Talk:Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Original post neutrality
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.
[edit] Further neutrality issues
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, that makes me feel better. Thanks, Menkatopia.
