Talk:Jesus Camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus Camp[edit]

Why is there no mention at all of Veggie Tales being prominently featured in the documentary Jesus Camp?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguman (talk • contribs) 10:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I Deleted[edit]

I deleted "According to the distributor, it "doesn't come with any prepackaged point of view" and tries to be "an honest and impartial depiction of one faction of the evangelical Christian community"" from the first paragraph, since that's the kind of complete nonsense that belongs on the back of every documentary's cover but not in the first paragraph of an Wikipedia article. If they say they tried, then that's nice; but the words "according to the distributor" already show how dubious the claim (or rather the ability for any subjective human being to actually follow through on that desire) actually is. Maybe this should be put back in further down in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.68.211 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ages?[edit]

I think it would help the purpose of this article to include the ages of the children at the time of the documentary, if anyone can find them. Chachilongbow 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advert/Delete discussion[edit]

This is a documentary about the psychological abuse of children, noting more, nothing less.--81.155.175.65 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does this read as an advert? It is directly linked to from the documentary's website. --Wikipediatastic 09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sounds like a press release. Thanatos1 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something needs to be changed, it is a paste from the press.

By the press I suspect! --Wikipediatastic 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this documentary trying to promote such camps, or actually trying to take a stance against them, by showing the horrible religious indoctrination of little children there?

I will probably be about the only person who says that camps like this don't surprise me in the least. Nor do they really conflict with certain doctrines. This article does need some clean-up. --D3matt 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kiding me? Considering the Evangelical movement in America, this should surprise nobody. On topic, this article is a press release, and is therefore very POV. This could be a really good article, but it requires serious attention. 67.187.126.3 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is TONS of stuff on the web that would balance this article out, if it were an ad. I say don't delete, EDIT. CyberAnth 10:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was never actually calling for the article to be deleted. I just thought that in its original format it read as a press release. It is much better now that it has been changed and I think we should keep it. --Wikipediatastic 10:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good. I venture that this will be one heck of a very interesting article a few years after this film's release. CyberAnth 03:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the deletion... it was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Deletions aren't binding precedent, especially when it's a technical issue like being a copyvio. (as long as the article is recreated as a non-copyvio, which it has). There's a lot of TV and other press about it, so there's no need to discuss notability criteria unless someone nominates it for AfD. --Interiot 16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

The original version of the page was copied from http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/. You have to turn off javascript or "view source" to see the text on that page. Alternatively, see http://www.magpictures.com/films/jesuscamp/jesuscamp.doc, which is pretty wordy, but contains most of the press-release text. (and also contains info that may be useful for this article)

Just rewrite it in your own words, and we should be good to go. --Interiot 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is actually copyvio because they link directly to this page from the jesuscamp website. I actually believe that they wrote this article. --Wikipediatastic 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for verification that the material is definitely released under the GFDL at User talk:Zach C#Jesus Camp. It's so easy to violate other people's copyright this way that we need to take an extra step to verify that the original copyright holder has licensed it so that it's compatible with Wikipedia's redistribution goals.
Anyway, it read much more like an advertisement than a typical encyclopedia entry, so either way, it would definitely be helpful to write a more encyclopedic summary. --Interiot 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I expanded using quotes from Magnolia Pictures, which is the most clear description I have found. The reason I did this and believe it is legitimate is because Jesus Camp is being discussed all over the internet. Wikipedia should have an article about it. It is turning into a phenomenon. The trailer and comments are popular at YouTube. If my expansion is inappropriate, I think it should be edited. I disagree with deleting the article altogether. As for copywrite concerns, since the film itself is not released here, and complete credit is given to the articles quoted, there should be no violation. This is my first non-minor edit--I'm being brave. Please spay/neuter; it saves lives! 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations like this are better if they're summarized/rewritten, and four sentences is pushing it a bit, but at least it's sourced and it's highlighted as something that should be rewritten. --Interiot 08:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'd be careful when rewriting this to keep bias and POV off of this highly provacative film. I dare ya to stick to the facts.

Abbynormal1

Did Wikipedia agree to work in cohort with Jesus Camp?[edit]

I am curious; did Wikipedia agree to have “Jesus Camp” use Wikipedia on their site as a source? Is this acceptable practice with Wikipedia via random advertising a product or service? In addition, if Wikipedia did agree, there should be no copyright infringement it should be mutual as that it is clear on their site that they are routing people to the post here? I am a bit lost on this?

No more than MySpace or Digg or del.icio.us agreed to be part of their advertising campaign (each of those are linked from the site as well). Wikipedia just needs verification that the content is licensed under the GFDL, or the content needs to be rewritten. --Interiot 08:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten a short part of it, but feel free to use the URLs mentioned above as a source in writing the article... using the facts from them, but rewriting them in your own words is the way to go. --Interiot 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a more common practice than you realize. There are official movie websites that have hyperlinks to their Wikipedia page and they even encourage (presumably favorable) editing (i.e., Little Miss Sunshine has one that is labeled "Read about/Contribute to Little Miss Sunshine on Wikipedia"). So do not be surprised at what you may see on an official website. Personally I think that the more exposure Wikipedia gets, the better. Just my 2 cents.72.82.175.203 10:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I just did a general cleanup of the article. Specifics are in the edit comments. I think the cleanup addresses the concerns expressed previously. Twisted86 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the opinion of a random IMDB user deserve to appear in this article? I don't mind their opinions, I just don't see any reason why they are qualified to comment on film.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.88.133.41 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's best if all the POS/NEG/NEU reviews were taken out. First of all, it's questionable in terms of copyright, but it's also not the style for movies to be written about this way in Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion regarding Jesus Camp! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Twisted86 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I agree with Fuzheado and the editor (Interiot) who tagged this article {{advert}}. I looked around other documentaries and my random sampling showed them to be devoid of reviews. So, I was bold and removed the reviews/pos/neg/neutral. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the bit above the pos/neg/neu reviews was worse... it was starting to turn into a soup of wonderful-sounding adjectives with little encyclopedic content. As for what was removed [1], the sources themselves weren't useless, it would be much better to summarize what they said into a coherent paragraph or two, and cite the reviews as sources as needed, rather than quoting them verbatim --Interiot 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! — Twisted86 - Talk - at 23:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

Its also possible that the film shows it as it appears to be, and they really /are/ using propagenda techniques against children. Obviously, in the aftermath of what Teg Haggart did (I would used 'was accused of' except he admitted to it) - and considering his involvement in this camp, I don't think it too unlikely that the camp really was unsavory. 66.71.219.100 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the film is released and does well then it might qualify for an article. --BenMcLean 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The film has already gotten large scale coverage and is thus notable regardless of whether it is propaganda or not. If after the film comes out it is attacked as propaganda that will go into the article. JoshuaZ 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Feel free to put it up for an AfD if you want...
My initial impression (from watching the movie trailer) was also that the film might be anti-christian (and many on Digg also seemed to feel this way). Though after reading this and the comments that the film tries to be a neutral depiction of the camp, and after looking through the other films that the distributor has put out, I do think they tried to make it a neutral film anyway.
It's possible the film is an honest depiction of the subject, but the film's subjects (the camp and Becky Fischer) aren't representative of the average christian camp? Quotes like "Where should we be putting our focus? I'll tell you where our enemies are putting it. They're putting it on the kids. ... They're putting hand-grenades in their hands." don't seem completely typical of someone running a kid's camp. --Interiot 19:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, from the preview that seemed to me to be the only postive/ half-way good point. It is useful to consider what other groups are doing with their children and how to respond. Furthemore, if one wanted to make an argument of "look these aren't so bad. They aren't teaching kids to go kill people" as a comparison has some validity. (I was actually really relieved when I heard that part since when I first heard "Where should we be putting our focus? I'll tell you where our enemies are putting it. They're putting it on the kids" I thought the next part was going to be an anti-evolution rant). JoshuaZ 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen the film yet either, but even though it was made by two filmmakers who are extremely concerned about the effects on our nation of the right-wing evangelical movement, I think the following datum (from ABCnews.com) should be factored in on the question of whether it should be considered mere "propaganda":
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including [Becky] Fischer, who's helping promote the film. "I never felt at any point that I was exploited," Fischer said. [emphasis added]
Cgingold 12:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched the film and an excerpt of my blog commentary has been published by Christianity Today (full disclosure: my employer). In my piece I assert the film is considerably biased, whether the film makers are aware of their bias or not. Since I am the author of the piece, and since employer published the article, I am not adding any of my observations to the article here (it is arguable I do not have a NPOV). I did want to mention it here in the talk pages because some of you might find something worth citing. I leave it to your collective judgment. See: "Jesus Camp: Brainwashed in the Blood" @ Christianity Today (shorter), or"Jesus Camp: Brainwashed in the Blood - or Is it Spin?" @ BlogRodent (longer). BlogRodent 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have links to the film, even though some of them have arrived late as usual. The links are: "Eye on Entertainment: Jesus Camp" from AmericanCatholic.org, November 2006, Entertainment Weekly 's review on Jesus Camp, and TV Guide 's review on said film. I just hope if it's okay enough. --Angeldeb82 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has recieved a great deal of press coverage since I wrote that, I now agree that the film is notable enough to merit an article. --BenMcLean 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. Don't act like the Left does not do this. 184.96.217.200 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of unsupported edits[edit]

I reverted the anonymous edits made earlier today because there is no supporting evidence that the camp depicted in the film engaged in pro-life/anti-abortion roleplaying with the camp children. The anonymous editor added information from the KIMI web site, which does engage in such practices. However, there is no indication on the KIMI website that this has any direct connection to the film or that such practices took place at this particular camp.

I also removed the pro-life category for similar reasons. If anyone comes up with supporting evidence to the contrary, please correct away. Twisted86 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the full documentary and have read many articles about it by others who have also seen it. The edits were supported first by the link to the ministry's web site which documents the kind of anti-abortion session that is depicted in the film. http://kidsinministry.com/Current.PastEvents/Prayer.LouEngles.html The ministry's web site also documents that the session did occur at the children's ministry. Further evidence of the documentary covering the anti-abortion teaching is supported by 45 pages of Google search results when searching for +Abortion "Jesus Camp" (Pages that include both the title of the film "Jesus Camp" and the word Abortion.) Please see http://www.google.com/search?hs=FfC&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%2Babortion+%22jesus+camp%22&btnG=Search for many articles, blogs, and pages that corroborate that anti-abortion teaching and rallying is clearly an important subject of this much-discussed, contemporary documentary.

Is this an acceptable way of providing supporting evidence? Thanks. Wikedit9 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The standards are WP:RS which generally rules out blogs (excepting certain special cases) and WP:OR. If you can find a review from a major newspaper or network that mentions the abortion issue then it can probably be put in that category. I suspect that as more and more reviewers look at the film it will be soon inevitable that one of them mentions this as significant (I'm almost inclined to argue for inclusion simply based on the preview which had the children protestin with tapes over their mouths at is clearly an anti-abortion rally but still seems a bit ORish.) In general it is particularly important when applying potentially controversial categories to make sure we are very much within the guidelines and policies. JoshuaZ 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ministry link you added seems to be good enough. JoshuaZ 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Here is one soure, an ABC News story that ran this week on television and online. The story mentions "praying for an end to abortion." http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2455343&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312...

Here is a 2nd story from Premiere magazine. The story includes "Religious leaders taking part in government is a practice older than Western civilization, but that doesn't make it less unsettling when the children pray over a cardboard cutout of President Bush and a guest speaker hands out tiny plastic fetuses as part of his anti-abortion lecture." http://www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=3106

A 3rd review is from The Hollywood Reporter. The article includes "When they're not speaking in tongues, pledging allegiance to the Christian flag or blessing a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush, the kids rally round to hear Fischer and others entreat them to "join the war," "fix the sick world" and fight abortion (tiny fetus dolls serve as preachers' aids)." http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003122670

A 4th review from Boxoffice.com. The review states "The “Kids on Fire” camp also includes anti- abortion revival meetings and other gatherings that culminate in difficult-to-watch footage of children on their knees sobbing uncontrollably and speaking in tongues." You can read it here: http://www.boxoffice.com/bxoscr/getreview.asp?where=ID&terms=8755 Wikedit9 02:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not at all that the pro-life character of the movie is unsupported (IMHO; sorry, Joshua). I believe you. But, just because one movie mentions the pro-life movement doesn't mean it should be included in every conceivable pro-life or religious conservative-based article. That would mean we would have to include hundreds upon hundreds of See Also links in the right-to-life article, including every single movie that ever featured right-to-lifers... and ditto for dozens of other articles; indeed, millions, for all Wikipedia would be affected by this new, extreme form of WP:Btw. We can't do it--we don't have the resources, for one, and it would damage the encylopedic character of Wikipedia. There are large numbers of policies and guidelines on this, WP:NOT being the most important. There's also WP:Btw, WP:CONTEXT, WP:N, WP:NN, and, in your case, WP:SPA, with still more out there.
The See Also section, just like in a real encylopedia, is meant to give really critical links that anyone seeking a full understanding of the article topic simply must read in order to understand all aspects of the issue. Jesus Camp, while it may be a very good movie, simply is not central (or even particularly relevant in most major respects) to pro-life, right-to-life, family values, conservative Christianity, Culture of Life, Theonomy, Pentecostalism, Christian extremist terrorism, Charismatic movement, Transformationalism, Religious terrorism, brainwashing, or social conservatism, and I don't think there's an experienced editor around who won't back me up on that. (Plus, marking it in the terrorism and brainwashing articles seems to be an NPOV violation of a rather extreme sort.) It is possible that you would be able to place it in the pro-life category (though I'm rather ignorant about cat-level editing), but it's not important enough to any of the articles in which you placed it.
As a final and probably irrelevant side note, your grammar for the link is atrocious, and it doesn't follow standard format. A good See Also link, per established convention, contains as little explanation as possible--indeed, a good link will require no additional explanation. Yours, however, simply to comply with the rules of the English language, must be rewritten thusly: "Jesus Camp, an award-winning documentary concerning children on the American Christian Right."
I would like to thank you for your respect for Wikipedians since editors started criticizing your linkage. Once an issue came up, you immediately stopped and began arguing your case. You have been respectful; as far as I can tell, you have Assumed Good Faith. This can not be said of all SPA's, let me tell you! So thanks, and I hope other editors will voice their opinions so we can all be done with this. Per the current apparent consensus (across several talk pages) between me, Andrew c, and JoshuaZ, I am removing all the current links except the ones in Ted Haggard and Mike Papantonio, where they actually appear to be relevant, if horribly grammatically and stylistically wrong. --BCSWowbagger 05:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion or even your definition, but where does your definition of "See also" come from? (You claim "The See Also section, just like in a real encylopedia, is meant to give really critical links that anyone seeking a full understanding of the article topic simply must read in order to understand all aspects of the issue. ".) I've searched WP policy and guidelines, and I think it would be helpful here and in future cases to have something to point to. --Ds13 06:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're quite right; there is no specific guideline concerning the content of a See Also section. All there is is a synthesis of various rules, as well as, obviously, precedent. Tangentially or too-broadly relevant links have been removed for as long as I've been here. But, policy wise, this is what I'm basing my statement on: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is not official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and hasn't been considered encyclopedic in the past" (from WP:NOT). "This guideline (Build The Web) is in dynamic tension with the Make Only Links Relevant To The Context guideline. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (from WP:Btw). "In general, do create links to major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question" (from WP:CONTEXT). WP:NN has been redirected; I'm not sure what happened to the page I linked. And WP:N's core idea is that things have to be notable to be included in Wikipedia--I've always had the understanding that something has to be notable to be included in an article. There ought to be general guidelines on linking in See Also sections. If someone knows more, or knows how to propose these things, that would be great. But this is what I have found in the mess of WP policies, guidelines, and vague suggestions. --BCSWowbagger 00:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for providing the citation for the insertion in the synopsis. Unfortunately, the reference you cited doesn't seem to support your statement. Now, color me clueless, but I've read the KIMI web page in question several times and I am just not seeing how the web page is connected to this film.
Yes, this is the same organization that sponsored the camp depicted in the film, but is this web page referring to the camp depicted in the film or some other camp that KIMI sponsored? If so, where does it say that?
I don't have a POV axe to grind here, and I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm just not seeing the connection — again, perhaps I'm just being clueless. Show me, and I'll go along with your edit wholeheartedly. Good luck! Twisted86 06:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The man featured on the page referred to at KIMI is Lou Engle, who is the one who led the pro-life session in the documentary. However, I don't think the page at KIMI is specifically referring to the camp featured in "Jesus Camp" and there's no reason to assume he conducts all his services the same way. BlogRodent 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medved ed[edit]

I removed references to film critic Michael Medved's religion, as it is mentioned prominently in the article about him. I debated about leaving it in, but felt that it would only have been fair to also mention that he is also a conservative radio talk show host. And that just seemed to lead down a path to a bunch of content that really doesn't have anything to do with this article. Hence, the edit I made. Twisted86 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally put it in because of the Evangelical Christian nature of the film and the specific mention of Evangelical Christianity in the quote. Some readers may be under the mistaken impression that he is Christian (he is actually Jewish) and taking a mostly negative view of the movie because of that mistaken impression. It also tends to give his review credibility because it conveys a reasonable aspect of impartiality on Medved's part.71.168.143.163 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hunch that was the intent. Thanks for the post. Happy editing. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 07:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An IMDB user comment...are freakin' serious?[edit]

Why is some random person's review on the Internet Movie Database considered worth noting? Methinks someone may have inserted their own opinions into this page. Won't clean it up myself, since that would unbalance the article. Someone more experienced should do something. This article is a hell of a mess. --68.149.181.145 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "half page of quotes" things isn't all that great either. Anyway, I removed the IMDB comment at least. --Interiot 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well folks, ya work with what you've got. And in this case, most of what we have is opinion with a few facts. This film is definitely notable. Unfortunately, it's a bit too notable. More cleanup is needed. But not from this editor, who is going to sleep. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 08:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that the quotes section was removed. [2] I mostly agree with this, though there were quite a few URLs there, and it's possible some of them may be useful as sources, so I'm noting the diff here. --Interiot 06:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I made a note of this above in the earlier discussion ("Cleanup") on the matter. Thanks for watching, though! — Twisted86 - Talk - at 07:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Devils Lake[edit]

I keep changing the article to say it took place by Lakewood, ND rather than Devils Lake and it keeps changing it back. I LIVE IN DEVILS LAKE! I've lived here my entire life. I was born here. And I'm so retarded that I haven't seen a relgious camp in town?! I've seen that camp. It is 20 minutes from here in a place called Lakewood. It was wrong in the freaking movie and it's wrong on wikipedia. They just made it Devils Lake for dramatic affect. Stop changing it back (Personal attack removed). --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evanjh (talk • contribs) .

It's possible to say that official literature about a film is wrong, but there has to be some reliable sources given to make sure that a statement like that doesn't sound like original research.
However, the camp's address appears to be officially listed as Devils Lake [3]. And Lakewood, ND can't be found on Google Maps. --Interiot 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The external links section is about as long as the article text. I don't doubt the links are useful, but listing all media mentions of the movie isn't very encyclopedic. Surely there's an offsite resource that lists these instead, so we can just link to that instead? Also, the official movie site already lists a lot of media mentions, I don't think we really need to list more than they do. --Interiot 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction from Christian community?[edit]

I don't have time to do it myself right now, but I think it would be interesting to have (it's what I came here to find) a section specifically detailing the reaction to the film from the Christian community. What does the subject of the doc think of it? Etc. Anchoress 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See:

While Becky Fischer seems to support the film, there is an interesting comment from a father of one of the children featured in the film posted at my weblog (from the father of Levi and pastor to Rachael) here. He says, "We have never endorsed the movie, but we have looked for God to impact some lives and create dialogue with it. Now that the DVD is out, we get a steady stream of emails from those postively affected by it and those angered by it. For the former, we offer some insight to the different scenes in the movie and assure them that we are not trying to take the world by force. It seems to work well." BlogRodent 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd sentence in Controversy section[edit]

I cannot parse this sentence: He [Ted Haggard] spent numerous advertising dollars to drive people to his response before a relationship with a gay man caused his ousting in the Controversy section. Does anyone know that it is trying to say? ie. what is 'his response' referring to, and what does 'drive' mean in this context? Ashmoo 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting that sentence, since it's incoherent. Also, in the sentence prior, the words "Many viewers have come away with..." are weasel words. I'm leaving it for now, but someone should either add (authoritative) citations or else nuke the that sentence. Mlibby 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why Director Grady's opinion that no one besides Pastor Haggard had a problem with how he was portrayed is quoted in controversy section even though the first paragraph of that section seems to contradict him? It's nice to know the director's opinion, but maybe it could be balanced out a little bit. I didn't change anything myself, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.68.211 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Reviews section[edit]

This is an unencyclopedic section WP:NOT and violates WP:NPOV. Since this it a controversial movie it is appropriate to have a critical reaction section that has reactions from multiple sectors, merely having a section that quotes various positive movie reviews is inappropriate. Finally, an Oscar nomination is not a review. Idioma 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added mentions of two negative reviews of the film to attempt to restore some balance, and changed the title of this section to "Reviews and Awards." It's true that an Oscar nomination is not a review, but it is a sign that a major force in filmmaking considered the film to be of high quality and/or influence, which is a sort of informal "review" in the form of an endorsement. GJ 07:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm having trouble seeing how this section falls under WP:NOT. Many other film articles (even for movies thought to be hilariously bad) have a section noting how the movie was received and what reviewers' reactions were; I think the goal is to give general information about how a film was critically received without trying to be Metacritic. See, for example, here, here, and here. GJ 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between those articles and this one is that those articles start with the consensus of a organization and then moves to individual reviews. In general all reviews are POV. They only represent one person. When a section of an article is only reviews it violates WP:SOAP. Positive or negative reviews can be found about any movie, so including them introduces individual POV. When working from a consensus, such as actually winning an award being certified fresh on rotten tomatoes, then they can be used to explain the consensus. Nominations are also POV since it only takes one person to nominate a movie. Idioma 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point about the reviews. But I think the Academy Award nomination is at least marginally less POV than an "ordinary" nomination, since Academy Award finalists are determined by a large vote, not a singular person's nomination (per Rule 5 of the Awards' rules). Perhaps "nomination" is not the best word? GJ 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that this way of nominating is less POV than traditional nominating and reviews. Idioma 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the NPOV tag is still there, it is about reviews and awards, and it seems to be ok now. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like there's been any talk about the reviews being NPOV in over a year. Unless someone still has an issue, I'll remove the tag later tonight. For what it's worth, it could use some cleanup and editing, but it doesn't look any different then any other reviews section on wikipedia. dcole (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakotans' reaction[edit]

The note about North Dakotans' reaction in the controversy section is sourced to an article that requires payment to access. Can this statement be sourced in some other way? GJ 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringment with link to watch online[edit]

I deleted a link to watch this entire movie online because i think it is blantent copyright infringment, also the website is an atheist society.72.88.54.135 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has the fact that it is an atheist society got to do with it? 202.10.86.59 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
exactly? does atheist society make it unreliable source? Speaker1978 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added new pictures[edit]

I have added some new screenshots and i changed the trailer link so that it doesnt direct people to an athiest group website.King of the N00bs 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Phrasing[edit]

"Prancing gaylord Ted Haggard has..." from the section concerning Ted Haggard. True though this may be, surely there is a more diplomatic, encyclopedic, and professional way of phrasing it. [not a regular user] 01:07, 11 September 2007 (EST)

grammar problem...[edit]

This is not a complete sentence:

At New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where Levi and his family go on vacation to hear its renowned pastor, Ted Haggard.

Wife Swap connection[edit]

The family of one of the girls featured in this movie was featured in a recent episode of Wife Swap. Both my wife and I recognize the girl from the movie, and some of the rhetoric used by the family was identical to the movie -- however, I don't have any sources or any other info. Seems notable enough, but I don't have enough info to add it to the article. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased source[edit]

Tim and Tracy O'Brien, Levi's parents, present several examples on their website of content manipulation that occurred in their home. The video that the kids are watching in one scene discussing creationism was actually brought in by the film crew. The family did not own that video and had never seen it before. In another scene, Tracy directly addresses the camera and we hear her say, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who love Jesus and those who don't." However, the film crew cut out the rest of her statement: "And they are both worthy of dignity and respect, by virtue of the fact that Jesus died for them." In another scene featuring a kitchen radio, the editors superimposed audio that was not actually playing on the radio.[9]

Check out reference 9, it's an undescribed reference pointing to the front page of a blog run by former Campers, hardly an unbiased source of information. This paragraph should be properly cited to an unbiased source or it should be removed.

True-- Reference 9 is an undescribed reference leading to a blog run by former Campers that is an unbiased source of information. Many can agree that the paragraph should be cited correctly or be deleted. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the problem is how to give the subjects of the film a right of reply. It's no different to a politician denying an allegation when it's one person's word against another. Whilst a blog isn't normally a reliable source, in this instance I think we should allow it - there's no reason to believe it is anything but genuine. Maybe this is a case of WP:IAR. I'm going to be bold and put the paragraph back with a minor edit to say that the subjects are claiming manipulation. Sidefall (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from subjects[edit]

The section contains very serious charges that the filmmakers manipulated the project to create some false impressions. However, not one of the charges supposedly made by the film's subjects has a source. If these accusations cannot be supported by citation, they need to be deleted. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this section, as it was entirely unsupported by citation except for a link to the filmmakers which can still be found elsewhere on the page. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levi was taught...[edit]

In the Overview section, third paragraph it is describing what Levi is taught in his homeschooling. It seems to be listing things that he learns that are in contradiction to Modern Science, but then it says "He is also taught that global warming is a hoax and that the Earth's temperature has a history of natural fluctuation not caused by humankind (e.g., the Ice Age was not due to any industry or pollution by mankind)." Obviously the global warming part is worth noting, but the Earth's temperature DOES have a natural fluctuation, the example the sentence gives in parenthesis refutes what was just said. This should be fixed. 207.255.62.9 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right. Feel free to be bold and fix the problem yourself, as well as make any other improvements to this article you see fit. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of piddling suggestions[edit]

You guys can fix 'em as you find support for any changes:

  • "the Earth's temperature has only risen by 0.6 °F"
needs some time frame here; since 1900?
  • "an affiliation not advertised in the film"
advertised -> mentioned, unless they do mention it but (in somebody's opinion) they don't mention it enough
  • "she does not believe that people have the freedom to choose their belief system once they pass childhood"
what could this possibly mean? Legal freedom? Psychological freedom? They don't have it or they shouldn't have it?
  • "several deleted scenes"
this is a common but odd phrasing. Change to "several scenes omitted from the theatrical release"
  • "the next president may well have been at Kids on Fire"
"Next" president? Not a future president?

--71.174.165.63 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Overview" section needs major cleanup[edit]

I don't think such a detailed description of the content is needed. It seems to me that a bunch of editors have used OR to keep adding the parts of the movie they think are the worst examples of the flavor of Christianity in this film. Seregain (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has discussed or objected to this in nearly a month, I have made the necessary edit. Seregain (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit removed almost all description of the content of the movie. I don't think there's any original research issue with most of the section – it's usual for descriptions of the content of a published work to be based on the work itself, and it is assumed the work itself is the source. Original research does occur when, for example, contributors speculate on the motives of the directors; one paragraph came very close to doing that. I've restored most of the text, minus the OR-ish section and a sentence that was redundant with the Controversy section. You mention you think editors have added the worst examples of this flavor of Christianity, but I think any neutral description of the film's content would come across that way – the film did indeed document behaviour that many find appalling, hence the controversy. I removed the {{cleanup-section}} tag; there may still be problems but the cleanup tag is too vague to be helpful. I also removed the {{unreferenced-section}} tag from the DVD section, as it should be assumed that the DVD itself is the reference for this section. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The fact that the majority of the section contains no references and is a clunky patchwork of scene descriptions added by various editors over time clearly smacks of original research. "I just watched the movie and I want to add this part to the Wikipedia article!" How can anyone verify that the information in the "summary" is accurate without going out, getting the movie and watching it themselves? What about the scenes that aren't described? What makes those scenes unworthy of being described in the "summary?" Shouldn't we then just write out the entire plot of the film scene for scene? Seregain (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check some of Wikipedia's featured articles that describe films. There's a list of some at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#List_of_exemplary_articles. I've checked six, and in every case the plot section contained no references, and in all but one it was roughly similar in length to the overview section of this article. I agree the present prose is clunky but it's not so bad as to justify deletion. Of course we shouldn't describe every single scene, but choosing which to describe isn't prohibited original research, it's ordinary editorial discretion. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Camp at Joshua Komisarjevsky's trial[edit]

I found an article that might find you interesting and maybe you could add to the Jesus Camp article: Komisarjevsky's Demons: Witness Focuses on Family's Strict Beliefs --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devout Children?[edit]

The article says that the children are "already very devout Christians." But can a child really be a devout Christian? Should we label children by the beliefs their parents indoctrinated them in? We wouldn't refer to a Marxist child or a Tory child. Were these children old enough to really decide for themselves? It would be better to say the children had been brought up in devout Christianity. Mhults7791 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Dawkins' argument. The problem with saying "the children had been brought up in devout Christianity" in this article is that it permits that they might not have taken it on board yet; in fact, the apparently earnest belief of these children is integral to this movie. I agree that the current wording could be improved, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true christianity[edit]

I already see the christians trying to cover their tracks on the talk page and hide the ugly truth. Face it, we didn't see 9/11 coming because we were scared of communists and so we helped the taliban. If you ask me, i think someday in 10 years, we may see an evangelical nut bomb the sear's tower and destroy it. They will attack us. With abortion on demand and gay marriage spreading, its only a matter of time until they snap and begin being like ISIS. Don't forget the Troubles or the crusades or Salem or the inquisition. The film isn't propoganda. ive seen it and it is all too real. These kids really are raised to be possibly dangerous fundamentalists and the parents are to blame. You can deny the authenticity of the film but don't blame me when one of these "Born-agains" shoots up a mall because it advertised a wedding with gays in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.197.131 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesus Camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesus Camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus_Camp&oldid=1207820952"