Talk:The God Who Wasn't There

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

This article contains some material from the presskit for the movie. The material was explicitly placed into the public domain by the author, in a disclaimer on the movie's website.
 http://www.thegodmovie.com/press/press_kit/press_kit.html

Archive
Archives
*2005 – 2006


Contents

[edit] What it says in the Bible

This article is not the place for a theological discussion. I am well aware that Christians possess the amazing ability to "interpret" the Bible to mean pretty much anything they want it to mean. But here we simply report facts.

Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. ~ Luke 12:10

It could hardly be any clearer.

Laurence Boyce 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also the "There are people..." phrase is a classic example of weasel word usage. Who are "these people"? Or "most scholars"? [1]?
The issues brought up in those additions would be better suited for the Holy spirit and Blasphemy articles anyway.
--George100 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

These things need to be seen in context. And in context you see that the people Jesus said committed this sin did something else. They saw miracles take place, and attributed the miracles of the Holy Spirit to the devil. Is Wikipedia going to be a encyclopedia that does not accept views that differ from the views of those that have the most time to hang out there and change things others have written? Funny thing is that whoever I would quote you would probably not accept that persons authority because that person would be a christian, while anyone you quote, I would have difficulties with accepting... I think Wikipedia should be a place where different views can be presented so people can make up their own minds, not blindly accepting interpretations made by the Rational Response Squad. Rasmus Rimestad 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rasmus, it's more that this is simply not the place for such arguments. I could argue that the phrase "the only unforgivable sin according to the Bible" should be "interpreted" as being the viewpoint of the Rational Responders. I think I would be on much firmer ground with my "interpretation" than you are with yours, seeing as the stuff you mention about miracles and the devil does not appear anywhere in Luke 12 (though it may appear in some of the parallel texts). Please remove the phrase if it really offends you, but please do not add a counter viewpoint because that just takes us way off topic. Laurence Boyce 12:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Anyone going to this page would understand that the article is talking about an interpretation which the Ration Response Squad uses. If all possible views on things should be included in all articles, wikipedia would be thrice the size it is now :)
Rasmus Rimestad 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good point. In fact, I changed "according to the Bible" to "according to RRS", to ensure that it is understood that blasphemy meaing "deny existence" is the RRS interpretation. The Bible doesn't say "deny existence" even in Luke 12. In fact, the Greek "blasphemeo" means "to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate" -- given that the Holy Spirit is God's active principle in the world, given that the word "Holy Spirit" is used in the first place instead of "God", and given the parallel texts which are clear in that the problem is assigning God's work to Satan, I don't think there is any doubt on what the passage says. But I bow to others interpretations here. Still, the Bible clearly doesn't say "deny *existence* is the unforgiveable sin", so if that is to be in there, it should be clearly stated that this is someone's interpretation.
GDon
Wonderful! Thanks!
--Ader78 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone thinks the Bible says that the sin is to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. Since it only says that it is to "deny the Holy Spirit", using "deny the existence" is an interpretation of the RRS. Probably better to take out the "Blasphemy Challenge" parts, since they aren't related to the movie. Laurence, I'll remove it, but if you are okay with that, please reinstate and I won't touch it. I don't see how the "Blasphemy Challenge" relates to the movie, though. Should a link to the "Challenge Blasphemy" site by the theists be included here as well?
--GDon

[edit] Links

For the umpteenth time, I have removed some links to private websites. The problem with such links are that they are liable to be insufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable, or accountable. Laurence Boyce 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think by now this should be considered vandalism, but I don't know enough about wiki rules as to how this should be handled. -George100 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You may report it here if you like, but the admins will probably give the vandals the benefit of the doubt. Laurence Boyce 13:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

These links have been added yet again. Some of these links are to personal web pages and should be removed, but others seem semi-valid. (At least, as valid as Christian apologetics possibly can get) Should we divide up the external links into two sections (favorable and critical)? - Big Brother 1984 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were already divided? Critical websites and non-critical or whatever they should be called. I would say that these links are no less sufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable or accountable than the movie itself :)
--Ader78 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If that is how you feel about the film, then you should raised an AfD. But it's been tried before and failed miserably. There is no symmetry between the the film and its crticis in the context of this article, because this is an article about the film. Laurence Boyce 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the article should be removed. It's about the film, not about what is true and what's not. My comment was more meant as something of a joke than the start of a heavy discussion. Don't mind it! --Ader78 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, wikipedia n00b here, slowly getting more involved. I was hoping to find some reference to a good critique of the claims of this movie, and was concerned about the fact that there seemed to be no critique on the whole page? There was a link to Historicity of Jesus at least. I was thinking something in the line of what one sees on the What the bleep page. (Also controversial...) Which movies should have a page "only about the film", and which may have info about "what is true and what's not"? Also, what is a "private page", and what isn't...? Is something like http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm considered a "private page"? (Yea, I guess so?) --Hugovdm 13:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Private websites, Im assuming, means those on a free webhost, they dont have much standing as a reliable source. Reliable sources would be noted Biblical scholars and historians in their published work or their official websites. Also, doing my best Nancy Drew impression I think GDon may be the author of those pages, which would inadvertently violate 'original research'. Cheers Dmanning 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul of Tarsus

Paul_of_Tarsus#Paul and Jesus iterates a message of this film, that "little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul's letters. He mentions specifically only the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff), his death by crucifixion (1 Cor :2:2; Phil. 2:8), and his resurrection (Phil. 2:9)."

Should this film be mentioned in some form in such articles as reference to point out some's (eg. Flemming's) secular interpretation regarding Paul's lack of details on Jesus? Shawnc 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers the labelling of this film as "propaganda" to be faintly ironic. The movie begins with a survey of the life of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament. Then various scholars and writers are interviewed who clearly speak their own opinions. We are encouraged to follow up on their books if we so wish. Flemming also expresses his own opinion along the way, but in an entirely open and accountable manner. He ends up interviewing his old head teacher, giving him ample opportunity to defend himself, an opportunity which ultimately the teacher declines.

By contrast, I take "propaganda" to be a form of advertising. It's when viewpoint is expressed as if it were fact, and we are merely expected to take information on trust without any point of historical, scientific, or philosophical reference. A good example of propaganda would be the New Testament or, more generally, the entire project of religion.

Laurence Boyce 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"A good example of propaganda would be the New Testament or, more generally, the entire project of religion."

Wikipedia doesn't need your bigotry Alicewr 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And we don't need your rudeness to an editor that made a good faith analysis - you may not agree with it but it deserves a polite reply. Sophia 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but he can speak for himself and explain on what grounds he thinks bigotry consists of politeness. Alicewr 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective effort and any editor may comment in any thread. Laurence will no doubt respond to your comments in time but comments such as the one you made can above poison the atmosphere of a talk page so must be avoided. Sophia 07:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He poisoned the atmosphere of the talk page when he attacked people for their religion which is a textbook example of bigotry. Alicewr 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, "bigotry." For certain no religionist was ever guilty of that. Laurence Boyce 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for further proving my point. Alicewr 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You had a point? Laurence Boyce 12:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

that's right keep showing your hate towards theists. Alicewr 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the edits of Sophia here and on other articles, let me say that yours is an unfounded accusation. If you have comments about the content of the article, make them; If you have comments about other editors, please keep them to yourself. Such comments do nothing to help your case here. -- Pastordavid 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to make an accusation about Sophia. Alicewr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be bit a worrying theme over the last few days - editors accusing others of hating Christians just because they differ in opinion [2]. Are you two in the same church or something? One that espouses tolerance and a "love thy neighbour as thyself" attitude no doubt. Sophia 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You assume I'm a Christian. Alicewr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I loathe these slow edit wars I have logged a request for comment about this issue. Let's see what other editors think. Sophia 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
To the average person this film doesn't have a clear political message and so categorising it as a Propaganda film fails the main category of usage. Propaganda can obviously have a non-political message but simply because the content is partisan doesn't make it propaganda as it is unclear what the new message is that people are supposed to believe in. The film is presenting (quite valid) questions about Jesus not pushing some other mystic message. Ttiotsw 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So is protocols of the elders of zion not propaganda? Alicewr 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has a well documented history as a forgery and an article of political propaganda having influenced the policy and politicians of both pre-revolutionary Russia and post-ww1 Europe. Drawing parallels between a documentary such as The God Who Wasn't There and this politically motivated work of forgery, the ultimate legacy of which was (arguably) the rise of political anti-Semitism and the holocaust itself is somewhat specious and certainly an immense over reaction on your part Alicewr. To my mind this documentary could not possibly be viewed as propaganda; yes the documentary is secular in message but its interpretations seem (to me) driven by rational objectivity which is a world apart from the subjective distortions inherent to propaganda pieces. You may well hold a world view in conflict with the overall message of the piece and if that's the case then so be it, however this, in and of itself is not enough to label it propaganda.
~~ Lee 21:16, 9th March 2007 (UTC)
The definition of "propaganda" is "information, allegations, or opinions that are deliberately and methodically disseminated to promote or attack a particular doctrine, movement, nation, or the like". On the main page of TGWWT article, it says:
"According to the film's official website, the aim of the documentary is to hold "modern Christianity up to a merciless spotlight." The documentary's website goes on to claim it "...asks the questions few dare to ask. And when it finds out how crazy the answers are, it dares to call them crazy... Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history... Moderate Christianity makes even less sense than a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian doctrine... Christian doctrine is contradictory."
To me, it sounds like an opinion piece -- and that's according to the information on the main page itself. I think it pretty clearly falls into the category of propaganda.
~~GDon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.206.93 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Although propaganda is often entirely opinion, expressing an opinion doesn't mean that you are spouting propaganda. Elmo 12:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
...the film's official website defines the piece as propaganda, in how it describes it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antagonistic atheism

Comments at the AfD are requested from the editors of this page [3] as I'm sure it will end up being referenced here if not deleted. Sophia 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RfC

In response to the RfC, I would say that it is inappropriate to put this into the "propaganda" category. The fact is, if you construe the definition of propaganda wide enough, it could include any and every documentary as they all advance a theory -- indeed, by the widest definitions any movie about the Gospels and the Gospels themselves could be considered propaganda.

However, I think it is a bad idea to start down that road of the broader definition of propaganda. We have a connotation of propagada that is largely (1) negative, and (2) political. This is evidenced by the Category:Propaganda films, which are all political propaganda. Further, our understanding of propaganda often assumes that it uses deceptive and misleading info. As far as I can tell, the facts presented in this film are niether. I may disagree with the interpretation of those facts and the conclusions drawn; but my disagreement about the conclusions does not mean that the facts are lies/deceptions.

Based on the standard of what is in the category now, I would say do not put this in Category:Propaganda films --- and if you do, then be prepared to also put the Jesus Film, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and many other religious films into the category. -- Pastordavid 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • In respose to the edit summary of "the film is being left in churchs with the intent of promoting an idea. That's propaganda". Yes, under the broad definition of propaganda, it is. But so is most Christian evangelism, and indeed, any attempt at proslytizing by any religion -- indeed, any academic advancing a theory is guilty of "propaganda" by the broadest definition. Please do not re-add the category, the consensus on this talk page -- including the opinions of 2 editors brought in by the request for comment - is that it is inappropriate. -- Pastordavid 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, under the broad definition of propaganda"

thank you for agreeing. BTW if a Christian leaves Chick Tracts in a Mosque yeah that's propaganda as well. Alicewr 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alicewr - you have been reverted by 4 separate editors - please stop trying to force your view on the article. Wikipedia works as a collaborative effort which is why I lodged the request for comment - to get other unconnected views on the subject. So far one has kindly taken the time to comment but lets wait to see what others think. At the moment there is no support for that category on this article so please stop adding it. Sophia 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with other editors from the RfC. Controvercial, certainly... "propaganda" no. It may be being used by some people for propaganda purposes, but the film was not created for propaganda purposes. Blueboar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. As stated above, this is not propaganda in it's narrow (ie. useful) definition. First, it is not political; second, it is not based on lies or distortions of the truth, as far as I can tell, not having seen it. Makerowner 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only propaganda if every other documentry ever made is also propaganda. Elmo 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary? "Mockumentary"

Not sure who else has seen this entertaining work but I must say calling it a Documentary is a bit of a stretch. No? (→Netscott) 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaaa!!! Not another category argument! Laurence Boyce 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a documentary. --MattShepherd 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's definitely a documentary. Even though you may find this film funny, that is not the intent. Makerowner 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 16 States

In support of verifiability, the 16 states (from the official film web site) are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cat Whisperer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TGWWT.jpg

Image:TGWWT.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done--Svetovid 10:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims about other gods and similarities to Jesus

I added content to the description section, to include some information about the claims of other gods with similarities to Jesus, and some of the attributes. The full list is as follows: Gods with one or more similarities: Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hercules, Dionysus, Deva tat, Beddru, Balder, Bacchus, Baal, Attis, Adonis Similarities listed in the movie:

  • Born of a virgin on December 25
  • Stars Appeared at Their Births
  • Visited by Magi from the East
  • Turned Water into Wine
  • Healed the Sick
  • Cast out Demons
  • Performed Miracles
  • Transfigured Before Followers
  • Rode Donkeys into the City
  • Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver
  • Celebrated Communal Meal with Bread and Wine
  • Which (Celebrated Communal Meal) Represented the Savior’s Flesh and Blood
  • Killed on a Cross or Tree, Descended into Hell
  • Resurrected on Third Day
  • Ascended into Heaven
  • To Forever Sit beside Father God And Become Divine Judge

This information appears about 22 min 15 secs into the movie 163.166.137.10 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)GDon

Well, my changes disappeared in one minute! That must be some kind of record. And for the record, you will see that the above is really part of the movie. The talking ceases while the information is displayed on the screen. I know that the "Beddru" issue is embarrassing to Flemming, but it is fair comment.

163.166.137.10 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)GDon

Unfortunately you were picked up by someone doing vandal patrol as as you were an IP and they obviously didn't understand the article they just reverted you. I'll drop them a note. Sophia 06:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anti christianity

Entering a place of worship with the intent of attacking it's ideology is more than just criticism and that's just what Flemming is advocating. Further more Flemming has yet to advocate people hide this film in a mosque. Hence Flemming's following is specifically targeting Christianity Hence this film is anti-ChristianMrwalkers 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when has questioning ideology become persecution? What happened to honest debate? The cat is wrong and I have removed it again. Sophia 05:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Entering a place of worship with the intent of attacking it's ideology is more than just criticism and it's far from "honest debate". Mrwalkers 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello PEAR, back again so soon? ornis (t) 06:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems we have tag team reverting - possible sleeper accounts? Sophia 06:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You talking about RucasHost? It's possible, their style and interests are similar. ornis (t) 00:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Anti-christianity is too overloaded a term. The main articles for the category are Persecution of Christians and Anti-Christian prejudice, neither of which clearly fit this critical film. There is a lot of difference between the pedigree of the contributors of this film and say some Islamic, Jew, Orthodox or even atheist, incoherent hatespeech complaining about Christianity. The current category of Criticism of Religion isn't fine tuned enough so maybe we need a solution like,... Create new Category Films critical of religion and Add subcategories of Films critical of Christianity effectively cloning how the "Books critical of xxx" is done. Ttiotsw 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There's already Category:Books critical of religion, so Category:Films critical of religion might be warranted, but I don't know if we need to start forking off a whole bunch of micro-cats for each religion criticised. ornis (t) 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines persecution as:

  1. The act of persecuting.
  2. A program or campaign to subjugate or eliminate a specific group of people, often based on race, religion, or social beliefs.

As the film maker does nothing to suggest desire to subjugate or eliminate the Christian representatives he contacts in the film, labeling this film as persecutory is 100% incorrect and is motivated by underlying POV issues. Seary6579 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Response

When it comes to controversial films such as this one and the Lost Tomb of Jesus, whatever valid criticism the film has attracted is usually also reported. For this reason I have taken the liberty to post various references made by Paul regarding Jesus' life as found in Pauls epistles recorded in the New Testament. Itsadiel 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a place for discussion of the rights and wrongs of the "evidence" presented. Any response needs to be referenced as being directly connected with this film. Sophia 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The movie claims that Paul makes no mention of Jesus' life, humanity, and or teachings. The response I posted simply shows that Paul does mention Jesus' humanity, life, teachings, and even quotes Jesus. Included were all the places in the Bible when Paul makes mention of these things. In what other way do you suggest the response should be posted? Itsadiel 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, maybe you can explain to me what is wrong with what I had posted? Here is what I had posted:

Christian's counter that Paul made it a point to focus primarily on Jesus' death,burial, and resurrection [1]. Nevertheless, the New Testament shows that Paul indeed declared that Jesus was a Jewish[2] man [3], born of a woman [4], under the Jewish law [5], who instituted the Lord's Supper [6], was betrayed [7], "witnessed the good confession under Pontius Pilate" [8], was crucified, buried, and resurrected [9], and made post-resurrection appearances to Cephas (Peter), the twelve, over five hundred brethren, James, all the apostles, and lastly to him (Paul) [10], who would one day judge all of humanity [11]. Paul also quotes Jesus on several occasions [12][13]. Itsadiel 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it is your argument. You are not notable and have not published this argument in reliable sources. I'm not being difficult but this is the only way to build a verifiable encyclopedia. If we all could get away with opinions and our own arguments I'd start with the "why is there nothing written in external sources about Jesus despite the major things he is claimed to have done?" one. You will have your own counter to that and I have mine but the wikipedia article is no place for it. Sophia 06:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I also meant to say "thank you" for discussing it here and being patient for my reply rather than just putting it back. If you have any other questions on how to add information or what information is suitable then please ask here or drop me a note on my talk page. Sophia06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning was straightforward. I figured that if the accusation was that Pauls writings dont mention Christ's humanity, the rebuttal would be to quote Paul mentioning Christ's humanity. I thought the source I was quoting from could not possibly be any more reliable: Paul himself. More than that, the Word of God itself. Itsadiel 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you meant well and to balance the article but hopefully by reading the policies you can see why I removed it. Sophia 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article expecting some kind of balanced review and debate. But I find a rather biased atheistic agenda – it’s hardly NPOV I think.

Surely a “Christian Response” is required here if this is in the philosophy fold – or is this a film review? Itsadiel made some good points, quoted from the bible, which in this context is a fairly “reliable” source. “Sophia” commented “You are not notable and have not published this argument” – so if John Stott or St. Augustine posted then would that be OK then? Just wondering... Hamilti 13:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection and having read the archive discussions (a fascinating and informative read), my only problem with this article is it’s inclusion in the philosophy section. I cannot see why this is the case. The item is a bald list of what the documentary is and the claims it makes. There's no room for a discussion on the page, which I guess is Sofia's point. So I suggest that it is only listed in the “Films” category. Does anyone object? Hamilti 08:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - it really only should be in the 'films" category plus any ones about religion and controversy. I didn't realise it was in the philosophy section so go ahead and remove it. Thanks for noticing that. Sophia 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was also puzzled by its inclusion in Philo'. Having seen this discussion and agreed with its conclusions I have removed it from the Philosophy portal. Should be added to to some appropriate 'religious' portal? Dunno which one though. Mercury543210 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The philosophical issues of the film is documented in the Jesus myth hypothesis entry. No need to repeat it here. Terjen (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beddru of Japan

Beddru of Japan has been removed from the list, ostensibly because "Flemming doesn't mention him in the movie". This is not correct. Flemming doesn't discuss Beddru, but "Beddru" is certainly one of the gods listed in the movie, rather infamously so, at around 11 min into the movie. There is no good reason to remove Beddru, since the paragraph in question lists gods, and Beddru is definitely listed as one of the gods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.206.52 (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please start new Talk Page sections on the bottom of the page, or click the "+" tab at the top to start a new conversation. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks. :-) Nightscream 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usable source for criticism

Analysis

Found it quickly with a Google search. If this isn't good, [tektonics.org] should also be helpful, though it more addresses the specific claims with separate articles - it doesn't really do counter-arguments for rants like this movie that have no new questions.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I think the movie is a load of crap, but I don't think that a criticism section should be in there. Best to let people make up their own mind. Most people won't spend the 10 min research that Flemming also didn't spend to see if the facts presented in the movie stand up, so best to leave it out in my opinion. GDon (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)GDon

Criticism sections are found on countless articles about controversial films, so long as they are based on reliable sources, Sicko and Expelled being two examples. Having them does not preclude readers from making up their own minds. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Richard Carrier a historian?

Is Richard Carrier a historian? If he is not, he should not be referred to as a historian in this article. This issue has recently come up in discussion of another article. User:Andrew_c claims that Richard Carrier is not a historian nor known as a historian, on the basis that he has no professional qualifications as a historian. Since there is apparently no evidence to the contrary (a quote from the LA Times referring to Carrier as a 'historian' doesn't count), I have removed a reference to Carrier as a 'historian' in the article on the census of Quirinius. I originally included that reference, on the basis of my personal understanding that he is a historian, but I have been told I am wrong. I realise that he claims to be 'an historian with a good knowledge of Greek', but apparently there is no independent evidence for this. If anyone can provide such evidence I will be more than willing to contest the removal of the reference. If no such evidence can be provided, then he should not be referred to in this article as 'a historian'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Tektonics criticism

I asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and based on their response that tektonics is a self-published source, I remove the material based on it. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

The reference provided, does not call a propaganda, it merely mentions that at times it lapses in to propaganda. Unless more specific references can be provided I will revert it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware how the film is distributed? --Ridgedoga (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Blasphemy Challenge, yes, I got my own copy through it. This has nothing to do with whether it's propaganda as a question of encyclopedic fact. Whether the film is propaganda is a matter of opinion, and not fact. If a reliable source opines that it lapses into propaganda at times, then it is acceptable to mention this, but only if that opinion is attributed as such, in a section devoted to such criticism. Describing it as propaganda in a matter-of-fact manner in the Intro gives the appearance that Wikipedia is itself taking a position on that point, which is unacceptable. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The following is a discussion pasted from the Talk Page of User:Palming. Since I've request Third Opinion, I'd like whoever responds to see it:

If you have NPOV sources that call it propaganda then put the category on the article. We have tons of sources calling Expelled propaganda. It fits the definition of propaganda. Two wrongs don't make a right, two rights don't make a wrong, and a wrong and a right are independent of each others Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The notion that the film is propaganda is an opinion, not a fact. Thus, referring to it as such is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is properly attributed as a quote from a reliable source. Referring to it as a propaganda in a matter-of-fact manner by describing it as such in the Intro is a violation of NPOV. Please stop introducing opinions in the article as fact. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream: your opinion is not shared by all. In short, it is not a violation of NPOV to be accurate, regardless of how little some may care for the terminology. The holocaust is routinely described as horrific, which is accurate, not a NPOV violation. Please work with your fellow editors to determine whether Expelled is, or is not, accurately categorized as propaganda and stop issuing orders regarding that issue to all and sundry. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's "accurate" is precisely the point of conflict. The filmmakers would presumably argue that it's not propaganda, and critics would argue that it is. That is precisely why the article itself should not take a position on the issue, of which that category placement gives the appearance. This also applies to your Holocaust example. A Wikipedia article should not describe the Holocaust as such, except when attributing a quote to an expert on it, or arguably when relating the personal experience of someone who experienced it. But you would not find such a word like that used in say, the Intro of the article on the Holocaust. It doesn't need to. The three paragraphs of that article's Intro describe what the article is using dispassionate language, and without emotive language. Nonetheless, I'll ask for Third Opinion. Nightscream (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, the above discussion is about Expelled, not this film. Why would you paste it here? It can only serve to confuse matters. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion was pasted from Palming's Talk Page regarding his edits to both articles (even though I admittedly forgot this when I initially pasted it, given all the heavy traffic and participation in the Expelled article). Palming's position was that some editors were being inconsistent in adding the category to one article but not the other, as he argued in his Edit Summary for this edit. The last post by me in the pasted exchange above was in regards to his last edit to this article. When I requested Third Opinion, I emphasized this article as the target, but also mentioned that the Expelled article was brought up as a point of argument, even though no one has re-added the category to that article. Nightscream (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

It doesn't seem like any sources explicitly call the film propaganda. Even if a small handful did, it would not be sufficient to add such an inflammatory category to the film. Categories should be based on at least a majority, or preferably a supermajority or consensus, of sources in relation to the topic. Vassyana (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices!

Propaganda is designed to influence behaviour for the direct benefit for the propagandist. Even if this film does change some people's minds, it's hard to see how that alone benefits the film maker. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The definition given by Mojo above is incomplete. Propaganda is also typically regarded as deceptive, usually deliberately so. I see no evidence that this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources as being deceptive. Whether something is propaganda is not something for Wikipedia editors to determine, but for reliable sources to report on. We must avoid making non-neutral, original research-type judgments. Nick Graves (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to make sure I understand the consensus here as the discussion has drifted a little. The only source I have seen that uses the term propaganda, does not refer to the film itself as propaganda, but says at times it drifts into a propagandistic style. This is an important distinction and we would need multiple reliable sources referring to the film specifically as propaganda and few arguing against this status before we label something like that. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. However, if a significant minority labels the film propaganda, even though we should not add the category, we should discuss the allegation as appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The category should not be added as a question of editor's opinions. Hell, I'm not even convinced it should be added if there are sources, since that gives the appearance that Wikipedia is judging it as such. I don't think any work should be categorized as such except for those works whose classification as such would be non-controversial, like the works of Joseph Goebbels or Leni Riefenstahl. Ditto for films like Expelled, Sicko, etc. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that for the most part this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources at all. here's another source though that describes the film as propaganda [4] --Palming (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to respond to Palmings addition of another source. This source does not describe the film as propaganda either. Once again it says "like propaganda" we are not going to begin the article saying "...is a propaganda film" just because two sources say that it is a little like propaganda. Also I am unclear why Palming posted out of order, it makes the discussion hard to follow for other editors. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am inclined to ask, must a consensus fall on whether or not to call it propaganda or not? This would seem rather unimportant, and is only a category; so long as the article clearly produces the message of the film being critical towards Christiandom's teachings of the life of Jesus, and this is well-referenced (preferably film's website, interviews, so forth), whether or not it falls under the label of propaganda can be a case of nuance, to the point of not being significant enough for lengthy debate. I have to ask therefore, if consent can not be reached that producing a clear introduction is paramount, and can take the place of a mere categorical placing. Consent can be reached through voting on the talkpage about this, where agreement can be that the propaganda category will be avoided. My personal take on this, without having seen the movie, is that nobody seems to regard it as a pure piece of propaganda. On the other hand, some state this is what the producer intended. Surely if the latter can be provided in writing, that should end the debate. Unless we then say he is wrong in his assertion. Which I am sure we are fully capable of, dedicated Wikipedians the lot of us :) (Imdb does not use the word "propaganda", by the way) Scaller (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding Palming's out of order post, and with your suggestion about sourcing Fleming's statements that he considers it propaganda, Scaller. I have moved Palming's post to the proper order. Nightscream (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)