Talk:Amazing Grace (2006 film)

message: I believe the accronym, MP, as used in this section is referring to Member of Parliament.  Is this correct?  If so, we should change the accronym to its actual meaning.Dcbnmlt 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accronyms

message: I have reverted the piece added by 07.151.255.113, referring to "the tide of Christian-based films" which, apart from not being an actual intelligible sentence, has no place here. It may be a very good film and well-received by Christians, but other films have no part in this article. Cheers – Agendum 14:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about so-called Christian films 

message: Why hasn't anyone change this yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 film? 

message: How historically accurate is this film? Badagnani (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accuracy 

message: I corrected the passage on the depiction of Wilberforce's illness; he is shown as suffering from colitis before the defeat of his initial bill as well as after it--it is not suggested that his failure brings on the disease. And Crohn's disease is one type of colitis, not the only kind, and it is not mentioned in the film, so its inclusion here was something of a red herring.
I also altered the reference to Haiti; the film does not suggest that Wilberforce and his movement inspired the Haitian rebellion. But critics are correct in pointing out that it is the only reference to such revolts in the film, when in reality they occurred frequently, often in British territories, though none were as successful as Haiti's.
Winterbadger (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Duke of Clarence was a royal peer in his own right, having been created in 1789, so until his succession to the throne as William IV in 1830 he was entitled to sit in the Lords (not the Commons). The error of the film (which I have also seen) showing Clarence in the Commons is an error that earlier occurred in the film "Cromwell" (1970) when Oliver Cromwell's rivals the Earls of Essex and Manchester are depicted in his presence sat among the Commons benches!Cloptonson (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor changes 

message: The majority of it consists of rather apparent original research and absolutely none of it is sourced. 184.7.161.191 (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted deletion - there is no OR. Most, if not all of the information can be easily verified by following the Wikilinks. Debatable points are qualified with terms such as "unlikely". WCCasey (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Qualifying statements with terms such as "unlikely" instead of using concrete citations is hardly encyclopedic. 184.7.161.191 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is linked to Somerset's Case, which states that "Somersett's case provided a boon to the abolitionist movement and ended the holding of slaves within England". The inclusion of the word unlikely seems to be, if anything, over-cautious. WCCasey (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: and  (who seems to be off-wiki since November 2nd) may want to look at this, as I think(?) they have more experience in wiki practices along these lines. I myself do not like lengthy and gratuitously nit-picky "Historical Accuracy" sections in wiki film articles. These things are probably better suited for the Trivia section on an IMDB profile. Anyway, let's let those two users opine, if they wish. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

text: What people most often misunderstand in these situations is that it is not sufficient for a user to find a source that contradicts what is in the movie. They have to find a source that explicitly says what the movie got wrong. Drawing our own conclusions, even if we just know they are correct, is original reserarch and not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, anything that cannot be attributed to a source that discusses the movie and how it compares to the historical record must be removed. Once that is done, you may find there is no longer sufficient material to justify an article section just for historical innacuracies, but if you do I would suggest moving it down further in the article. The current placement seems to give undue weight to this material. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks, Beeblebrox. None of the citations for that section mention the film at all. All of them were  written before the film existed, and most all of them are primary sources written in the 1700s. Therefore, until such time as there is further discussion and a compelling reason to reinstate the section, I have removed it and placed it here: /Historical inaccuracies. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Historical inaccuracies" section