Is this section of the article detailing Jared Loughner's reported interest in the film unduly long and in need of shortening?
Yes As it stands, the only source we have in the section that devotes more than three sentences to any connection between the movie and Loughner is a single opinion piece by a partisan commentator trying to connect the movie to the right-wing. I believe a single paragraph with a summary of the allegations about the film's influence on Loughner and Joseph's response is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In 2010, critic A. A. Gill wrote that the museum was "a breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul". He stated, "This place doesn't just take on evolution – it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most '-onomies' and all '-ologies', including most theology."
Does this use imply he is an expert on the topic of museums? 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is considerable discussion in this forum about the inclusion of so-called "minority" opinions. Basically it boils down to, whose citations represent a valid contribution? There has been considerable push back over many months and years to the inclusion of scholarship that falls outside of the one school of thought protected within this article: namely biblical scholarship based almost exclusively on theological historical-criticism. From a broader academic perspective, inclusive of seminal archaeologists, philosophers and different types of biblical scholars, the positions in this article are challenged. Please review to assess and validate the inclusion of other scholarly opinions in this article as found, for example, at Historicity of Jesus#Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)