Talk:Born Innocent (film)

message: I hate to be a nitty gritty b@$tard (one of my friends in high school was from Ohio, so believe me when I say I sympathize)....  but "pop" is dialect in the mid-west with most of the rest of the country calling it "soda...."  Shouldn't it be changed?
Yes, I suck, but....  eh. Juppiter
:Yeah, that is true. Not the "you suck" part, but you know. Mike H 06:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
:No, it's not true that most of the country says soda instead of pop. The original term is soda pop with some people now calling it pop and some soda. Pop is actually more correct with soda as the adjective and pop as the noun. Soda itself is just water. This is not the correct place to discuss it, of course. This is:  .
:I question if such details should be included at all. Just calling it a glass bottle is more than sufficient. 75.33.77.159 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fifty years ago, Pop was your father.  Language changes, but to dictate what percentage of the population uses which definition is as useful as arguing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin - for people in an area that doesn't conform to what the majority uses, the more popular will always be incorrect.  I for one am from the Midwest, grew up using "pop" lived in the mid Atlantic region while in College 25 years ago and to this day refer to Coca Cola as soda.  In Atlanta, everything is Coke - even Pepsi. Frankly I think tha the debate over whether it is soda or soda pop or pop is a inane waste of time.  Its this type of minutia or homogenization is what drove me from being a Wikipedian five years ago!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.62.180 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop v. Soda 

message: The last paragraph is complete pliagerism, taken off of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071240/trivia --Timjohn911 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagerism

message: :File:BornInnocent.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) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:BornInnocent.jpg

message: "The scene drew much outcry on its first airing and was eventually pulled from the movie entirely when it was blamed for the rape of a nine-year-old girl, committed by some of her peers with a glass soda pop bottle." - Does anyone have a citation for this information? I can't seem to find any proof that this really happened.198.91.145.133 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for copycat claim

message: "Barbara looks on helplessly as she sees Chris, an innocent, intelligent, decent girl, now fully transformed into a violent, pathological, manipulative, vengeful and cold person, no longer having any guilt or remorse for her actions, who will most likely become an adult criminal when released upon turning legal age."
Eeeuw.  Is this wikipedia or the Jerry Springer Show ?  (Or is there any difference ? :-) ) 
btw, the "rape scene" was not that big a deal even in 1974 (at least not where I lived), it was mostly left to the imagination, and only in a country with the heavy presence of the Citizens for Decent Literature would it have received so much press. Similar events and worse were common in Jerzy Koscinski's (sp ?)  Painted Bird which was quite popular and "highly acclaimed" (gag) at around the same time. But you had to be able to read to come across those, I guess 116.231.74.1 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple prose