Talk:I'm Not Ashamed

Criticism

Going to start finding criticism of this exploitative propaganda film. Two main points being the anti-atheist propaganda behind this film ("Atheists are EVIL and kill people!"), exploiting a tragedy and the loss of this girls life, & the pseudohistorical narrative of associating this girl with not only the wrong person associated with admission of being Christian before being killed, but the fact that it seems that it never even happened at all (among injecting other things in her life that never happened), and how it is being used for "Christian persecution" propaganda. Anyone willing to help out would gladly be appreciated. And don't you worry, it will be Non-POV. 2602:30A:2CCF:C7C0:7582:2B4:C6B4:72D0 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC) It was done with the cooperation of her family dude. Why so sensitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.113.75 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I watched the movie last night. I'd have to say that what you think you saw in the trailer isn't what is in the movie. Most of the movie is about Scott's own life, her struggles with partying, boys and friends. In the film, she is depicted being friends with numerous non-Christians and wasn't depicted as someone actively proselytizing. In fact, the person she was talking to outside when she was shot didn't actually believe in God at that point. Nor does the film depict any persecution by Harris and Klebold or targeting of Scott specifically. Ever watch a trailer and think "this looks awesome" and then the movie sucks? That's because the trailer doesn't tell you everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Audience scores

This is where the IP editors can explain why the properly sourced scores are being excluded. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never included user scores for films. Please cite an example of this. Film consensus sections are only drawn from valid film critics. Online film polls, which is what the "user score" is, are not valid for encyclopedic purposes. RT user scores can also be manipulated and there is no way of knowing who created that score. For example, a user may create multiple accounts to manipulate the rating. 01:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6155:BD00:91E1:79DA:7CED:DD6E (talk)

• We routinely list IMDB scores and those are user voted. We're only reporting what the site displays, not the validity. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • IMDB scores should not be listed on Wikipedia either. I have included them in the past, but they were promptly removed by administrators for the same reason. The score needs to have merit in order to be listed in an Encyclopedia. 02:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• The simpler route was for me to add 1 positive and 1 mixed review. I'd still like to see how you can justify the allegation of a personal connection to the film. Niteshift36 (talk)
  • I'm afraid I don't understand your comment, sorry. "1 positive and 1 mixed review"...what are you talking about? And I simply stated that you seemed to have a personal connection as you were (and are) very adamant about going against all other Wikipedia film pages to add a user poll. 03:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:C0 (talk)
    • I see the additions you made. They are both very justified as they are written by published film critics. 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:C0 (talk)
• As for the "personal connection" allegation, that's a ridiculous basis to make an allegation like that. Just because I've seen it done in other articles (and no, I'm not going to waste a bunch of time finding an example) and you refused to discuss the issue doesn't make me connected to the film. Saying I have a COI is a serious allegation and, if you can't back it up, it should be retracted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, you are sensitive. I retract my allegation. Still, user polls from online have no merit or business in an Encyclopedic article. 03:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:C0 (talk)
• It's sensitive to actually expect that if you make a serious allegation like having a COI that you actually have something to support it? That's an interesting position. Since I've not restored the user polls, replaced them with reviews and moved past that, I'm not sure why you felt like you needed to repeat your opposition to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Plot?

Not sure whether it's a requirement for movie articles on here, but most movie articles have some sort of plot summary and this has none. Maybe we should consider writing one? I myself haven't actually seen the movie so I wouldn't know where to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.110.144 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)