Talk:God's Not Dead (film)

Preorder tickets?

Considering that pre-order tickets were available for the film months before it released, it's likely that a significant amount of the revenue from opening weekend came from those and not from other movie-goers. Is there going to be any way to statistically tell how much money came from pre-order tickets? Silverseren^C 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a way. AFAIK pre-ordered tickets are generally considered part of the opening take, so long as they are used during opening weekend. I don't think it matters, however. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis

The descriptions of Josh and the professor given in the official synopsis are a part of the story and should remain. A movie in which a polite, warm-hearted atheist professor debates a closed-minded Christian student is a very different one from this one. Therefore, it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include descriptions of those characters pulled from a primary source. I would argue that it's not a violation to include descriptions based on reviews and expert opinions, even if one of them opines that the professor in the film is one of the worst philosophy professors imaginable, but not being a violation and being conducive to a good article aren't the same thing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sub-par wording

While unoffended, I think the end of the second paragraph under Plot is rather crass for an encyclopedia.

The specific quote in question: "his father does not want him screwing up his brother's scholarship"

I would consider this wording acceptable in most contexts involving everyday speech. However, it seems very out of place here. I would at least propose more professional wording.

While the rest of the article at least is less slang-heavy, it seems poorly worded. I feel this could overall be improved by simply re-wording a few parts.

74.5.61.119 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Have at it, Hoss. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

But it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. The IP didn't like the word choice "screwing up". In any case, it was fixed a while ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Too long

This article's length and depth of information is way too much for the notability of this film. Unless someone can put up a good reason why I shouldn't, I'm going to massively trim it down sometime in the few days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand your logic. If we have reliable sources that we are reporting from and the content is non-duplicative, there is no reason to remove content. The one area that might be condensed is the plot which per guidelines should be max 500-700 words. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. My comment's first sentence should have read "This article's length and depth of plot information is way too much for the notability of this film." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I do support that! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good, because I already made the change. From 716 to 489 words in one fell swoop, and now it's pretty. It's so pretty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If history is any guide, you'll end up having to revisit the issue repeatedly ("OMG! Remember the part where..."). - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Most likely. I have a quick question for you. Why are you capitalizing 'atheist'? I'm pretty sure it's a common noun, not a proper one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to capitalize atheist. From what I'm looking at, I removed an errant capital. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, my mistake. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is notability a determining factor on how long a plot summary is. I would think things like movie length and how much it takes to communicate what's going on in the show would be more important factors. Hackwrench (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY, in my opinion, is not the issue here. The primary guidelines that would seem to apply would be WP:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional..." From what I've read, the plot is structured as a typical, linear storyline. This is an encyclopedia. As far as the plot goes, our purpose here is to give a summary of what happens. The section is not intended to convey whether the film is great or horrible, innovative or trite, or anything else. Yes, there is always more detail to the film than what is presented in a summary. Eventually, it goes from being a summary to being a complete description. Our guideline, as quoted, gives a general idea of how long it should be and when we would typically go beyond that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, the important structure is that it is a setup for a rigged debate where the professor is destined to lose, so examples of what was debated is more important for the reader to decide for themselves before the final outburst how well each side is doing in the debate. Hackwrench (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Were this article about a debate, we would be looking for independent sources to summarize the points covered and how well viewers felt the sides did in the debate. This article, however, is about a film. The debates are one part of the overall work. Anyone looking for balanced coverage of the debate topics in a film called "God's Not Dead" is barking up the wrong tree. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverend Dave

So what denomination is Pastor Dave? From the inside and outside it looks like an Episcopal Church (even the name St. James suggests it could be, though yes there are many other denominations that have churches with Saint in them). But if he were Episcopalian they probably would have called him Father and he would have worn a collar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't covered in the film or independent reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article. (I would assume the film is deliberately vague as more specific choices wouldn't sell as many tickets.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Colliding groups

The article says that "Some Christian youth groups are colliding in the Methodist, Catholic, and Baptist traditions to watch God's Not Dead together, which have resulted in screenings of the film selling out." The word "colliding" is very odd here. At first I thought this was typo for "colluding" (though that sounds rather inappropriately conspiratorial), but I think the sentence is meant simply to imply that separate visits or showings by Methodist, Catholic, and Baptist groups have combined to increase the viewership of the film. The three footnotes are simply to sites which advertise showings, indicating that the three denominations listed (Methodist, Catholic, and Baptist) have each organised visits. None of the footnotes seem to support the second half of the sentence - that this "resulted in screenings of the film selling out". It may have done, but it seems to be WP:syn. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the whole bit is synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It was synthesis. I had trimmed down the 'Christian Appraisal' section quite a bit previously per the result of a DRN discussion. I was going to trim that out, but the other editor involved had been so vociferous that I decided to wait for someone else to do it, to avoid re-igniting the issue. Thanks for getting to it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What does "synthesis" mean? In any case it is good that Catholics and Christians are getting together, or by "colliding" do you also mean they have hostilities with each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis is taking material from two sources and combining them to make a new statement that neither one supports. One source says N-ians were going at noon one Tuesday. Another source says that Q-ians are going at noon on Tuesday. Neither source says that N-ians and Q-ians are "colliding" (or "getting together", "meeting", "joining", "running across each other" or whatever). It's meaningless (they probably "collide" every Sunday at the local diner at brunch time) and was removed from the article some time ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS. The section has subsequently been removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

À propos of this discussion, I'd like 63.84.231.3 to prepare a Venn diagramme demonstrating the relative relationships of world religions. I'm particularly interested to see the relative positions on that chart of Catholics and Christians. Laodah 03:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Compelling?

Is one purpose of such articles supposed to be determining whether or not arguments are compelling? Hackwrench (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this line?: "Ultimately, it comes down to the third and final debate between Radisson and Josh, who again both make compelling points." I suppose the question is whether the points are compelling to the editor, or compelling to the characters in the film. I interpret it as being compelling to the characters, however this could probably be clarified somehow. I haven't seen the film, so I'm probably not the guy to do it. Are they earning points in the debate? Are they wowing the crowd? More specificity would be helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary sentence for critical response

In this edit I removed the critical response summary resubmitted by Walter Görlitz, after SummerPhDv2.0 removed it. I don't see why we need to summarize what is essentially a summary. Aggregator ratings are not unimpeachable facts. They are still opinions. Opinions of opinions, I think might be more accurate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at the handful of films listed at one category here: Category:2014 films. The first, alphabetically, that has either a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic review is 10 Rules for Sleeping Around and it was apparently "universally panned". 13 Sins, "61% of 38 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review". That was a bit more neutral but still interpreted. 1971 (2014 film), "Critical reception for 1971 has been positive". 20,000 Days on Earth, "reports that 97% of 38 film critics have given the film a positive review". 22 Jump Street "22 Jump Street received positive reviews from critics.". 3 Days to Kill "3 Days to Kill has received negative reviews from critics". I'm not going to continue. Most are interpreted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Addendum: I started discussion before seeing WG's edit summary "this is standard practice for films". That said, "standard practice" is not entirely "standard practice". Having participated in a number of these discussions, there is a division between editors about whether or not these summaries should be included. Some feel that if the summary is directly cited, i.e. an individual from a reliable source says "reception was generally negative", then we can include that. Others feel that this represents synthesis by proxy. As the MOS says, If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. I don't have a problem with the general framework of "Metacritic gave the film a NN/100 rating indicating 'Generally negative reviews'" or whatever. But summarizing a summary is unnecessary. As for the promised list of examples of other articles that use the phrasing, c'mon. Surely we've all heard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If I weren't lazy I could point to an equal number of articles that don't contain the unnecessary summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I had an edit notice that you mentioned me while I was creating the list.

I recognize that editors object, but it is standard practice. Until that practice is changed and applied in a standard manner it does not need to be applied here. And OSE is about article deletion, not supporting removal of content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you say it's standard practice, but that hasn't been substantiated. I don't even know what the metric is for determining standard practice. Based on how often I deal with it, I might say that vandalism is a standard practice. Doesn't make it the right way to go. Anyhow, the MOS wants at the very least a direct attribution for that conclusion. Some links to some discussions: [1][2] This is but a surface scratch. I am rather sleepy and must enter my naptime dreamscape. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think I have not substantiated it. I linked to reviews above. I can't do any more. Standard practice is a practice that is generally observed or actioned on. The discussions you've linked certainly support the idea with the first one stating, "No, we're formally against [the use of "Mixed to positive" and "Mixed to negative" to describe critical reaction to films] as a project, but enforcing it is another thing altogether" and the second being a monologue. Sorry. It's not against the project and it's done on most films I look at. I understand your point though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are essentially two possibilities here.

• 1) The statement merely restates what the source obviously says. In this case, the statement is redundant and adds nothing.
• 2) The statement provides an interpretation of what the source apparently says. In this case, the statement adds POV.

Further, I typically end up removing these statements in the process of following around various IPs who seem to be going from one film article to another, changing "universally panned" to "generally negative" to "mixed to negative" to "mixed" to "mixed to positive" to "mostly positive" to "universal critical acclaim" based on their opinion, what the number 37 "means" and the average land speed of a laden swallow. In the present case, I am stating that "overwhelming dislike" based on six (count them: 6) critics included by Metacritic means something other than "generally negative critical response". Six critics, averaged together, didn't like it. Great. Is that a representative sample? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. You might feel that it is. Maybe Dewey will defeat Truman this time around. What we can verifiably state is that "The film received a score of 16 out of 100 on Metacritic indicating "overwhelming dislike" from the sample of six critics sourced by the site, and a rating of 17% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 18 reviews as of 2015/5/l." Heck, given that very thin response, you might just as well state that "The film generally did not receive critical response." - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced sequel date

Yes, someone, somewhere added a date for the sequel. Maybe it's real, maybe not. Maybe it's vandalism. Maybe it's a mistake. Whatever the case may be, I removed the material per WP:V, one of our core policies.

Walter Görlitz has now restored the material twice, once saying there is "no violation" and once without comment. They have also reverted my comment on their talk page without comment. They, of course, are now responsible for the unsourced addition. I'll let it sit for a bit to give them a chance to explain. Failing that, I'll remove it and give them a warning for unsourced additions. "Don't template the regulars"? Yeah, sure. But if the regulars are restoring unsourced material and refusing to discuss, there's not much else to do. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint. I added a source, which is what you should have done. And you're intentionally interpreting WP:V which states "it must be verifiable before you can add it", and the information is verifiable but I would rather encourage new editors to find this information rather than remove it and leave a gap in the accurate and verifiable information the article presents. I suggest you apply a voluntary topic ban to this article instead since you're not being in any way helpful or helping to meet the five pillars. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Yes, it is disappointing.

Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for the date. "IMDb content inappropriate to reference on Wikipedia:...Cast lists, etc. for films and television programming that are still in development or production, and have yet to premiere."

Of course, you backed this up (?) with a blog reprinting a press release that does not cite a specific date. Heck, it says "Easter 2016". April 1, 2016 does not "coincide with Easter". Per our guidelines, the IMDb cite should go and we can certainly cite the press release directly for "Easter 2016".

If you feel a topic ban is appropriate here, this is not the venue for such a discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot WP:IMDB. I suppose a WP:PRIMARY source will have to do here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this has been the most constructive dispute on the project, especially with the claims of bias leveled against Summer, who has to deal with poorly-sourced content all day long. That said, I respect both of your editing contributions and don't want to fuel anything. I've used the official website as a ref for the film date, since it's not a controversial claim. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Add this and God's Not Dead 2 to the Discrimination against atheists category?

I feel this and God's Not Dead 2 should be added to the Discrimination against atheists category, and probably should also be addressed in the main Discrimination against atheists article as well, due to the critical reception both films have received and due to the fact that it negatively stereotypes and paints atheists in a bad light. It makes atheists out to be these horrible, manipulative people who either blackmail others or file court cases against them due to them being Christian and that they're all out to persecute Christians. They both make blatant strawman arguments and push an obvious persecution complex due to it also painting Christians as this victimized, persecuted group, placing both atheists and Christians in completely unrealistic situations that are highly unlikely to occur.

I'll also make this post in the God's Not Dead 2 talk page as well.

Mateoski06 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind: As this is essentially one discussion, I have added a note to the other talk page asking that editors comment here for the sake of simplicity. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO, this is a matter of NPOV. The film is not about discrimination against atheists. Rather, in your opinion, the plot is discriminatory to atheists. For comparison, The Birth of a Nation is widely held up as an example of films that are discriminatory toward African Americans. Relevant categories there are Category:History of racism in the cinema of the United States and Category:White supremacy in the United States. Both of these categories are well supported by academic sources in the article, unlike the category proposed here. We do not have independent reliable sources discussing this as an example of discrimination against atheists.

Birth... does not have any see also's related to this issue.

Thought experiment: How many films can you think of that depict women as helpless, unintelligent and completely dependent on men or depict African Americans as unintelligent and governed by animal instincts or Jews as greedy or... you name it. Would you really have us begin to categorize Finding Nemo for what some editors may feel is an insensitive portrayal of mental illness? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Although critically unsuccessful

"Although critically unsuccessful, the movie was 2014's highest grossing independent film and won a GMA Dove Award for "Inspirational Film of the Year.""

This is synthesis. First, the wording ties critical reviews with box office gross and the Dove Awards. Neither one of these is directly tied to critical reviews.

Were we to separate this into two sentences, we would still need a source saying the film was "critically unsuccessful". We don't have that. We have an RT score that shows that most of the 20 critics RT surveyed who reviewed the film didn't like it. RT recognizes that 20 reviews is a small number, thus the lack of a critical consensus. Next we have a stand alone review that was clearly not positive, to say the least, but does not say anything about the film's overall critical results. Finally, we have the Meta page, based on 6 reviews. It would seem that GliderMaven feels that these sources taken together show that the film was "critically unsuccessful". We do not, however, have a source that says this. It is only by combining these sources (and interpreting the scores] that we can synthesize the new statement that none of them individually say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

I see the claim has been restored a third time, with the same three references. Thoughts, GliderMaven? - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the top grossing independent movie in 2014

The article currently has a single reference for making this claim, but googling fails to validate this (see [3]. It did do quite well, but The Great Budapest Hotel seems to have completely outgrossed it overall. In North America, it may possibly have edged TGBH by a few million, but not worldwide-the article is currently claiming no such geographic restriction. Other 2014 movies like The Imitation Game also outgrossed it, but it's far more arguable whether they were independent.GliderMaven (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Variety (and our article on the film) gives this distinction to The Imitation Game.[4] - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Radisson

An editor changed the text to say that he is a misotheist: "He isnt an atheist, atheists dont believe in god, he believes he exists, but he hates him".

The sources disagree:"...an atheistic pledge...his fervent atheism..."[5]; "...disavow, in writing, the existence of God..."[6]; "...atheist Professor Radisson..."[7]; etc.

I have changed it back to atheist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not seen the film and not studied the refs so I didn't protest significantly when it was added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Urban legend?

Currently, the "Critical reception" section contains the line - "Some sources and blogs have cited the film's similarities to a popular urban legend." Which sources are these, and what is the legend? I've added the appropriate tag. If the intention is to point out the similarity of the film's plot to Big Daddy?, which is what the next (suitably referenced) sentence says, I don't think that "urban legend" is the right phrase to use. Tevildo (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And I've removed it as there are three sources that support it in the next sentence. If you don't like "urban legend", which is what http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/10/if-an-anti-atheist-story-on-snopes-were-made-into-a-film-itd-be-this-one/ claims it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The first source (Seemeyer) refers to "a chain email popular ten years ago", the second source (Noble) refers to two Snopes articles and "Big Daddy", and the third (Mehta) refers to "urban legend emails". I think some rearrangement of the references (so that "urban legend" is sourced to Seemeyer and Mehta, or possibly all three, and "Chick tract" is sourced only to Noble) might be an improvement. Tevildo (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the references. Tevildo (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Word Report

@Walter Görlitz: Because the user has admitted to being the one who wrote all of the articles they are inserting as references.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 17:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it per this discussion, but for me the question is not self-promotion or not, it's whether it's a WP:RS or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I'm not sure if it is, but one could argue that the Catholic bias makes it a less than reliable source.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 22:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to show that there is a bias in the first place. First, there has only been official acceptance of non-Roman Catholics as "true Christians" since 1969, and even then, there is still acrimony between the two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Should we take this to WP:RSN?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 22:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why? It's not an issue of reliability as the source itself is clearly reliable. It may be an issue of COI if, as you claim, the original editor is promoting his own work by applying it in appropriate locations. And one thing further, there's no need to ping me. This article (and its talk page) are on my watchlist, as I assume it's on yours. I will see it and respond in due course. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we're off base here.

Yes, the source is reliable. Walter is right: It accurately reports that it says what it says. I think that's a moot point.

Yes, it might be a COI issue. The editor has been warned. If they continue to edit, they should disclose or be addressed.

We're still left with the content.

It is clearly not a review we would include in the average film. If Catholic World Report reviewed the latest Shyamalan film, we certainly would not include it. "Catholic World Report has an opinion on Glass? Who cares?"

Instead, I think we're trying to include it for the same reason the material in the "Evangelical and Roman Catholic response": What did faith communities think of the film's faith content. I can understand that, but I have questions with the Catholic World Report piece and much of what's there.

Catholic World Report has an opinion on the film. So what? Pick a talk radio host. They have an opinion on this film, the president, the weather, you name it. That they said it isn't the issue, it's WP:WEIGHT. For the most part, no one cares. If the New York Times reports what they said, it's a different story. No independent reliable sources give any indication that their opinion is in any way noteworthy. Unless there an independent source discussing their opinion, I see nothing to include here.

Next, we have the first sentence in "Evangelical and Roman Catholic response". It cites the film's website to give glowing opinions from various organizations. This is akin to selecting reviews for Shyamalan's film from that film's website. It does not demonstrate that the opinions are noteworthy and the selection is certainly going to be biased toward the "this film is great" variety.

Next we have Answers in Genesis telling us Answers in Genesis's opinion. Ditto American Catholic, The Christian Post, Catholic News Service and Christian Reviews. If any of these reviewed Shyamalan's Glass, we would completely ignore them. That we want to include opinions of the faith content of the film does not lower the bar here. We selected these sources based on availability, not WP:WEIGHT or any other objective criteria. I don't see any of those as clearly a reasonable bar for inclusion.

The Washington Post gives us Michael Gerson's thoughts as part of a story. That's an independent reliable source. I see merit in that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent response. If I may summarize: the section is present because of the nature of the subject; the inclusion of faith-based reviews in a section that discusses the faith-based response is appropriate. If better sources can be found to improve the quality of the sources in the section, we should use them.

If that's the case, I would also suggest that we trim the section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Failing other sources, I'd ax the section and put Gerson in with the reviews. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Trim it so it's not WP:UNDUE and then move what's left in with the "regular" reviews. Makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Antagonist not atheist change reverted

I made a change to the article last night: as the Professor proclaims that he hates God, it's important to note that he's not an atheist, but rather a disaffected and somewhat lapsed Christian, as he clearly actually does believe in God. This alters the plot significantly, as the argument is not actually between an atheist and a Christian as the article kind of implies. This was reverted, and I was just curious as to why. Monochameleon87 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A substantially similar topic was discussed above at #Prof. Radisson.

Your [specific addition] was interpretation not specifically covered in the plot. As plot descriptions are taken from primary sources, we have to limit original research. While some interpretive material might seem obvious/harmless, it's easy to get it wrong.

(Example: For decades, Fahrenheit 451 was regularly taught in schools as an allegory discussing censorship. It seems compelling, the protagonist ends up fighting against literal book burning. The author's take on his own work is substantially different.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I just don't see how it's interpretative. This isn't a disputable concept. An atheist, by definition, doesn't believe in God. Raddison does believe in God - he hates Him. Ergo, he's not an atheist, which seems like - in the context of the plot and message of the film - an important distinction to make. It may be that the writer of the film simply doesn't know what it actually means to be atheist, but it's still not a question of interpretation, simply one of definition. The Farenheit 451 comparison doesn't really work, because there is no metaphor or allegory at work here, just the dictionary. Monochameleon87 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"It may be that the writer of the film simply doesn't know what it actually means to be atheist" Given the intended audience of the film (Evangelical Christians), I would suspect the antagonist is a straw man reflecting their views of atheists. Whether the screenwriter actually shares this belief, does not really matter. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Monochameleon87, all the non-evangelical characters in the film are caricatures, usually straw men. In the evangelical imagination, an atheist must hate god because they have not yet seen the light. In reality most atheists don't believe in god because there is no credible evidence to support the existence of any deity, and all arguments in favour of said existence tend to be circular. Guy (help!) 19:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hatred of God (or gods) is misotheism, not atheism. However we need a source to actually make the distinction. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

References in paragraph 2

As of the beginning of 3/25/2020, the first reference provided (and directly quoted) in the second paragraph, "Heckle: God still might be dead," is from the opinion column of a student newspaper of a university. Another reference, "God’s Not Dead? Neither Is Philosophy," is a blog published in Psychology Today and is essentially just a long review of the movie. Two other references, "How the Christian movie series God’s Not Dead fails to be Christian" from Vox and "‘God’s Not Dead: A Light in the Darkness’ Review: A Hellishly Bad Drama About America’s Christian Persecution Complex" from IndieWire, are essentially poorly written reviews from biased authors who almost seem to have a vendetta against the movie. In short, it's fine to include criticisms of the movie in the article, but they shouldn't be represented as claims of the encyclopedia. Since these are opinion claims and not statements of irrefutable fact, it should be clear that Wikipedia isn't the one making the claims. It must be kept in mind that since the movie is technically a work of art, the only claims that the article should make directly about the work (saying "It is this" instead of "According to ____, it is this") are objective claims about what can be seen in the movie. --Nbattle519 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nbattle519, all film reviews are opinion. And Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with film reviews that are biased in favour of reality. Guy (help!) 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, you may agree with these opinions, but that doesn't mean that they are factual. You must recognize that from an objective standpoint, the claims referenced in the article are blatantly biased, even if you happen to share their bias. I urge you to not let your religious convictions influence how you examine statements of fact, as religious beliefs are by definition not factual. As you say, all film reviews are opinion, and therefore should not be stated as facts in an encyclopedia. --Nbattle519 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nbattle519, I've read the reviews, and, unusually for someone who is not already an evangelical, watched most of the movie. The reviews are correct. It is badly written, badly acted, and the atheist characters bear no relation to real atheists. They are more like the Ray Comfort atheists who are floored by the (ironically largely human developed) banana. Guy (help!) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, again, these are your opinions, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. --Nbattle519 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nbattle519, you have exactly six edits to Wikipedia under this username, so either you're not actually a new user or I know more about our policies than you do. Guy (help!) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, if the purpose of Wikipedia is to push infactual opinions and points of view, then I guess you're right, I don't know the site well. I happened to be under the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased and scientific. --Nbattle519 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nbattle519, no, it's definitely not to do that. Which is why we point out that the premise of this film is a fantasy, for example. Guy (help!) 23:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say I'm on Nbattle's side here. It's a violation of WP:NPOV to say it's objectively poorly made. I've seen the movie and think it's absolutely atrocious (and I'm Catholic!). But does that mean we should say it is in wikivoice? For instance, Joaquin Phoenix's performance in Joker won an Oscar, but does that mean his performance was objectively great? A bunch of notable critics didn't think so (such as Stephanie Zacharek of Time). The RT rating is enough to demonstrate that at least a few critics liked the film. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Advocacy#What I am writing is true! to say in wikivoice that it's objectively badly made, inaccurate, propaganda, etc. We can put it in the reception section, where we can cite it as what critics observed. JOEBRO64 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, yes we should, when that's the consensus of professional reviewers - which it is, according to Metacrtitic and other aggregators. We should also point out that this film exemplifies the Christian persecution complex rather than any actual persecution of Christians in the US. Guy (help!) 23:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Advocacy#What I am writing is true! Just because most critics said it's true, that doesn't mean we should present the article in a biased way. I've written enough media-related articles to know that it's Wikipedia policy that we can't say the media in question is objectively bad, because reviews aren't objective and we write to maintain a neutral point of view and present all perspectives of the subject. Those criticism should definitely be noted—but not in the way they're presented now. I'm notifying WT:FILM of this discussion so we can get more eyes. JOEBRO64 00:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not really seeing how the original version of the article "portray[ed] a fringe view as if fact." It was completely objective, with no opinions thrown in. For instance, compare "the film follows a Christian college student (Harper) whose faith is challenged by a philosophy professor (Sorbo) who declares God a pre-scientific fiction" to "the "poorly acted and atrociously written" film follows a Christian college student (Harper) whose faith is challenged by a straw man atheist philosophy professor (Sorbo), who declares God a pre-scientific fiction." The latter throws in things that are completely opinions (not to mention that the source cited doesn't exactly have the hallmarks of reliability: it's run by students and there's no editorial policies that I can find), whereas the former just focuses on the facts: it's about a kid who gets in an argument with his teacher. Also, per WP:FILMPLOT, plot sections aren't supposed to contain analysis not present in the film, and they don't need sources because the film itself is a primary source. Create a themes and analysis section under reception for that stuff. JOEBRO64 00:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, the issue here is pretty simple: this is being treated as a film, but it's actually proselytisation. The aim is not to entertain, but to preach. David A. R. White runs a religious ministry. And the message of the films is to promote a fiction - the Christian persecution complex. There's a strong consensus among professional reviewers that this movie is clumsy propaganda, and we need to reflect that. We need to reflect the dominant real-world view that this film is fantasy, not fact. It genuinely does represent Josh as the only Christian in the class, but 78% of Americans are Christians. In fact, the most obviously persecuted minority in the US, on religious grounds, is atheists, followed by Muslims. I am not wedded to any specific text, my goal is merely to ensure that reality is given a bigger role in this article than it has been to date. Guy (help!) 00:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen such a complete disregard for WP:NPOV before. We write to maintain all viewpoints, not just yours. That all belongs in the reception section where it can be properly treated as opinion. If that's not enough for you, maybe RationalWiki is a better place for it. The way you're presenting it is exactly what WP:POVPUSH says to avoid. JOEBRO64 12:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, it already had the evangelical viewpoint.l Loud and proud. I just toned it down. Guy (help!) 14:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No it didn't. The evangelical viewpoint would be its Conservapedia page, which (surprise surprise) bears absolutely no resemblance to what ours looked like, which was neutral until you forced your POV on it. JOEBRO64 14:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks cut and dry to me. JzG, the edits you're defending are clear WP:POV violations. This film is dreadful, but not to worry: it should be perfectly possible to let readers draw that conclusion themselves with a clear and neutral article. Popcornfud (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, in what way is a sourced note about the plot drawn from a reliable source more POV than an unsourced plot summary written by an opbvious convert? Guy (help!) 14:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the completely inappropriate use of a student newspaper as a reliable source in the lead section. That was a horrendous edit in particular. The other sources should be scrutinized carefully if that actually happened. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently JzG actually believes that it's appropriate to reference a college kid. Popcornfud and TheJoebro64, do you find this source reliable or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, as I said above. I looked at the source and not only is it student-run, there's nothing in the way of editorial policies. JOEBRO64 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Erik, we often use student newspapers as sources for issues that are focused on college, as this is. Guy (help!) 00:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we? That makes about as much sense as using fansites for fan subjects. A source is either unreliable or it isn't. Popcornfud (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, not really, no. See Harvard Crimson for example. But this is moot: another editor has suggested a better way of sourcing the same content. Guy (help!) 00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest using something like this as an actual reliable source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in to agree with the above that the original poster's concern with POV issues were warranted. JZG has been around long enough that he should understand the issue; if he doesn't, he should step back from an article or topic he cannot edit in a clearheaded manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have sprawled across multiple articles and multiple edits now, so I'm not 100% sure what I'm responding to (followed this edit summary here). As I see it there are separate issues to resolve in the plot section(s) and the rest of the article. Plot sections are typically written from an in-universe perspective. The rest of the article is not. As such, we write about the article according to what mainstream reliable sources for criticism say about it. And in virtually every reliable review in the article, it talks about "filled with a sense of paranoiac persecution", "paranoid persecution-complex fantasy", "belligerent in the face of perceived persecution", "why its fans seem to be suffering from such a persecution complex"... it would indeed be POV to omit that from the article (and, given its prominence in the reviews, probably the lead). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, my problem is not with omitting it. It’s that JzG is presenting such views as fact, which as I said above is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and falls under WP:ADVOCACY. JOEBRO64 12:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The reception section can more than adequately cover the film's failings, we just can't represent them in Wikipedia's voice. There is a shocking amount of biased writing in the article right now, such as the lead claiming that it "presents the evangelical false narrative" blah blah. We can't allow it. Popcornfud (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary to reduce such material to the reception section. Compare Star Wars (film), which discusses the film's production aspects, the many cinematic and literary allusions in the narative, and its legacy. Or The Shining (film), which has sections discussing various interpretations of the narrative, literary allusions, ambiguities and open questions in the narrative, and how it compares to its source novel. We simply need printed sources to add similar topics to other film pages. And as usual, we should be reporting what the sources claim, and not what we believe concerning a topic. Wikipedia allows us to use biased sources, but not to draw original conclusions. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, you are correct, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that JzG treated all those opinions/interpretations as hard facts (which would be an original conclusion) and then proceeded to claim that the original article was an NPOV violation, when it was actually the opposite. As I said above: compare "the film follows a Christian college student (Harper) whose faith is challenged by a philosophy professor (Sorbo) who declares God a pre-scientific fiction" to "the "poorly acted and atrociously written" film follows a Christian college student (Harper) whose faith is challenged by a straw man atheist philosophy professor (Sorbo), who declares God a pre-scientific fiction." JOEBRO64 16:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar change

I made a necessary grammatical change to this sentence and it was reverted: -- Written by Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, and based on Rice Broocks' book God's Not Dead: Evidence for God in an Age of Uncertainty, the film follows a Christian college student (Harper) whose faith is challenged by atheist philosophy professor (Sorbo), who declares God a pre-scientific fiction. --

The correction was: ...whose faith is challenged by an atheist philosophy professor (Sorbo),... "...atheist philosophy professor..." does not identify Sorbo; the parenthetical insert of his name means that it is being used to identify the actor playing the role. Note that it's exactly the same construction as what appears just before it: "...a Christian college student (Harper)..."

Could I get an explanation for the revert, please? Rontrigger (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Rontrigger, I am baffled as well. I got reverted in a good-faith attempt to fix the grammar. People are not paying attention to this. Elizium23 (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23: Thank you for your supportive words. Perhaps it's not worth any further effort and we should just leave this to those who THINK they know better? Rontrigger (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war on what does and does not constitute atheism

I've been watching with some concern at the slow-motion edit war on what does and does not constitute atheism. I agree with the anon's point that atheists (technically) do not believe in God and since Radisson states that he is angry at God, he clearly believes in God. The film's writers, producers and director clearly stood-up a straw man for their Christian audience. With that said, it is their straw man and if they claim he is an atheist in the film, we take their word for it and do not introduce WP:OR, however logical, to the contrary. If a reviewer makes that claim, then we can add it in the reception or some other area, but it makes no sense to alter the character's primary device for our comfort or for logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, so I guess the germane question would be: do they "claim he is an atheist in the film"? Elizium23 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Great question. Two of the reviews, hollywoodreporter and avclub equate Radisson with atheism. Others, such as variety don't make any mention of the word, while indiewire call the token atheist someone else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, that's probably because indiewire is reviewing the third installment and not the first film. Avclub has a very tenuous connection and certainly doesn't call Radisson an atheist directly. Elizium23 (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As discussed above, the sources do not equivocate: "...an atheistic pledge...his fervent atheism..."[8]; "...disavow, in writing, the existence of God..."[9]; "...atheist Professor Radisson..."[10]; etc.

Saying that in the film he hates God so he cannot be an atheist is an interpretation of a primary source which does not directly state he is anything else. Independent reliable sources say atheism/atheist. Interpretation of the primary source with some WP:SYN doesn't override that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what we do, further down in the plot summary, because it's how Josh finally shows him up. Josh asks how he can hate someone who doesn't exist. So I don't know how it's farfetched that we explain how, here we have a character who presents an atheist front, acts atheist, turns out not so much. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess because either the writers are just confused or know better but are trying to make a point. It's not our job to correct a misrepresentation in the script. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

since Radisson states that he is angry at God, he clearly believes in God Does not follow. I am angry at Iago, because he is an asshole, and I do not believe that he exists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I think we just stick with what RS say, which is that this is a straw man caricature of an atheist. Guy (help!) 13:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think we're missing something important here, which is that, iirc, the fact that he isn't really an atheist is a twist. It's fine to describe the character as an atheist if the premise of the plot depends on it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Popcornfud, I agree. He sure acts like it in the beginning, passing out those papers. Viewers are meant to assume he's an atheist from the outset, so that they are shocked to realize he is not. Elizium23 (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Popcornfud, it's not a twist, it's a core part of the evangelical delusion: that everybody is either in denial or has not yet heard the word the right way. Guy (help!) 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant. The film presents him, initially, as someone who does not believe in God. That's what an atheist is. Popcornfud (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Popcornfud, no, that's an agnostic. An atheist affirmatively believes that there are no gods. But none of this need trouble us: we have sources that say it's a caricature or strawman, and therefore we need not worry about deciding how to resolve our personal views of inconsistency between the film and our preferred definition of atheist. Guy (help!) 21:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  But as Walter Görlitz said above, many sources also describe the character as an atheist. And as Walter also said, when we're describing the internal premise of a story, we can't just alter the character's plot device because other sources don't agree on what an elephant is.

  The film is fictional. Fiction isn't always accurate to real life, by definition, and sometimes by mistake. Sonic the Hedgehog isn't a hedgehog by any technical definition of a hedgehog. If a movie says a character is a cyborg when technically they're an android, we call them a cyborg, at least in the plot and premise descriptions. We leave third-party commentary about whether the writers have misunderstood the difference between androids and cyborgs to other sections. Popcornfud (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Popcornfud, It is not a surprise that in summarising the movie a source would use the characterisations of the movie. Most sources do not describe Peter Mayhew as playing a guy in a hairy suit. Guy (help!) 21:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Let me ask you a question. How do you think we should ideally describe this character in the plot section? Should we label him as any sort of atheist at all, perhaps with a caveat? Dodge the description entirely? What do you want to do? Popcornfud (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Franchise page for God's Not Dead?

Something I thought of is that with the God's Not Dead series having expanded to four films and a movie in the works; does anyone else think it's appropriate to create a page covering the franchise as a whole? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is doable, though I would make it a film series, e.g. God's Not Dead (film series). "Franchise" is more suitable when there are notable non-film topics in play, like TV series, comics, and video games. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Draft:God's Not Dead (film series) exists. DisneyMetalhead, able to complete and move into the mainspace? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I am currently working on the article and it is not yet ready to be moved to the mainspace. Give it time.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Budget not clear

The Numbers.com says the budget is very specifically $1,150,000[11] but other sources say $2 million. It is unclear why this discrepancy exists. The documentation at Template:Infobox film says that when reliable sources disagree do not cherry pick budget figures, both figures should be included. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)