Talk:Catfish (film)

Notable

This seems notable enough; on August 4th, 2010, it was featured on IMDb's homepage, described by the aforementioned as a "mysterious documentary" and "Sundance fave" that "everyone's talking about." I'm afraid I don't know much more as I only found this page after visiting IMDb to begin with! 68.82.231.59 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler-ish?

Does this page contain too many spoilers for a movie that isn't out yet? Should it be updated so that the Plot summary doesn't give away the twist ending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.26.20 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Wow...should we tell the whole movie plotline BEFORE the movie's even out yet?

I'm very angry right now. I just saw the trailer for the movie and came to wikipedia to find out more about it. Before I realized it, I realized I had read the whole plot - spoilers and all. And the movie isn't even out yet. This is just a 3 paragraph slug and you spoiled the whole movie.

No spoiler warning or anything. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

ADDITIONAL:

I have read the wikipedia treatise on spoilers generously provided by WookieInHeat. (Thank you...I'm new to posting and I appreciate your patience)

However, this does not change the fact that this article - as written - is a blatant and intentional spoiler. To quote the very piece I was referred to, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance."

I humbly suggest that the level of detail of the plot description (and the associated spoilers) serves no encyclopedic purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongozap (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongozap (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I removed a small portion of it. Let's keep the plot summary official folks! Use the official website, official Facebook page and any official(read: not leaked) trailers/previews as sources. Not people's impressions or very spoiler-heavy reviews. HighEnergyProtons (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. YLee (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way we can hide the spoiler part? Maybe create an ending section (with auto-hide option) or keep the plot section strictly containing the movie's plot and not the entire summary? It's best to find a solution rather than just simply stating "Wikipedia doesn't work that way." Let's do something so both sides are happy. People who haven't seen it aren't spoiled by the article page and people whom already seen it can look it up & find the information. Helping us would be much appreciated. HighEnergyProtons (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

People who do not want to be spoiled regarding a movie (or book, or play, or videogame) should not read the associated Wikipedia article, period, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that implies comprehensive coverage of any topic. This particular debate has been going on for years—see Talk:The Mousetrap for one example—and this talk page is not the place to try to change the consensus status quo. YLee (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's something out there within Wikipedia's policies that allows both parties to be happy when reading the article, especially when the movie hasn't been released to the general public yet(read: only private screenings and various film festivals) All my comments here on this discussion page are only for the Catfish(film) article. I'm not talking about the entire Wikipedia site. HighEnergyProtons (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about the spoiler status but could we maybe re-write the plot section so that it makes a little more sense? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How is the plot confusing? You previously claimed that it was "excessive", but your previous attempt to edit it simply removed the second and third paragraphs, violating both WP:FILMPLOT's guidelines on plot size and WP:SPOILERS. YLee (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have my apologies for that. I've never edited film-related articles before, I wasn't familiar with the relevant procedures. However, having not seen the film, sentences like the one pertaining to the MP3s don't have any notion of significance for me. Using just first names to denote a host of characters rather than their relationships to each other and the plot is also a little disorienting. It took me a good five reads of the plot section to figure out what was going. This could be better. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia film plots are meant to be dry, spare texts with the minimum information necessary to communicate what's going on. You are welcome to improve this one if you believe you can, but since the film has not been released yet you had better be able to cite everything to a reliable source, as the current one does. YLee (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with removing any complete plot summary from any movie, book, or the like. The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide the most complete and accurate information it can. It is not a review site that gives you hints or a teaser. I specifically come to Wikipedia to read the complete summary of a movie or book for a variety of reasons. If you do not want the spoiler, either do not come to Wikipedia (there are other sites, like IMDB, that give short summaries), or do not read the Plot section. In fact, I wish more of the Plot sections had fuller summaries (and have helped when I could).--Sbwinter2 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoax

-I removed the line about a website mentioned in the film not existing: The source for that claim is a page that claims that the website, http://web.archive.org/web/20080225112354/http://www.charte.net/ that "Megan" mentioned in a chat doesn't actually exist. However, if you change the above url to charter.net, it is in fact the music sharing website from the film. So clearly it was just a typo when she IMed it to him. A pretty obvious error from the source page, as many in the page's comments have pointed it, but he hasn't redacted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.42.189 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would there be protection for this film as a hoax? It's been outed by many, though the film makers are still perpetrating the documentary status. At what point can it be reported as a hoax? When the film makers admit they have lied to the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.70.94 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no "protection". If you wish to demonstrate that the film is not a true documentary, cite your work and don't engage in original research. Just throwing up random external links and ranting about them doesn't qualify as Wikipedia-worthy writing. YLee (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What is Lee talking about? All ANYONE does on WikiPedia is "throw up random external links and then rant about them". Just how much evidence does there need to be that it's a hoax before we can call it one? Should we claim that an Alien named Xenu is responsible for Thetans in our bodies, just because Scientologists insist that it's true? If I made a film claiming that I'm a vampire, would WikiPedia be forced to treat it as Truth, just as long as I got a Sundance film credit? Or more to the point, are we going to list "I'm Still Here" or "This is Spinal Tap" as "Documentaries"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it make sense to call it a "possible" or "supposed" documentary? I would suggest that we need a reliable citation before we say for sure it's a documentary. Edmund6334 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources cited in the article call it a documentary, although the film's official site does not, as far as I can tell; the closest it comes is to describe it as a "reality thriller". Nonetheless, the burden of proof is on finding reliable sources that state that the film is not a documentary. YLee (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

...and you don't think the film's own website is a "reliable source"? Seriously YLee, what ax do you have to grind here? It's obvious that you have some sort of personal stake or bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the mention of this editor's bias. Not having edited the article myself, but having looked through the history, it seems like YLee's reversions (some valid, mind you, but others really broach a niggling line) and overprotective mothering nature of this article alone indicate either a misbegotten sense of territory (as is often the case with many Wikipedia users and articles) or someone with an unmentioned stake in the subject of the article itself (though this is easily dismissed barring any proof to the contrary; one would only hope that someone so inclined to spout Wiki policy and regulations would not flagrantly violate them at the same time). --99.186.108.193 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that explicitly states that the film is a hoax, then that's perfectly usable. If there are reliable sources that state that the film is a "documentary" or "not a hoax," then those, too, are usable. As far as I can tell from the article's history, no one has added any source stating that the film is a hoax. The closest we've come is the Movieline article cited in the "Reception" section, which states that the author of the article thinks it is a hoax. That's not the standard we need live up to to definitively state in our article that the film is a hoax; whether someone thinks it's a hoax has no bearing on the truth of whether it's a hoax or not.

To be able to state in our article that the film is a hoax or a mockumentary, we would need the equivalent of this article about the hoax film I'm still here, in which the moviemaker himself states to a venerable movie critic that the film was not real. If the New York Times writes an article stating that Catfish is a hoax (not that the article's author watched it and thinks it's full of shit, but that it IS a hoax), then that's good sourcing and can be used in our article. Does a reliable source stating that exist? If so, editors should feel free to let us know here on the talk page, or be bold and add it to the article as a citation for the word "hoax"/"mocumentary." If it doesn't or hasn't been found yet, then the most we can do is what we have done: state that reliable sources describe the film as a documentary, and also discuss that some people working for reliable sources think it's a hoax but it remains an open question.

As for YLee, though he/she may be getting fed up with dealing with the same issue over and over and may not be wording things in the most fluffy-bunny, kindly, explanatory way, i see no evidence that he/she has any particular bias, except against unsourced additions to controversial articles. Which is as it should be. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a hoax

Sorry, the film is a hoax. Apparently, no one took the time to actually look for sources about the film. Here are a few - and yes, i will be reveting back to the fact that the film is a mockumentary.

• 1
• 2
• 3

Anyone wishing to remove it again, might want to talk to an admin or seek 3O, as I am not about to feed the marketing machine for a picture by some bs claim that the film is real. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack, while I respect your intentions and in fact I believe that the film is a hoax, to my mind none of those three sources are both reliable and state that the film is a mockumentary (that is, two appear to be reliable and one states that it's a hoax, none fulfill BOTH these things). Taken one by one:

• The Independent: in an article about the subject of mockumentaries, says Catfish is "labelled 'the perfect documentary'" and that "it's hard to believe some of it isn't staged. Quite rightly, though, the directors refuse to talk about this – the uncertainty is part of the film." So basically, stating that we don't know and the filmmakers aren't telling.
• The Herald Review: in a similar article titled "Documentary, mockumentary and prankumentary," says that the film "is hardly alone in this style of 'maybe true' documentary style films." Again, basically saying that we don't know and that's part of the allure.
• Thandian News, which seems to be of debatable reliability (literally, as I think it would need to be discussed for anyone to decide whether it's reliable or not), comes the closest, stating in passing that the film is one of a genre of "‘mockumentary claiming to be a documentary’". However, the article is short, contains grammatical errors, and doesn't give any reason why they are labeling the film as such. It is mostly a summary of the film's plot. Alone among the three does it call the film a mockumentary, and it's my opinion that a lone, maybe-reliable-maybe-not source, stating such a thing with no mention of how it reached that conclusion, isn't enough to back up a controversial claim.

Now, if you want to commence an RFC (not a 3O, as there are already more than two people involved here) or something on the topic of how to label the film, that would be awesome. More eyes on this topic helping to figure out out what we can substantiate would be great, as we few who are currently here are obviously butting heads. But in the meantime, please remember that it is incumbent upon the person who wants to add controversial information to an article to provide the proof of that information. In the absence of reliable sourcing for controversial information, the controversial information may not be placed in the article. So basically it's no good to add a statement to the article and say, "Well clearly it's true, if anyone just LOOKED they'd find proof." YOU (or any other person who wants to add mockumentary claims) must provide adequate proof. I don't think your current sources live up to that.

I'm not going to revert your changes right now, since you're obviously spoiling for a fight, although I can make no promises about what anyone else will do. I'd encourage you to start an RFC or take this issue to one of the noticeboards to attract more eyes. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Written after Chaoticfluffy's response above but before Jack's reply below; Jack deleted my posting) The first article briefly mentions Catfish in a review of I'm Still Here and only says in passing that "it's hard to believe" that some of the film's scenes were not staged. The second article is somewhat more assertive about the author's belief that the filmmakers took advantage of an opportunity presented to them (as opposed to being ignorant of Angela and Megan's true natures before their trip to Michigan), but is hardly definitive. The third doesn't call it a mockumentary at all, but only quotes an unspecified source calling it as such; it's almost as if you searched for Catfish and mockumentary in Google News and picked out the first three results.

I do not know whether Catfish is 100% real or 100% hoax. I do not know whether the filmmakers knew what they were getting themselves into when they traveled to Michigan. I do know that reliable sources, cited in the article, call it a documentary and that the filmmakers call it "100% real". Until and unless we have proof otherwise, we must call it a documentary. We don't need the filmmakers changing their story (à la I'm Still Here) to change Wikipedia's stance; a reliable source, say, interviewing the Michigan people, or providing substantial documentation on ways the film is self-evidenty deceptive, would probably be sufficient. Reviewers saying that they think, or they believe, or they suspect, that Catfish is a hoax just aren't enough. YLee (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Last bit first: I am not "spoiling for a fight"; I am simply not going to do anything that feeds that marketing machine surrounding the film.

Of COURSE the filmmakers aren't going to define the film. It would be stupid of them to do so, as half the buzz about the film is the "is it real or not" nonsense filling the news cycle. This worked magificently for The Blair Witch which, if i am not mistaken, was one of the best and innovative examples of the use of viral marketing ever.

I disagree with your negative assessments about the sources, though they were just the first ones grabbed from a Google search. All three are solid publications, though is you wish to challenge the notability/reliability of The Indian, there is a noticeboard for that.

Lastly, if you feel that at best the sources don't know if the film is real or not (though I think they are pretty clear on that matter), then why would you revert my edit sidestepping this altogether.

I will flip the script on you, buddy: present citations certifying that the film is real and then we can talk. I've proven my point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The IFC and Hollywood Reporter reviews cited by the article both call it a documentary. That's good enough for me until/unless proof otherwise is shown.

PS - I feel insulted even having to respond to the charge made above that I am part of the film's marketing efforts. Over the past six weeks I have spent a) 50% of the time repelling those trying to hide the spoilers in the plot summary and b) the other 50% of the time repelling those, like yourself, claiming without proof that this film is a hoax. I would have thought it self-evident that a Rogue Pictures employee trying to virally push the film would not want to do a), but that's apparently too obvious. Sheesh. YLee (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just edited the lede with another possibility, removing any descriptor from the sentence where we state that it's a film. The subsequent sentences provides the indisputable fact that it is presented as a documentary. I expect someone or other will revert me, but I think that's about as good a compromise as we can manage given the current sources.

As a side note, Jack, you are edging very, very close to personally attacking Ylee and I. I would advise you to step back. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with removing the "documentary" adjective in the first sentence. It violates WP:MOSFILM, and more importantly, implicitly disparages the already existing cites (the IP editor's inserts are nice, but unnecessary) that call it a documentary. Again, the burden of proof is on proving that it is not a documentary, and no end of "I think it's a hoax, therefore it's a hoax" will do so.

PS - I forgot to mention that Jack confirms my assumption above that he simply grabbed the first three results of a "catfish mockumentary" Google search. Based on how crummy his so-called cites are (especially the Thaindia one), I assume he didn't even bother to read them before posting! YLee (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pointedly, I've proof in the form of citation that the film is not real. I am deeply sorry that you don't wish to accept them as reliable sources suggests that you might wish to consult with several other administrators or the RS Noticeboard to make a case for removing every instance wherein these suddenly unreliable sources have been cited in Wikipedia. When we have situations wherein we have sources that contradict one another, we make not of it in the text of the article. We do not - I repeat, not - favor one over the other. Since the overwhelming amount of data is that this is not a documentary but rather a film made in the vein of Blair Witch, etc., there is no contradiction. It is a film made to seem like a documentary - one of the explicit comments from one of the sources you seem to be now pooh-poohing.

I am sorry that you feel insulted, Ylee; consider that someone might equally take offense at being pigeon-holed as 'spoiling for a fight'. It's dismissive, and allows for yur opinion to be further discounted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no "overwhelming amount of data" that shows that Catfish is a hoax; if there were you'd surely be able to come up with cites better than the three sorry ones you grabbed from a Google search. Said cites of yours do no more than speculate, with no corroborating evidence, and don't claim otherwise; they certainly don't say anything like "Catfish is a hoax, because of 1), 2), and 3)". Once again, in the absence of reliable sources that say otherwise, we must go with the reliable sources that 1) do call the film a documentary and 2) discuss it predicated on that claim.

PS -Upon doing further research I'm not sure Catfish, even if it is proven to be a hoax, would qualify as a mockumentary. From reading the article, the talk page, and the cited examples it seems that to qualify as a mockumentary the film has to be known before the fact as a hoax. It was well known that This is Spinal Tap was not a documentary about a real rock band, and everyone knew that Zelig was a Woody Allen role, not a real person. On the other hand, The Blair Witch Project—a film that, as the talk page discusses, is not listed as an example within the article—marketed itself as a real example of "found film", and the word "mockumentary" does not appear within the film's article itself (although it does appear in the associated template). If Catfish is proven/announced as a hoax tomorrow, we might have to follow Blair Witch's example and describe it as a "suspense film...presented as a documentary". I guess we'll cross that bridge if/when we need to. YLee (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I'll grant you that it might not actually be a mockumentary, but by the same definition, it is certainly not a documentary. Documentary implies a real view of events, not a carefully rehearsed structure of same. It is because of the murky nature of this film's authenticity that I submitted my edit which followed the Blair Witch article example. which of course, some zealot immediately reverted. My proffered compromise suggests the best solution, and avoids completely the marketing that relies on us calling it something real when it CLEARLY isn't. Please, use your head; this cannot be real. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Zealotry aside, as I mention above your edit (which Chaoticallyfluffy also offered later) violates WP:MOSFILM YLee (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that before. Care to explain just how it violates MOSFILM? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, it is not hard to go to the article and jump down to the "Lead section" link. "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it is normally classified." YLee (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, which is exactly why I removed a genre from which is doesn't belong. Indeed, it could be readily argued that you are violating MOSFILM by calling it something that it clearly isn't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is ambivalence about whether or not this film is a real documentary, and Wikipedia should reflect that ambivalence. There is not a clear-cut answer for either side, and these recent references 1, 2, 3 basically reflect that ambivalence. I would suggest for the lead sentence that we say "Catfish is a 2010 documentary film whose authenticity has been disputed" or similar wording, with the related citations used. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with going into more detail in the Reception section on various reliable sources' questions on whether the film is real or not. I do object to mentioning the dispute in the WP:LEAD sentence as it would be WP:UNDUE as available reliable sources current stand.

Both Chaoticfluffy and I object to Jack and others' repeated claims, without proof, that the film is self-evidently a hoax. Chaoticfluffy states that he himself believes that the film is a hoax; I honestly have no clue. I have not seen the film, and have no plans to see the film; that's why, when I filled out the article from the stub content it was before, I was especially careful to cite everything I've since added. (No doubt Jack will now say "Ha ha! If you saw the film you'd know that the film was a fake!" If this were the case, surely many professional movie reviewers would be similarly definitive, no?) One does not have to see the film to be able to cite, as the article does, reliable sources that call it a documentary.

Your cites are superior to the laughably bad ones Jack jumped into this discussion with, but still only speculate, with various degrees of certainty, on the film's veracity. If a single reliable source could be found that stated "Catfish is definitely a fraud because of 1), 2), and 3)", and proceeded to discuss the film from that viewpoint, I'd be glad to treat it on the same level as the already extant cites that approach the film from the "it's a documentary" standpoint. But there aren't, at least not yet. YLee (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, I think we are only feeding the media frenzy of 'is it or isn't it?' by even calling it a documentary, Erik. I had proposed that we follow the precedent example presented by The Blair Witch Project and utilize the device they used: "The narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur footage, filmed in real time." It is just as true here, and avoids stating unequivocally that it is or is not a documentary. You've noted that there is opinions on both sides of this (the ambivalence arising out of not wanting to ruin the film for viewers, which is what reviewers tend to do out of courtesy), so we should do our level best to stay above the fray. Avoiding calling it an actual documentary does that elegantly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Ylee: we don't need to disprove it as a documentary (though if you could afford the time, I am sure you could find hundreds of citatiosn doing so). We take heed that there is doubt as to the film's authenticity, and stay neutral and above the fray. Period. It is not a documentary until everyone agrees that it is such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need hundreds of citations showing that Catfish is not a documentary. Chaoticfluffy and I have been begging for one (although a few more would of course be preferable). Just one. No, articles that say that "Catfish may not be a documentary" or report on "the debate over whether Catfish is real" don't count. The burden of proof is on the side that does not, at the present time, have reliable sources backing its case with the same definitiveness that the other side does.

The language in Blair is only possible because it is known definitively that the film is not actually a documentary. A more recent, and currently more relevant, example is I'm Still Here. Look at its edit history; before Casey Afflect admitted in early September that it was a mockumentary, the article (rightly) called it a "documentary" despite 18 months (!) of speculation that Joaquin Phoenix was pulling off a long-term hoax on the world. YLee (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Replying to myself) Something else different about Blair is its supernatural subject matter. I'm willing to bet that not a single WP:RS-qualifying article on the film in 1999 treated the film as a prima facie example of "found media", and even had one or two such articles existed, the burden of proof would still be on proving that it was real given the no doubt hundreds of articles that assumed from the start that it was a work of fiction. With Catfish the situation is entirely different. The film's story is much more plausible than "young filmmakers get eaten by monsters in the forest", so the burden of proof for the Catfish-is-real side is not high; a few reliable sources of the type that the article has provided for weeks are sufficient. The burden of proof is on the Catfish-is-fake side, to show that said reliable sources and the filmmakers' statements are false. As things currently stand, to treat both sides as equally meritorious of mention in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. YLee (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - Please stop moving my text around (or delete it, as you've previous done). You are making it very difficult to reply to your comments. The ec flag isn't sufficient; if necessary, use outdent. YLee (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, and I've already told you why. First of all, MOSFILM is not being violated by staying neutral and simply calling it a film being presented as a documentary; note that Neutrality is one of our core principles, whereas MOS is just a style guide.

Furthermore, claiming that presenting a neutral picture - when an equal amount of references state that its real versus those that say it isn't - is an example of UNDUE is wiki-lawyering at best. As I have presented at least three reliably-sourced references that note that it isn't a documentary (and indeed, calling it a mockumentary) serves as a counterweight to those who claim it is. Claiming its real is a marketing tool. Wikipedia is not for sale. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But that's what we've been trying to explain to you, Jack. There AREN'T an equal number of sources stating that it's a hoax. In fact, we've yet to see even ONE. Your citations do not say what you are claiming they say, and if your reading comprehension is such that you are misunderstanding their contents, it may be that you should leave the sourcing to others. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-reply/comment: I disagree with the current phrasing "presented as a documentary", as it implies the film is not actually a documentary. There has been no reliable source provided to substantiate this claim. I decided against merely changing it, as that would have likely been met with confrontation. However, I do feel the article should be edited to reflect the current understood status of the film: documentary. Whether it is actually a documentary, or a "hoax", does not matter. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not "truth". Currently, nothing exists but speculation. No reliable source has stated, irrevocably, that this film is not a documentary (let alone, has any reliable source proven such a claim). The film is "presented as a documentary"; therefore, we should treat it as such, until it is proven otherwise. To wit, we would not label a film as a "blockbuster", "tent-pole", or "box-office bomb" without proper, reliable verification. This entire crusade comes across as being a bit pointy, but I assume we're all just trying to edit the article to the best of our abilities.  Chickenmonkey  07:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what Chaoticfluffy and I have been saying. On the one hand there are

• a. many citations from reliable sources, starting with Catfish's debut at Sundance in January 2010, that call it a documentary—no caveats, no hedging, no "presented as"—and treat it as such. On the other hand there are
• b. a few citations that discuss, to various degrees of certainty, why their authors believe that the film may not be "100% real" as its makers claim. What there has not been a single example of is
• c1. any reliable source saying "Catfish is definitely a hoax like The Blair Witch Project, although I can't prove it at the moment", let alone
• c2. "Catfish is definitely a hoax, and I can prove it, because of this, that, and the other thing".

Given such choices, it would be WP:UNDUE, almost WP:FRINGE, to treat b. (especially given the absence of c1. or c2. despite Jack's insistence that hundreds of such examples exist, apparently due to his repeated and inexplicable misreadings of b. as c.) on the same level as a. within the article's first sentence, although expanding the already existing discussion within the body of b. is appropriate.

Bottom line: Catfish is a documentary according to the Wikipedia standard for verifiability. Until and unless this changes, we need to describe it as a documentary. No ifs, ands, or buts. YLee (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the last two sentences of "Reception" should be removed, then? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. As I state above, "expanding the already exiting discussion within the body of b. is appropriate." It is the lead that, at present time, would violate WP:UNDUE given the disparity in the quantity and quality of opposing cites, at least as things stand at the moment. YLee (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and while we are at it, we should also remove any citations that question the veracity of the film's presentation. We can't have any silly references messing up the devoted belief that the film is utterly real. After all, it conforms to the very definition of 'documentary', right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, any "question[ing of] the veracity" should be located in the "Reception" section; that's what it's for. Depending on how widespread the "questions" are, the weight given to those "questions" should be carefully determined. I could honestly not care less if this film is a "hoax" or "documentary"; I care marginally more about this article being accurate. If a large number of critics/industry professionals are saying they "think" it's not a documentary, that should be mentioned--with qualification of quotes: cite the person making the claim, state clearly what they said, and do not interpret their words. That is all material for the "Reception" section; however, the film is still a documentary, until proven otherwise.  Chickenmonkey  18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Okay, fine. Since the Lede serves as both a summary and introduction to the article, the main problem you appear to have is that there isn't enough material int he article itself suggesting that the documentary is fake. Fine. That's easy enough to address. Thanks for nailing down your problem with it being called a mockumentary or whatnot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, however, that another function of WP:UNDUE is the appropriate use of time and space. Despite all the foolishness here, Catfish is, at the end of the day, an ultra low-budget, very limited-release work with a ~75% Rotten Tomatoes rating. Right now the Reception quotes three reviews; one is positive, one is ambiguous-to-positive ("sad, unusual love story"), and one discusses the film's veracity. The filmmakers are also briefly quoted. This seems to be about the right amount of discussion of the various aspects of the film. Should Catfish become a gigantic box office hit, or if the question of its veracity appears on the cover of Time, then it would be appropriate to revisit this. YLee (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the main problem is your apparent desire to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and make sure everyone is quite clear that this is "obviously not a documentary". If you wish to properly cite criticisms, in the reception section, do so. Then, in the lead, a mention of said criticisms would be appropriate. However, any assertion that the film is not a documentary would be inappropriate, as there is no reliable source for such a claim.  Chickenmonkey  20:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How about extending a little bit of that good faith you keep complaining that I'm not giving? I'm not 'soapboxing'; the idea of an encyclopedia is that we report accurately, not work in tandem with a marketing machine intent on making money.

And, as for references, if there are a significant number of citations that suggest the film is not real, it would indeed be undue weight - as well as unencyclopedic and irresponsible - to fail to mention this in the Lede. Do us both the favor of not pigeon-holing my concern about the lemming-like behavior being presented here as soapboxing; I'll do the encyclopedic thing every single time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed good faith with my first comment here; you've continually inferred that editors calling the film a "documentary" are "working in tandem with a marketing machine" and exhibiting "lemming-like behavior" (or other variations thereof). I clearly said, criticisms should be included, but there is no reliable source, at this time, to warrant not calling the film a documentary. The idea of an encyclopedia is, indeed, that we report accurately, yet you have fought against that by insisting the film is a "mockumentary" or "hoax" without any proof.  Chickenmonkey  19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, Ylee. Back when Blair Witch was released, the directors all swore on their children's lives that the film was real. Lo' and behold, it turned out later that they simply lied, because it helped them make more money to be vague or to outright prevaricate. Several "faux documentaries" use the same technique, assuming (correctly) that the back and forth of whether the documentary is real - as documentaries are assumed by definition to be real - generates buzz and media hype. You can bet that more than one reviewer has looked at Wikipedia and, seeing that we call it a documentary, call its such as well. This is called a media circle jerk. I am not saying that you are a shill for the film company; I am saying that you are wearing unnecessary blinders (ergo the 'lemming-like behavior' comment) and allowing yourself and the Wiki to be manipulated in the furtherance of the marketing effort behind this film.

As for failing to provide solid references to the effect that a number of reviewers, personalities and industry insiders think this is fake, I can only state that I could make equal challenges to some of the citations being presented claiming this is the real deal. That said, the only problem that I had in bringing citations was that of available time. This conversation has served to galvanize me resolve to find them and put them in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While several "faux documentaries" use this technique, that is not sufficient evidence to state this film has used this technique. Wikipedia doesn't predict what will "turn out". If there are reliable sources out there, have fun.  Chickenmonkey  20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment, to YLee, after edit conflict: I believe a mention of the film's questioned veracity would be fine, as long as it is clearly represented as "speculation" and cited to reliable sources.  Chickenmonkey  19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be classified as speculation only if the sources describe it as such. We will not be tailoring reviews to suit personal preference, thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. I don't recall asking for such treatment, but that's a good stance, nonetheless.  Chickenmonkey  19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the things frustrating about this conversation is that trying to debate Jack is very frustrating: We say "A", he responds with "7", and then answers "A" with "B" at some random later point.

His Blair House mention above is an example of this. I will copy-and-paste the same thing that I wrote earlier:

Something else different about Blair is its supernatural subject matter. I'm willing to bet that not a single WP:RS-qualifying article on the film in 1999 treated the film as a prima facie example of "found media", and even had one or two such articles existed, the burden of proof would still be on proving that it was real given the no doubt hundreds of articles that assumed from the start that it was a work of fiction. With Catfish the situation is entirely different. The film's story is much more plausible than "young filmmakers get eaten by monsters in the forest", so the burden of proof for the Catfish-is-real side is not high; a few reliable sources of the type that the article has provided for weeks are sufficient. The burden of proof is on the Catfish-is-fake side, to show that said reliable sources and the filmmakers' statements are false.

You hear that, Jack? The burden of proof on the "Reliable sources say Catfish is a documentary" side was met a while ago. The remaining burden of proof is on you. While we are glad that you are now implicitly admitting that the cites you opened this discussion with don't measure up, forgive us if we remain skeptical that you will finally, after all this foolishness, deliver on your promises. YLee (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow down there, mustang sally - you appear to have again misunderstood my words; please take the time to re-read them. I'll wait...

Okay, now that that's done, let's clear up some of your misapprehensions:

1. The film is Blair Witch Project, not "Blair House" (is that even a film?) and, as far as I can tell, no evidence of supernatural activity ever presented itself in BW. For all we know - and all that the film's marketing folk intimated, the three amateur filmmakers could have easily have run afoul of hillbilly Maryland locals or whatnot. No explantation of their disappearance is ever given, which allows different viewers to put their own spin on what happened. Clearly, this is where you arrived at the wacky notion that they were "eaten by monsters in the forest".
2. The Catfish is precisely the same, when you strip away the plotline and look specifically at the mode of filmmaking and the marketing campaign that followed. This isn't a matter of you asking for A and getting 7; this is me giving you B and you seeing it asa sideways '8' or something - you are discounting the responses you are getting for whatever reason. This is called editorial bias; don't worry, it happens, wherein you get so married to one viewpoint that you become unable to see any other viewpoint as valid or even worthy of consideration. You're fallible, I get it, and can upon retrospect even forgive it.

So, you needn't worry that the references I bring to the article are going to be valid and usable within our policies, guidelines and stylistic choices. If you choose to disagree with the assessments the references make, then I would politely submit that your personal viewpoint/bias, contrasted with that of reliable sources, is somewhat less than a sufficient litmus test for inclusion.

But rather than continuing at addressing those poor behavioral choices, let me go and grab up some references, craft a paragraph or two for responses and something for the Lede, and proceed from there. If your insist on calling every reference that contrasts your own 'not good enough', we can deal with it at that time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack, if you bring in some links that actually provide reliable sourcing for the statement "Catfish is a hoax" or "Catfish is a mockumentary," i think Ylee and I will have a bitchfight about who gets to say "Woohoo! Add them!" first. You're ascribing motives to us that don't exist; I think i can speak for everyone participating in this discussion when i say that if you can find a reliable source saying the film is a hoax, it belongs in the article. But until you present us with that source, well...we'll be stuck in the same old refrain of trying to explain verifiability and reliability to you. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. I look forward to the bitchfight. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why someone has not just added a section titled something like "Controversy" where a full presentation of the debate over whether or not the film is a real documentary or not can be presented. The "Reception" section does mention the doubts about the film's veracity, but only quite briefly. It would seem that since a lot of media discussion of the film does focus on the question of it's truthfulness that a section devoted to just this issue would be useful. It also would allow for a number of quotations and links to articles that question the truthfulness of the film to be presented. The page can still take the position that it has not been proven that the film is a fake documentary, but at the same time say more about the nature and extent of the doubts. I would recommend to anyone who has been trying to get the page to declare that the film is not real to try putting such a section together. Should the film eventually be reliably determined to be fake such a section could then be the basis for the discussion of how it all unraveled. But if it really is a true story, the fact that many have doubted it and said so in print is still significant and worth writing a section about. 99.192.90.15 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"It would be stupid of them to do so, as half the buzz about the film is the "is it real or not" nonsense filling the news cycle. This worked magificently for The Blair Witch which, if i am not mistaken, was one of the best and innovative examples of the use of viral marketing ever."

"Back when Blair Witch was released, the directors all swore on their children's lives that the film was real. Lo' and behold, it turned out later that they simply lied, because it helped them make more money to be vague or to outright prevaricate." Except for the fact that Blair Witch had the "the film is entirely fictitious, any similarities... etc." legal disclaimer at the end of the film (unless this was only included for the home video release, which I doubt). Catfish did not. Concrete proof? Of course not. But enough to give some implication that it's a real documentary. 173.230.187.69 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Even the lawsuits sound like a hoax. Part of the aura the filmakers want.and a great tax writeoff to say "will never make a profit"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together..."

On Friday, Jack Sebastian added a statement to the article leded saying that "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time." IP 71.249.217.208 removed it shortly afterward, with the assertion that the statement was untrue. I then restored it, saying in my edit summary that I believed it was accurate based on our current sources, and the IP removed it again, saying that I and/or Jack should "prove it with a cite". So, let's examine the sources we have right now and see if we can reach an agreement about whether the statement is supportable.

To start, I think the IP may be interpreting "is presented" as saying something about the truth value of the words that follow it, so to them it implies the same thing that "the film is purported to be..." would. I don't think this is the case. "To be presented (as)", to me, is a pretty neutral way of saying "is said to be (by those who present it)." So if I'm not wrong in my interpretation of the word, and we can support the fact that the movie's creators describe it as a documentary, that part of the sentence ought to be fine. Doing a bit of checking, and ignoring for the moment all the secondary sources that refer to it as a matter-of-course as a documentary, we can find that it was entered into the 2010 Sundance Festival as a Documentary Feature. That seems pretty directly to be from the horse's mouth - the makers entered it into Sundance as a documentary, so the makers are presenting it as a documentary.

Ergo, we have support for the film being "presented as a documentary." The remainder of the contested sentence describes the film's documentary style. Can we find support for it being presented as "pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time"? Well, we don't have a source using exactly those words. What we do have:

• The LA Times: "It offers the best example yet of how we're entering a new documentary age in which films can blossom out of mundane real-life experiences, not from carefully thought out narratives and thematic subjects." / "When you are watching "Catfish," you often feel as if you are watching a home movie" / But like so many aspiring filmmakers of their generation, they shoot video all day long, documenting every aspect of their life, thanks to the ease and economy of today's tiny video cameras. [...] the filmmakers don't have to figure out how to reassemble the back story. They have it all on videotape, saved in their files, ready to be edited back into the movie now that the movie suddenly has an involving story line."
• The New Yorker: "The filmmakers construct the tale with breezy skill, making use of their video cameras’ low-light and surveillance capacities and effortlessly limning the way we live now, with Google, YouTube, Facebook, G.P.S., and the iPhone all playing prominent roles."
• IFC: "'Catfish' was filmed on the fly, with cameras sometimes planted on tables or car dashboards, but that haphazardness, and the transparency of the discussions of when and what it's okay to shoot make sense."
• Movieline: "After several months — all filmed, of course — Nev and the filmmakers grow suspicious..."

I tend to think that any of these quotes, and certainly all of them together, provides adequate sourcing for a statement about how the movie was filmed in realtime and pieced together afterward. But, of course, I'm not the only person working on this article, so let's have a discussion. What does everyone else think about whether these sources are able to support the re-addition of the statement, "The film is presented as a documentary pieced together from amateur filmmaker footage, filmed in real time"? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's the way any documentary is assembled. Documentarians in the past perhaps did not have the luxury of near-unlimited film the way today's digital cameras have, but the way a documentary is assembled has not fundamentally changed (except for the odd example that is filmed in one long take, the way Rope presents itself as being): The filmmakers stare at hours and hours of raw footage in the editing room and pick and choose the pieces that, together, tell a coherent story. Only the LA Times cite implies that Catfish is unusual in this way, and again I see the stress on the new availability of enormous amounts of raw footage, which incidentally greatly eases the gathering of the documentary equivalent of second unit film. YLee (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, Ylee. I was so busy thinking over the Jack/IP disagreement points that it didn't occur to me that even if we resolved the issue of it being true/untrue, there was still the issue of "well yeah, but...why does this need to be mentioned?" keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Information on how the film was made should/could be used in the creation of a "Production" section; however, using multiple sources to advance one implied position is synthesizing, and we have to be careful not to go that route.  Chickenmonkey  18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It struck me as I was putting the section together that I wasn't sure where the line was between, "Well obviously the source doesn't say word-for-word the same thing" and "Um, reading a little too far between the lines, here, kiddo." I'm frankly not too attached to either including the statement or excluding it at this point, though you and Ylee both make good points that have me tending toward excluding it. Perhaps Jack Sebastian can advance a more coherent argument for inclusion than mine was, next time he checks in here. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I bet that no other Wikipedia article about a documentary film says that it is "presented as a documentary." I bet they all just say that it is a documentary. There is a clear implication when one uses the phrase "presented as a documentary" that one is suggesting that it is possible that it is not actually a documentary, just that it is presented as one. The situation is similar to when Mitch McConnell was recently asked if he thinks Obama is a Christian and he replied "I take him at his word" rather than "yes". While both answers, in one sense, mean the same thing, the former was (rightly) taken to be implying something less than full agreement.

With this article, unless someone really does want to imply that the film might not be an actual documentary, then there would be no reason to put so much effort into arguing that "is presented as a documentary" says the same thing as "is a documentary". Why would it matter unless you agree that the two descriptions are not the same? It's a sneaky and dishonest way to cast doubts on the film. But, as I wrote above (99.192.90.15 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) is me) a section titled "Controversy" where a full presentation of the debate over whether or not the film is a real documentary or not would probably add to the article and allow for all the doubts that have been published to be represented. 142.68.51.238 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd lose that bet, anon142/anon99. The template for that choice of words was taken specifically from The Blair Witch Project, with the intent of distinguishing this film from an actual documentary (ie, a fictional story made to look like a documentary, as opposed to a real documentary). My reasons for opposing the use of the term 'documentary' for this film are readily documentable above, not the least of which is that it makes the encyclopedia look like fan-crufty rumor page in the pay of the studio's marketing department. I'm in the process of pulling together some sources that note its dubious quality as a documentary (my weekend got a little crowded with RL stuff).

I don't think that a controversy section is supportable as of yet; the main controversy at this time seems to be between us editors as to what to call it. I cannot imagine that the editors who want to keep calling it a documentary honestly believe it is such; they just want citations to back that assertion or its opposite. Frankly, it's so obviously a faux documentary that only a moron would be duped into thinking it isn't all staged. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I said: "I bet that no other Wikipedia article about a documentary film says that it is 'presented as a documentary.' " Jack replied: "You'd lose that bet, anon142/anon99. The template for that choice of words was taken specifically from The Blair Witch Project..." The BWP is not a real documentary. My claim was that no other article of a documentary uses those words, so you have not found a counter-example. You have, however, made it clear that you think that "presented as a documentary" is just another way of saying "not a real documentary," which makes the wording as bad as using your original suggestion, "mocumentary".

You also declare, "only a moron would be duped into thinking it isn't all staged". I have not seen the film, so can offer no assessment of my own, but (1) calling people you disagree with "morons" is not helpful to editing discussions and (2) saying "it's so obviously a faux documentary" is still original research by wikipedia standards. I had no doubt that I'm Still Here was a fake documentary dating back to the original Letterman interview, but I would not call those who disagreed with me "morons" nor did I think Wikipedia made an error in listing it as a real documentary prior to Casey Affleck saying it was not.

You also say, "I don't think that a controversy section is supportable as of yet". That seems an odd claim, as there obviously is a controversy and many sources can be found discussing the very issue of truth vs fiction.142.177.29.144 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the movie is staged. Also, the articles suggest that the movie is a documentary and it isn't fake. I don't see any articles that say otherwise, so until that happens, I'm going to believe what the overwhelming amount of evidence points to: that Catfish is a real documentary, not that it's presented as one. But what do I know, I'm just a moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moron13 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a fake to me (MovieLine story). --Lamrock (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

While compiling a number of references (17) that say that the film certainly "looks" like a fake, I came across this article, from OregonLive. It looks like I might have been completely wrong in my assessment of this film as a fake. If it is indeed fake, it's covered its tracks with the skill of a Romulan. I apologize for my early intransigence; my bullshit detector must have been malfunctioning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the cite; I'll incorporate it into the article. YLee (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Jack, if you are going to apologize, your intransigence is not the issue. Calling people "clownish" and "morons" would be more appropriate things to apologize for. Secondly, if the article you linked is the reason you are convinced that the film is real, then you might want to think again. The article merely shows that the woman whose Facebook pictures were used is for real, but it still could be true that the filmmakers did not fall for Angela's story at all. Just as showing that people who Sacha Baron Cohen talked to in his guise as Borat are for real does not show that Borat is for real, showing that Aimee Gonzalez is for real does not show that the film is not at its core a fraud. Like I said before, I have not seen the film, so can offer no assessment of my own, but the interview of Gonzalez does not prove much of anything.

As I understand the controversy, there are people who think that the filmmakers were never duped at all by Angela and just decided to "play along" for the purpose of making a film. This would mean that everyone - including Angela herself - could be real people who are not acting, but the film is a fake account of what might have happened had they actually believed her, and thus not a real documentary. Like Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat or Joaquin Phoenix in I'm Still Here, if the filmmakers of Catfish are just acting it does not matter if some of the other people in the film think it's real. It still would not be a documentary. Whether or not that is really the case, it would seem, could only really be proved by one of the three filmmakers spilling the beans somehow. Until that happens it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of the film's veracity, but this article should still take the position that the film is real and controversial. 99.192.56.180 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.29.144)

Thanks for the input, anon99, but I wasn't apologizing for calling soe of the reactions for what they were. I'm going to go out on a limb here and submit that if you really want to start offering me advice, sign up for an account, build an edit history, and then you can say stuff that carries weight. As far as I can tell, your post just spent 200 words or so to agree with most of the folk here. It is only controversial here; however, you should feel free to post references as to fisticuffs that broke out over the authenticity of this film. Lacking that, I'm not opting for any section regarding controversy. Sorry if that seems...unfriendly, but I don't really cotton to being told off by someone who isn't adding anything to the mix, far as I can see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Jack! I guess there is only one thing to add. On October 4 you wrote, "Frankly, it's so obviously a faux documentary that only a moron would be duped into thinking it isn't all staged." Then on October 7 you wrote, "It looks like I might have been completely wrong in my assessment of this film as a fake." So a simple syllogism means.... I think you owe yourself an apology! As Stephen Colbert would say, "Your words, sir." Have a nice life! 99.192.52.155 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I was duped, anon99. Now run along, little one. Find something useful to do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this today and remember this discussion. (Google the news headline to get around the paywall if you run into one.) It especially discusses Catfish. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT

Hey, take out most of the Plot section in the article, it's a complete spoiler, not even imdb does this kind of stuff. Just be reasonable about how much of the movie you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.126.131 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, we don't shield plot summaries from spoilers here. See WP:SPOILER. For another, IMDB has complete plot summaries for some films (when someone bothers to write one or copies it from here). Millahnna (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This page will ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Really bad. Glad I avoided this page before seeing it. --BradTraylor (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you did to, given that it is an encyclopedic description of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.215.26 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

a "man" / a "girl" ?

Editors please note: with Nev described as "a man... a young photographer" and Megan is "a veterinarian [etc.]" - she's properly described as a woman, not "a girl." This isn't a hardboiled, film noir period piece; please use appropriate contemporary language. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

veryaware.com

i'm not familiar with this website and doubt its RS status; however, i thought it worth mentioning that someone pointed out in a comment to the cited article that the "nonexisting website" (charte.net) may have been a typo for "charter.net", where the full adress is a valid url. since they sorta cancel each other out, and aren't perfect sources to begin with, can we delete the part about the website not existing? k kisses 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has since removed the statement about the website not existing. However, veryaware.com is still in use as a reference. The now defunct website appears to have been little more than a personal blog of sorts, run by someone named Scott Hutcheson. I have no familiarity with Hutcheson, but am not seeing any evidence that he should be considered an established expert in his field - as would be required of a self-published source. The actual weblink appears to have gone dead, but for anyone who may be interested in exploring this matter further, the page can still be found on the WaybackMachine [1]. It doesn't appear that there's been much activity here as of late, so I'm going to be bold and remove the source, along with the sentences for which it's currently being used. If by chance anyone is actually watching this page and disagrees with my decision, then feel free to revert, and we can discuss. --Jpcase (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is Daniela Torrico?

Her name is mentioned in the plot summary, but that name is no where on the cast or crew list on IMDB. Who is she and why is her name there if that person didn't film the movie with the brother, Henry J. did?--Sbwinter2 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Budget?

What was the budget of this film? 124.126.220.166 (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catfish (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://veryaware.com/2010/09/catfish-real-or-fake-its-a-fake-sort-of

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catfish (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907072015/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/02/04/brett-ratner-sundance-catfish/ to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/02/04/brett-ratner-sundance-catfish/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517131416/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/17/catfish-the-tv-show-to-premiere-monday-november-12-on-mtv/153459/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/17/catfish-the-tv-show-to-premiere-monday-november-12-on-mtv/153459/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819190613/http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2010/01/catfish.php to http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2010/01/catfish.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)