Talk:Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Nudity
Summary states that there is no nudity in the film....but the synopsis says that the girls are naked in the first scene..?Iztwoz (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the situation and from the shots shown (such as shoulders-up shots) that the girls are naked, but there are no shots of their breasts or pelvic areas. Can you think of a way of making this clearer in the text? Neelix (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier but my broadband was downIztwoz (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Presented from a Christian worldview?"
Is there a source for this? It's in the first line; no source is given, and it seems surprising, given that the Christian Bible promotes slavery in general and also the taking of women as sex slaves (Source: Leviticus 25:44-46 (slaves have subhuman status and are property), Exodus 21:2-6 (people may be coerced to remain in slavery), Exodus 21:7-11(sex slavery in particular), Exodus 21:20-21 (violence against such slaves is ok), Ephesians 6:5 (slaves should accept their situation and not try to change it), 1 Timothy 6:1-2 (slaves should work harder to please their owners), amongst plenty of others). Is this the worldview that that the documentary is taking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe what they mean by christian worldview is that its distorted to serve a christian agenda, namely that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own bodies to earn a living, unless its servicing a husband. The film conflates all forms of prostitution, including legal, safe and clean brothels in countries with regulated sex industries, with sex slavery. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary template
I think the Wiktionary template should be removed from this article. It already appears on the Nefarious disambiguation page, and we don't normally duplicate Wiktionary templates on the articles listed on a given disambiguation page. This article isn't about the word "nefarious", but is simply about something that uses that word in its title. Neelix (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree if it were in a prominent, perhaps intrusive position, but I don't think it really hurts to have it at the bottom of the article. Some people may not know what the word means and having this link here would save them the bother of clicking through the disambiguation page. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for discussing and not just deleting! :-) Yes, I didn't know the meaning of "nefarious" and thought, that many others don't know it too. And because it's part of the title of the film, it might be important.
 * At the wiktionary-template-documentation I can't find a rule that this should only be used on disambiguation pages. On the page of all-sister-project-templates I found, that we can use the wiktionary template "At the top of the page for disambiguation pages." or "In the External Links section for articles." or "Next to any cross-reference to Wiktionary, if there is one." Neelix, do you mix this up with the see-wiktionary-template?--Wolf Hoog (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. I don't feel very strongly on this point. Neelix (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality in reviews
It’s very disturbing that almost all the review comments in Critical Response/Reception section are from Christian publications with a positive view of this film. It feels a little like promotion rather than a neutral encyclopaedic description. It has a page at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, but the RT page has zero content which suggests the film has not had wide distribution so that may explain the limited reviews. In a quick search this was all I found: A Review of Nefarious: Another Misguided Approach to Sex Trafficking. I still feel this section merits a clean-up template though, because the ‘Critical Response’ at the moment seems to lack anything even slightly critical. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 10:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The neutrality of the article was established in the featured article candidacy discussion. We cannot fault the article for not presenting views that are not available in reliable, secondary sources. If you are able to find any such sources, I would be glad to see them added to the article, but the maintenance template is wholly unhelpful in the absence of any evidence of such sources, so I have removed it. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Then to present a balanced view, the facts of the extremely limited range of reviews should be made clear in the article. Otherwise, Wikipedia is being used as a mere propaganda tool. If the exposure of this film is so limited it also begs the question of whether it is sufficiently notable to merit an article. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All of the views presented in the article are presented as being the views of particular individuals or organizations; I do not see how the article is propaganda. Adding unsourced information isn't going to help matters. Neelix (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It’s verging on disingenuous to claim that the views are only the views of particular individuals or organisations. The choice about what you tell the reader is still a choice. If you choose to not tell the reader that information is limited then you are creating a false picture of the value of the sources you use. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see what is disingenuous about what I have said. Wikipedia policy is clear that statements on Wikipedia need to be verifiable, and the ones you have introduced are not. Neelix (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Review sources
Just thought I’d list the review sources here for reference. My analysis of these sources does not agree with that presented in the Featured article discussion - Indian Life Newspaper and News Weekly could not be considered secular publications.

7 religious publications, 1 religious article in a secular publication and 2 reviews in secular publications. Just sayin’ ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 08:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your overhaul of the "Critical response" section because it split the reviews into much shorter paragraphs than are recommended, and because newly inserted information was not present in sources. I would be glad to discuss specific alterations with you further. Neelix (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I find your attitude and edits very disturbing.

In addition to your other edits you have chosen to hide Lauran Bethell’s profession (Baptist missionary - previously described by you as “feminist Dr. Lauran Bethell”) while emphasising other involved people’s professions. You also seem to want to hide the fact that the author of one of the reviews you rely on is a pastor writing in a pastoral column despite the by-line clearly reading "Pastor Jamie Bagley". Yet you hide behind some (not cited) wiki-legalism that such titles should not be used to avoid including it in the citation. There is a definite trend here of de-emphasising the religious nature of contributors to and reviewers of the film while emphasising its secular qualifications.

You claim that you removed the information about Lauran Bethell because it wasn’t in the source (the Movieguide review) but actually none of the information about participants is in that source. The likely actual sources are the linked Wikipedia articles, which if you are going to be a legalist, are not valid sources. Personally if such information is unlikely to be in dispute I have no problem with using it.

E.g.

If you want to be deliberately tedious about it we can go through copying the citations from those articles to this one, but it seems like a waste of effort to me.

My edits to the review section were for sense and readability. A big clump of text from disparate sources is much harder to read and make sense of. It’s also very unclear to have a paragraph made up of 4 sentences from one review with a single sentence tacked on the end from another. Once again, your edits serve to conceal relevant information from readers which would allow them to evaluate the extremely obscure review sources provided. You seem to be also hiding this behind some vague editing criteria. If you truly cared about paragraph size you would have just re-edited the text that was there, not reverted it entirely.

The Manual of Style says “The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text”. It doesn’t say you must never use single-sentence paragraphs. My edit of the section contained 4 single-sentence paragraphs and 6 multi-sentence paragraphs. This does not seem excessive.

I’m amazed at your powers of original research and long-range psychiatric diagnosis that allows you to decide that an individual is a paedophile. The simple description of what is shown in the film should be sufficient without you adding a medical diagnosis. I have restored my edit replacing the term ‘pedophile’ with ‘man’. If you want to add it back, please first reflect carefully on what value the word adds to the article. It seems to me that it would be better to avoid a use whose only value seems to be in distancing and labelling.

You say you are happy to discuss alterations further, but you haven’t really discussed anything so far. There is also an unpleasant suggestion in the phrasing here. It feels like you’re saying you’re happy to allow alterations to your article if discussed. That’s not supposed to be how Wikipedia works.

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t leap into any more blanket reversions without discussing what and why. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 08:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The version of the article that was accepted in the FAC is the one that the community agreed upon, and should remain until discussion demonstrates that consensus has changed. I am glad to discuss all of these changes with you, but not if you first insist on implementing your bold edits that diverge from the consensus-established form of the article. I would also appreciate if you would be willing to discuss article content rather than contributors; calling me a legalist and accusing me of bad faith is not going to help anything. I have addressed your points below.


 * 1) I don't object to Jamie Bagley being called "Pastor Jamie Bagley" in the paragraphical text, but I disagree with putting the honorific in the citation. We don't put other honorifics in citations, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case.
 * 2) You have convinced me about calling Lauran Bethell "Baptist missionary Lauran Bethell".
 * 3) I disagree with splitting up the "Critical response" section into individual paragraphs for each reviewer. This is not how other similar sections on featured articles are formatted, and is against standard writing practices both in Wikipedia and in academic writing in general. I do not believe that organizing this section into two paragraphs conceals any of the information. Instead, splitting the section into short, sometimes one-sentence paragraphs looks unprofessional and sloppy.
 * 4) According to Wiktionary, the word "pedophile" means "an adult who is sexually attracted to children". The person mentioned in the article is an adult seeking sexual activity with children. I do not see a problem with using this term in this case, but I am fine with it not being used.
 * 5) It is not appropriate to cite IMDb ratings on Wikipedia; IMDb is not an academic source and its ratings are easily manipulated.
 * 6) It is not standard practice to cite the non-existence of Rotten Tomatoes ratings on Wikipedia; I have never seen this done before, and see no point in adding such information. It is like including a list of newspapers that did not review the film.
 * 7) I disagree that "leaders in international humanitarianism" is a meaningless phrase, and quoting the phrase from the source as you suggest would not help because it would suggest that it was the film that was being quoted. I have reworded to "international humanitarian workers", which I hope you find more meaningful.


 * I hope that we will reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion on the matters described above. Please feel free to add any further issues if you feel that I have omitted any. Neelix (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. 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/20140618212553/http://www.starnewsdaily.com/viewby/contributor/erica-yunghans/story/-Nefarious-Merchant-of-Souls-Exposes-Sex-Trafficking-Industry--2013-07-18 to http://www.starnewsdaily.com/viewby/contributor/erica-yunghans/story/-Nefarious-Merchant-of-Souls-Exposes-Sex-Trafficking-Industry--2013-07-18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106023437/http://www.hhs.gov/news/factsheet/humantrafficking.html to http://www.hhs.gov/news/factsheet/humantrafficking.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228162418/http://www.un.org/en/pseataskforce/docs/focal_points_training_manual.doc to http://www.un.org/en/pseataskforce/docs/focal_points_training_manual.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917082544/http://www.benjaminnolot.com/about/ to http://www.benjaminnolot.com/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912054702/http://www.godculture.co.uk/review-nefarious-merchant-souls/ to http://www.godculture.co.uk/review-nefarious-merchant-souls/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232206/http://amiraculture.com/english/entry/hong-kong-nefarious-premiere-a-success/ to http://amiraculture.com/english/entry/hong-kong-nefarious-premiere-a-success/
 * Added tag to http://www.magic967.net/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=1700&Itemid=121&year=2013&month=05&day=31&title=presentation-of-a-documentary-qnefarious-merchant-of-soulsq&uid=ac280a5f4a3bf13804110c6f6fd50d94&catids=49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904095905/http://www.theindiefest.com/Winners-04-2012.html to http://www.theindiefest.com/Winners-04-2012.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. 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/20131025152119/http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/67/statements/statements/May/humantrafficking13052013.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/67/statements/statements/May/humantrafficking13052013.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. 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://archive.is/20130416032411/http://www.visionforafrica-intl.org/en/news/2011/20110930.html to http://www.visionforafrica-intl.org/en/news/2011/20110930.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. 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/20130302155359/http://www.auroraawards.com/2011PlatinumWinners to http://www.auroraawards.com/2011PlatinumWinners

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

FAR
Similar to When God Writes Your Love Story special:diff/964559801, another FA by the same author, the article relies on a small range of obscure Christian publications while hiding that fact from the reader (see above discussions). I have added it to the list of FAs needing review. buidhe 06:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)