course of this discussion troubles you and what appears to be the current consensus doesn't change, you would of course be welcome to pursue dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sex abuse in Hollywood is a particularly important issue at this time, i.e. is notable/newsworthy, but a large amount of information regarding allegations against Singer along that line was recently deleted from this entry. I've undone those deletions and updated this entry, but I suspect further attempts will be forthcoming.Soraciel (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Frequent collaborators
This section seems to composed solely of actors from the X-men franchise. Given that, does it make sense to have a section on frequent collaborators? The fact that such a section exists suggests that Singer tends to choose to collaborate with the same people, when in fact everyone was merely working together as a side effect of having been cast in a popular franchise. It seems misleading.--Soraciel (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing any actor whose sole collaboration with Singer has been through the X-men films. If that means wiping out the section, or reducing it to a point where deleting it entirely may make more sense, so be it. DonIago (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In agreement with the sentiments above—I.E. treating the X-Men franchise as a single project—I reduced the section to mention those who Singer worked with on multiple non-X-Men films. ―MJBurrage(T•C) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section
The section should be removed, which I will do with reference to similar issues noted here first, then here, and and once again, here. In those very similar edits, the users were new editors who apparently were unfamiliar with the guidelines explained. The section makes up over 25% of the article! --Light show (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of new coverage of the January 2019 allegations which reinforce the previous lawsuits, I believe the section constitutes due weight and should remain in the article. —  Newslinger  talk   00:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The section should unquestionably stay, given the way these allegations have impacted on him professionally and on the public perception of him (projects suspended, fired from film, left out of award nominations, etc.), leaving it out would make what happened inexplicable, and make no sense at all. As with Harvey Weinstein, the allegations have become a major part of the person's life, and should therefore be given the appropriate prominence and warrant a separate section. I do however think that the section could be trimmed a little. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The big difference to Weinstein is that Weinstein does not categorically deny the occurance of any sexual activity at all, he just denies that it was unconsensual or that it would constitute rape. Singer's case is much more similar to Kevin Spacey's legal case, where (although Spacey, just like Weinstein, also does not deny sexual activity, especially not sexual activities that took place in public) just like in Singer's case the only reason that the accusers weren't legally sentenced themselves for sex crimes and/or libel was because they voluntarily dropped their legal charges before evidence against them was heard in court (where in Spacey's case, the accuser would've otherwise been charged with the crime of having sexually provoked Spacey by means of public groping as the very act that the accuser had sued Spacey over). --2003:EF:13DB:3B66:1865:2804:51FE:C4F1 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Weinstein Effect
The first line of this paragraph is:

"Allegations against Singer were revived following the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations in 2017, as well as those against frequent collaborator Kevin Spacey."

Singer and Spacey have worked together twice, on The Usual Suspects (1995) and Superman Returns (2006). It is my opinion this hardly qualifies them as 'frequent collaborators'. I would like to change 'frequent' to something a bit less 'weasel-wordy', ie 'some-time'. Anyone else mind if I make this change, as I don't feel two collaborations in a 23 year span will meet anyone's definition of 'frequent'.Robbmonster (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "against Kevin Spacey, with whom Singer had collaborated on two films"? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. Anyone else?Robbmonster (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dark Phoenix
The page currently lists Dark Phoenix in Singer's filmography and says: "Uncredited producer during development and pre-production. Removed from production and credits amidst sexual assault allegations". However, the Wikipedia page for Dark Phoenix states that Singer was not involved in the project, relying on this source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-jessica-chastain-emerged-as-a-leader-gender-equality-1117361. If that is true, this page shouldn't list Dark Phoenix at all. I have tagged the Dark Phoenix listing as dubious. Does anybody have any light to shed on this? SunCrow (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thread necromancy, but https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/how-jessica-chastain-emerged-as-a-leader-gender-equality-1117361/ says "Kinberg says the film will not bear former producer and accused sexual assaulter Bryan Singer’s name, as he had no involvement in the production" which could be used to support that he was a former producer,but also supports "no involvement". https://ew.com/movies/2017/12/07/xmen-dark-phoenix-first-look-cover/ "aking his directorial debut, felt in his gut that this was the story that he needed to tell once Bryan Singer, who directed the previous two sequels, stepped aside." also implies some level of involvement.https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/foxs-x-men-issues-jennifer-lawrence-unsigned-deadpool-defections-gambit-hold-945505/ states no involvement. https://deadline.com/2017/06/x-men-dark-phoenix-jennifer-lawrence-michael-fassbender-james-mcavoy-simon-kinberg-1202113290/ says he is involved. "Kinberg is producing with Bryan Singer, Hutch Parker and Lauren Shuler Donner. " But I admit this is fairly thin sauce. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)