Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::OK, no big deal. Time to move on. Thanks. ] (]) 01:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::OK, no big deal. Time to move on. Thanks. ] (]) 01:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
== Edits by ] ==
The by this user have not been particularly constructive. Will this editor please note that all claims must be backed up by a ] in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy of ]. More problematic is that the edit is also removing a reference that is used to source a pre-existing claim in the article, which leaves that claim in the state of being unsourced. If the editor does not know how to add sources, another editor can add them for him if he provides them with the text they are being used to source on this talk page. ] (]) 06:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:With regard to the section on the 'devotional writings' just putting a Jesuit's position from the Jesuit magazine 'America' leaves an incredible slant. First off his view of the movie was as a film critic not a theologian. Second every Catholic knows that 'America' and the Jesuits are so anti magesterium that a balanced article would conversly quote the other side which I did w/ a quote from the Cardinal Newman Soc. I assume the author of the magazine quote was taking advantage of laymen, non-Catholics & ignorant Catholics. Either way the deletion of a legit quote doesn't seem Wikipdiesh or can I also assume that my source isn't considered legit? If so please recommend a more palatable reference. & yes I don't know the tech way to set up a footnote on this but either way deleting a cited reference is equally unpalatable
:Regarding the section on ancient languages used under the 'Controversies' section, now this is totally in the relm of purely objective facts of history. As a phd in Roman history and the work I cited, it is well known that Latin was used, albeit in a limited manner which is what I changed the wording from "improbable" to 'limited'. And not only is it well established that some Latin was used in doing business w/ Rome but it's safely assumed Christ himself was semi conversant. To lable this as a controvery belies certain misleadings of the general laity to heap on so called issues w/ the movie from various academic and clerical fields that just don't exist in an effort that through shear weight the public can be brainwashed. Please tell that at least on this totally objective, well established fact on language this can't even be corrected. I'll contact the other administrator as well about this. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::You have still failed to address the reasons for why your edits were reversed. In the case of the first part of , it is irrelevant what you think of ]. A the end of the day it is a national publication and a reliable source. An organization blog is not reliable per ]. The second part of your edit is borderline vandalism, since you keep removing a reference that is used to source a claim, and replace it with another unsourced claim, resulting in two unsourced pieces of information. Please stop removing the source, and provide a ]] for the information you have added. ] (]) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree with Betty Logan and will note that this IP was blocked and then resumed to run against policy. ] (]) 11:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok guys we've added more references/cites & even softened some points but our points are in the historic record for both changes & the point at the beginning about Catholics questionning where we added "some" is just modifying another opinion which by the way you said were irrelevant. Tell us what was wrong with using Reilly, Weigel and Nagle! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The Passion of the Christ received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
I don't see how this section, while interesting, can possibly be relevant. Firstly, with the total time spent in cinemas and the incidence of death from heart attack, it must happen regularly. Secondly, it says nothing about the film in question. Thirdly, I doubt this has been reported about any other film. The Daily Mail says that Cate Blanchett's father died of a heart attack in a cinema, but doesn't bother to state which film he was seeing. Fourthly, there is no connection made in the article between the death and the film, except for a vague statement that critics have used the death as an argument against the film. That might be because of the violence, but certainly the official sources didn't make that connection. Hence the section really ought to go. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on the available evidence, this doesn't warrant inclusion. It would be worth including if it were used to criticize, say, the level of violence in the movie but that is not the case. Of the three references provided, two are mere news items that reported the death at the time the incident took place and are of marginal value. The third is not available online so we don't know what it says. Regardless, that would be just one reference and probably not a reliable one at that (there appear to be many Catholic Heralds). I suggest removing that section in its entirety. --rgpk (comment) 23:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It has been so removed. Never particularly liked it myself. Always seemed like it was purely for shock value and given undue weight.oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The recent edits by this user have not been particularly constructive. Will this editor please note that all claims must be backed up by a reliable source in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability. More problematic is that the edit is also removing a reference that is used to source a pre-existing claim in the article, which leaves that claim in the state of being unsourced. If the editor does not know how to add sources, another editor can add them for him if he provides them with the text they are being used to source on this talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
With regard to the section on the 'devotional writings' just putting a Jesuit's position from the Jesuit magazine 'America' leaves an incredible slant. First off his view of the movie was as a film critic not a theologian. Second every Catholic knows that 'America' and the Jesuits are so anti magesterium that a balanced article would conversly quote the other side which I did w/ a quote from the Cardinal Newman Soc. I assume the author of the magazine quote was taking advantage of laymen, non-Catholics & ignorant Catholics. Either way the deletion of a legit quote doesn't seem Wikipdiesh or can I also assume that my source isn't considered legit? If so please recommend a more palatable reference. & yes I don't know the tech way to set up a footnote on this but either way deleting a cited reference is equally unpalatable
Regarding the section on ancient languages used under the 'Controversies' section, now this is totally in the relm of purely objective facts of history. As a phd in Roman history and the work I cited, it is well known that Latin was used, albeit in a limited manner which is what I changed the wording from "improbable" to 'limited'. And not only is it well established that some Latin was used in doing business w/ Rome but it's safely assumed Christ himself was semi conversant. To lable this as a controvery belies certain misleadings of the general laity to heap on so called issues w/ the movie from various academic and clerical fields that just don't exist in an effort that through shear weight the public can be brainwashed. Please tell that at least on this totally objective, well established fact on language this can't even be corrected. I'll contact the other administrator as well about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You have still failed to address the reasons for why your edits were reversed. In the case of the first part of your edit, it is irrelevant what you think of America Magazine. A the end of the day it is a national publication and a reliable source. An organization blog is not reliable per WP:SPS. The second part of your edit is borderline vandalism, since you keep removing a reference that is used to source a claim, and replace it with another unsourced claim, resulting in two unsourced pieces of information. Please stop removing the source, and provide a WP:RELIABLESOURCE] for the information you have added. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok guys we've added more references/cites & even softened some points but our points are in the historic record for both changes & the point at the beginning about Catholics questionning where we added "some" is just modifying another opinion which by the way you said were irrelevant. Tell us what was wrong with using Reilly, Weigel and Nagle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
