Talk:For Greater Glory

Release Date?

Does this film have a scheduled release date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.138.227 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found it. The film will be released in the United States under the title "For Greater Glory" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.138.227 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Flag carried by the army

The current image is File:Mexico Flag (Cristeros).png, captioned "carried by the Cristeros in the film". However, the flag carried by José in battle does not have the Mexican colors, Our Lady of Guadalupe or the eagle; it is an image of Christ with words on three sides. Somewhat visible in this poster: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gKw0rbf8R2c/T8bfk0hMNYI/AAAAAAAAJuk/hhC1M1BW4cM/s400/Cristiada-Poster_548.jpg Elizium23 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

True. However other soldiers carried the tricolor which is clearly visible in the film's trailer at the official site. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of source

I've deleted the content allegedly sourced to WaPo. The source does not support the material, and the editor who added it is both misusing the source and pushing a minority POV that doesn't accurately reflect the topic as represented by the source. Additionally, I have notified the DYK talk page and the NPOV noticeboard about this ongoing problem. The editor is welcome to use this talk page thread to show how the source supports the material. Per V, all challenged material may be removed at any time. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no misuse of the source (The Washington Post) that I can see. It's an accurate, if brief, summary with a quote from the article. If you think it doesn't adequetely summarize the article, add to it. There's no reason to keep deleting this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The source cited does not support the content. I am not referring to the quoting of a cherry picked quote taken out of context. Please show me how the source cited supports the material directly. It does not, and is a clear violation of the NPOV policy, and doesn't pass V. You have the burden to show how the source cited supports the material since you added it back into the article. That you cannot "see" how the source was misused is not an acceptable response. You are the one who has to demonstrate it was used correctly. I've already shown that it was not on the DYK talk page. Repeatedly asserting it was correctly used without showing me isn't helpful. If you're going to add the material, you have to support it. Please do so. The source does not support the current content. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly does support what's written. The headline of the WaPo article cited is Catholics see a rallying cry for ‘religious freedom’ in ‘For Greater Glory’ film. The quote, consistent with that headline and much of the body of the article is

"For Catholics enraged by the Obama administration’s proposed contraception mandate, the film about the Mexican church’s fight in 1920s is a heartening and timely cinematic boost in the American church’s battle to preserve “religious freedom” in 2012."

The article could be summarized at greater length, but that's easily done. Summary deletion of sourced and cited content, along with the representative quote, is inappropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Tom, you have for second time ignored my request for verification. Again, I have not asked you to verify that a quote exists. I have asked you to show me how the material I removed is supported by the source. I am beginning to suspect that you cannot, which is why you keep ignoring my request. Repeatedly asserting "it is supported" is not an acceptable response. The misuse of this source is a classic case of coatracking, undue weight, and misusing a source to promote a POV contrary to our best practices. The source does not support the material currently in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked to see if the material accurately summarizes the source cited. It does. At this point it's probably most useful to let others read the WaPo article and draw their own conclusions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable response, Tom. To recap, you have the burden to show that the material is supported. You were asked to do this on the talk page. Instead of meeting this burden, you have decided to respond with "There's no misuse of the source", "The source clearly does support what's written", and "I checked to see if the material accurately summarizes the source cited. It does". So, in the place of an actual demonstration showing that the material is supported, you have instead chosen to assert that it is supported. Do you feel, Tom, that is an acceptable response to a request for verification? Do you believe, Tom, that a request for verification consists of saying, "yes, I verified it"? Because, it most certainly does not. The material is not supported by the source, is used to coatrack a political issue in an undue manner, and does not represent a NPOV. Is any of this making sense yet, Tom? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see I was commenting on an older version, and the current version does represent the source in terms of accuracy and POV. However, Tom, your response indicates you are unwilling to admit there was ever a problem, which I find disturbing. I'm marking this resolved, for now. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Tom is correct in pointing out that we do not delete sourced content because of POV concerns. And there was never a problem. At this point, however, the content does not adequately reflect the source and is unbalanced. 90% of the source describes the conflict between the Church and Obama. This aspect, the main thrust of the source, and context for the quote must be added. I will fix this. On a side note--Viriritas--your position was not sustained and you engaged in an edit war against multiple editors anyway. I find this disruptive behavior unacceptable. NPOV is not an exemption to 3RR.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, the content that you originally added to this article was not sourced, so you are mistaken. Without admitting that you added this unsourced content to the article, you voluntarily removed it as this edit clearly shows. So, clearly, by your deletion, you acknowledged the problem, so coming here to say "there was never a problem" after you deleted the problem is indicative of a larger behavior issue on your end that will probably need to be dealt with in another venue. Further, you are now claiming that the content "does not adequately reflect the source and is unbalanced", yet you are unable to show how it is unbalanced. It seems like you have fallen back on your old POV pushing habits again. You are once again using our encyclopedia articles as coatracks to promote your POV, in this case that there is a "conflict between the Church and Obama", a conflict that the source you cite does not support, as it says most Catholics support Obama's health care mandate. This "aspect" as you call it does not require your personalized interpretation and framing of a "context" sans sources. You have one alternative left to you, Lionelt. You can proceed directly to the open thread about this dispute over at WP:NPOV/N#Cristiada and describe what you see as "unbalanced". What you cannot do, is continue to make claims that only you can determine and that only you can decide. The previous version did not support your additions; these additions include the following unsourced statements you invented:

• "Lauren Markoe examined the relevance of the film to the current political climate in the United States."
• "The birth control mandate has pitted the Obama administration against the Catholic Church"
• "Finding that American Catholics see parallels between the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico and the Obama administration's attack on the freedom of Catholic healthcare providers to refuse to provide birth-control services"

Those statements aren't supported by the source you cited. You are welcome to find other sources about the film and present them, or you are welcome to use the NPOV board to discuss the issue. As far as I can tell, you are once again using Wikipedia articles as coatracks for your own POV campaign, and you are misusing sources to do it, and that is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cristiada (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402095922/http://bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=37889 to http://bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=37889

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)