Talk:Deliver Us from Evil (2006 film)

message: Why is the John Jay Report considered valid?  It's findings are completely tainted because it is self-defence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fofe510 (talk
: Are you a fool or what? That report was as valid as it gets.
 • contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Jay Report 

message: The segment concerning the bishop and the president does not need to be deleted for unsourced, unfounded or libel since it is the movies claim not wikipedia's. Though, it might be beneficial, provided it can reliably sourced, to place something right after this sentence to refute or back-up these claims.  (210.124.180.42 (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should be deleted unless reliable sources can be provided to back that the movie makes these claims. Otherwise, this section is pretty unnecessary. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The movie is the source on this. It is the equivalent of what WP:PLOT is for fiction works. It is against guidelines to remove information because it's a "spoiler" (per WP:SPOILER). Pretending that the movie does not say anything does not render this article neutral, it renders it uninformative. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Claims 

message: O'Grady admitted to abusing about 25 children, but I'm pretty sure people interviewed in the movie stated higher figures (50?) If so, perhaps it should just say e.g. 'dozens'. Ben Finn (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of children

message: I am concerned with the citation of the claim about St. John's Seminary. Not having seen this film, I don't know if the film is mis-citing the Los Angeles Times, or whether the article is mis-citing the film. The Times source makes a much more nuanced and specific claim - not that 10% of all St. J's grads are pedophiles, but that 10% of the graduates assigned to the Los Angeles Archdiocese have been accused to molesting minors. So it's not 10% of all St. J's grads, but 10% of a subset; it's that they were merely accused; and it's not pedophilia they were accused of, but molesting minors... which in some cases would be considered pedophilia but in cases where involving, say, a post-pubescent 15 year old, would still be considered molestation or statutory rape, but not pedophilia. Could someone who is more familiar with the film review the pertinent portion and see what the film actually reports? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a badly written article. The claims are unsourced and innacurate. It is true that it was 10% of a subset, not 10% of all grads. If no one changes this information I will myself. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Claims of St. John's Seminary 

message: had already been published in 2002: . --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[De delictis gravioribus]] 

message: Reword the opening. The movie does not "tell the true story of..", it is "bassed off the true story of".. please change this. This article should not be anti-catholic. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a docudrama, which is normally where one would invoke the "based off of true events"-type wording; it is a documentary. I don't see what's particularly anticatholic about the opening; it seems like an accurate descriptor of the film. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is very quick to claim that the Church authorities ALL knew what was going on and even acuse His Holiness the Pope. I am just saying that the article should be written in a more non-biased way. It is terrible for children to be abused, and this movie/documentary, I am sure, is very helpful with informing the public of terrible crimes, but the entire church is not to blame. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article does not do what you claim. For example, in the case of the Pope, not only does the article not accuse Benedict, it doesn't even say that the movie accused Benedict, it says that the movie says that others accused Benedict, which appears to be both an accurate description of the movie and a case of the movie accurately describing reality. If you are unhappy with the message of the movie, then the best thing is likely to find your own forum to which to make your own counterstatement; it would be inappropriate to alter the description of the film here because you don't like what you perceive as the movie's message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing against the movie's message. Child abuse is a terrible thing. However, I believe the "Movie claims" section should be deleted unless sourced materials for the claims can be provided. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the "Movie claims" section is akin to the "Plot" section of a fiction film. We are stating that the film makes these claims, and the film itself is the appropriate source for that (per WP:FILMPLOT). --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, instead of it being a list, is there a way that we can incorporate it into another section or perhaps create a plot section of the article? And in sentence structure instead of a list? It would clean the article up a bit. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure "plot" would be an appropriate descriptor on a documentary. I'm also not sure that this material would organize as well into paragraph structure, but you can certainly take a stab at it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it on my to-do list. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reword anticatholic opening

message: An editor recently deleted a large section of the movie claims, claiming it violated WP:POV. This would appear to arise from a misunderstanding of WP:POV - it does not mean that we should not cover the point of view of the topic of the article. For politicians and political organizations, we list their major stances; for notable polemics, we list what they cover. The movie rather clearly makes the claims that the article said it made, so it's not a POV problem to say that the movie makes the claims, and the coverage of the film in reviews and such reflect that the movie makes such claims. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You display a misunderstanding of WP:POV. You want all these claims listed, yet you are adamant in not allowing sources that rebut the claims. What a terrible disservice you are doing. Plus, as someone who has researched the film extensively, I do not recall a number of the claims that are listed there. Again, a gross violation of WP:POV. 323dfp (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "you are adamant in not allowing sources that rebut the claims" - I'm afraid that claim simply isn't true. Coverage of critical discussion of the film from WP:RS sources would be reasonable in the reaction section. What you seem to be fussing about is the more promo-y insertion of the mention that someone's blog had criticized it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding POV