Talk:Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Original post neutrality[edit]

The original post was not Neutral. I added additional information to show the other point of view to make it neutral. Now supporters of the WM3 want to change it back to their view only.

Further neutrality issues[edit]

I don't see how this is neutral. Basically it just gives arguments from both sides, but both seem biased. I think the first speaker here has an axe to grind. Anyway, if we are going to discuss neutrality issues, all he material included should pertain directly to the film, not just someone's opinion. "Looking deeper," and all that belongs somewhere else, or in a subsection like "the case." If this is about the film, that's all it should concern itself with. Menkatopia 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the paragraph that begins with "A problem with the documentaries, and the case as well, is that a lot of information is clouded by misinformation and lies to make viewers believe that the West Memphis 3 can only be innocent." This is blatantly biased, and meant to persuade the reader rather than inform. In addition, it was ompletely unverifiable. Menkatopia 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering if anyone else is even reading this article. Otherwise, the POV doesn't mean that much.It seems like the descriptions of the boys are pretty pointless, too. "the generally taciturn"? Menkatopia 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions are especially pointless and if not overtly POV, are needless negative fluffing of what should be merely the names of the Memphis 3. Ranieldule 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes me feel better. Thanks, Menkatopia.

Fair use rationale for Image:Paradiselost poster.jpg[edit]

Image:Paradiselost poster.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) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Heaven's Sake, What About the Names of the Victims?[edit]

Whatever you think about this case, shouldn't any article about the case or the film mention just who was killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.109 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the names in the article on the "West Memphis Three," but you should probably have a link to that article, which gives facts about the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.109 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping to expand the section entitled Description, and have duly put the names of the victims, which is important. I've clearly linked part of that sentence to the West Memphis Three article for further reading. Orphan Wiki 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress[edit]

Done some more work on expanding the article, and splitting it into clearer sections. Regard it as a work in progress. Orphan Wiki 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section[edit]

Does this warrant an awards section? It did win quite a few, though most notable are the Emmy, Peabody and National Board of Review (NBR)

I have added categories for the first two. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]