Talk:The God Who Wasn't There

Untitled

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

What it says in the Bible

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

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

It could hardly be any clearer.

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

Also the "There are people..." phrase is a classic example of weasel word usage. Who are "these people"? Or "most scholars"? [1]?

The issues brought up in those additions would be better suited for the Holy spirit and Blasphemy articles anyway.

--George100 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Rasmus, it's more that this is simply not the place for such arguments. I could argue that the phrase "the only unforgivable sin according to the Bible" should be "interpreted" as being the viewpoint of the Rational Responders. I think I would be on much firmer ground with my "interpretation" than you are with yours, seeing as the stuff you mention about miracles and the devil does not appear anywhere in Luke 12 (though it may appear in some of the parallel texts). Please remove the phrase if it really offends you, but please do not add a counter viewpoint because that just takes us way off topic. Laurence Boyce 12:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone going to this page would understand that the article is talking about an interpretation which the Ration Response Squad uses. If all possible views on things should be included in all articles, wikipedia would be thrice the size it is now :)

Rasmus Rimestad 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. In fact, I changed "according to the Bible" to "according to RRS", to ensure that it is understood that blasphemy meaing "deny existence" is the RRS interpretation. The Bible doesn't say "deny existence" even in Luke 12. In fact, the Greek "blasphemeo" means "to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate" -- given that the Holy Spirit is God's active principle in the world, given that the word "Holy Spirit" is used in the first place instead of "God", and given the parallel texts which are clear in that the problem is assigning God's work to Satan, I don't think there is any doubt on what the passage says. But I bow to others interpretations here. Still, the Bible clearly doesn't say "deny *existence* is the unforgiveable sin", so if that is to be in there, it should be clearly stated that this is someone's interpretation.

GDon

Wonderful! Thanks!

--Ader78 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone thinks the Bible says that the sin is to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. Since it only says that it is to "deny the Holy Spirit", using "deny the existence" is an interpretation of the RRS. Probably better to take out the "Blasphemy Challenge" parts, since they aren't related to the movie. Laurence, I'll remove it, but if you are okay with that, please reinstate and I won't touch it. I don't see how the "Blasphemy Challenge" relates to the movie, though. Should a link to the "Challenge Blasphemy" site by the theists be included here as well?

--GDon

Links

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

I think by now this should be considered vandalism, but I don't know enough about wiki rules as to how this should be handled. -George100 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You may report it here if you like, but the admins will probably give the vandals the benefit of the doubt. Laurence Boyce 13:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I thought they were already divided? Critical websites and non-critical or whatever they should be called. I would say that these links are no less sufficiently authoritative, accurate, stable or accountable than the movie itself :)

--Ader78 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is how you feel about the film, then you should raised an AfD. But it's been tried before and failed miserably. There is no symmetry between the the film and its crticis in the context of this article, because this is an article about the film. Laurence Boyce 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article should be removed. It's about the film, not about what is true and what's not. My comment was more meant as something of a joke than the start of a heavy discussion. Don't mind it! --Ader78 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Paul of Tarsus

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

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

Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I loathe these slow edit wars I have logged a request for comment about this issue. Let's see what other editors think. Sophia 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To the average person this film doesn't have a clear political message and so categorising it as a Propaganda film fails the main category of usage. Propaganda can obviously have a non-political message but simply because the content is partisan doesn't make it propaganda as it is unclear what the new message is that people are supposed to believe in. The film is presenting (quite valid) questions about Jesus not pushing some other mystic message. Ttiotsw 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

To my knowledge The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has a well documented history as a forgery and an article of political propaganda having influenced the policy and politicians of both pre-revolutionary Russia and post-ww1 Europe. Drawing parallels between a documentary such as The God Who Wasn't There and this politically motivated work of forgery, the ultimate legacy of which was (arguably) the rise of political anti-Semitism and the holocaust itself is somewhat specious and certainly an immense over reaction on your part Alicewr. To my mind this documentary could not possibly be viewed as propaganda; yes the documentary is secular in message but its interpretations seem (to me) driven by rational objectivity which is a world apart from the subjective distortions inherent to propaganda pieces. You may well hold a world view in conflict with the overall message of the piece and if that's the case then so be it, however this, in and of itself is not enough to label it propaganda.

~~ Lee 21:16, 9th March 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "propaganda" is "information, allegations, or opinions that are deliberately and methodically disseminated to promote or attack a particular doctrine, movement, nation, or the like". On the main page of TGWWT article, it says:

"According to the film's official website, the aim of the documentary is to hold "modern Christianity up to a merciless spotlight." The documentary's website goes on to claim it "...asks the questions few dare to ask. And when it finds out how crazy the answers are, it dares to call them crazy... Christian leaders are reluctant to teach early church history... Moderate Christianity makes even less sense than a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian doctrine... Christian doctrine is contradictory."

To me, it sounds like an opinion piece -- and that's according to the information on the main page itself. I think it pretty clearly falls into the category of propaganda.

~~GDon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.206.93 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Although propaganda is often entirely opinion, expressing an opinion doesn't mean that you are spouting propaganda. Elmo 12:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

...the film's official website defines the piece as propaganda, in how it describes it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have NPOV sources that call it propaganda then put the category on the article. We have tons of sources calling Expelled propaganda. It fits the definition of propaganda. Two wrongs don't make a right, two rights don't make a wrong, and a wrong and a right are independent of each others Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The notion that the film is propaganda is an opinion, not a fact. Thus, referring to it as such is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is properly attributed as a quote from a reliable source. Referring to it as a propaganda in a matter-of-fact manner by describing it as such in the Intro is a violation of NPOV. Please stop introducing opinions in the article as fact. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream: your opinion is not shared by all. In short, it is not a violation of NPOV to be accurate, regardless of how little some may care for the terminology. The holocaust is routinely described as horrific, which is accurate, not a NPOV violation. Please work with your fellow editors to determine whether Expelled is, or is not, accurately categorized as propaganda and stop issuing orders regarding that issue to all and sundry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's "accurate" is precisely the point of conflict. The filmmakers would presumably argue that it's not propaganda, and critics would argue that it is. That is precisely why the article itself should not take a position on the issue, of which that category placement gives the appearance. This also applies to your Holocaust example. A Wikipedia article should not describe the Holocaust as such, except when attributing a quote to an expert on it, or arguably when relating the personal experience of someone who experienced it. But you would not find such a word like that used in say, the Intro of the article on the Holocaust. It doesn't need to. The three paragraphs of that article's Intro describe what the article is using dispassionate language, and without emotive language. Nonetheless, I'll ask for Third Opinion. Nightscream (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Antagonistic atheism

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

Response to RfC

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

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

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

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

"Yes, under the broad definition of propaganda"

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

Alicewr - you have been reverted by 4 separate editors - please stop trying to force your view on the article. Wikipedia works as a collaborative effort which is why I lodged the request for comment - to get other unconnected views on the subject. So far one has kindly taken the time to comment but lets wait to see what others think. At the moment there is no support for that category on this article so please stop adding it. Sophia 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with other editors from the RfC. Controvercial, certainly... "propaganda" no. It may be being used by some people for propaganda purposes, but the film was not created for propaganda purposes. Blueboar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Documentary? "Mockumentary"

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

Gaaa!!! Not another category argument! Laurence Boyce 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a documentary. --MattShepherd 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Documentary? Fiction

Perhaps this film has a mix of fiction and history. The hardest part is that the already proven and established part of biblical history by historians just makes this movie's theoretical contradictions invalid. I have not seen it, but only assume their theory contradicting already established facts. Seeing this, I think it can better be classified as 'fictive documentary', rather than 'documentary' or 'historical documentary'.

Open for debate though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.246.29 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

> The Gospels are a work of fiction. You only have to read them to realise that. They were written several decades after the supposed events and have historic and geographic errors as well as mistranslations from Hebrew to Greek (Lion becomes pierced etc). This is clearly NOT revelation! > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.4.169 (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

16 States

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

Fair use rationale for Image:The God Who Wasn't There DVD cover.jpg

Image:The God Who Wasn't There DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Claims about other gods and similarities to Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Response

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

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

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

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

Christian's counter that Paul made it a point to focus primarily on Jesus' death,burial, and resurrection [4]. Nevertheless, the New Testament shows that Paul indeed declared that Jesus was a Jewish[5] man [6], born of a woman [7], under the Jewish law [8], who instituted the Lord's Supper [9], was betrayed [10], "witnessed the good confession under Pontius Pilate" [11], was crucified, buried, and resurrected [12], and made post-resurrection appearances to Cephas (Peter), the twelve, over five hundred brethren, James, all the apostles, and lastly to him (Paul) [13], who would one day judge all of humanity [14]. Paul also quotes Jesus on several occasions [15][16]. Itsadiel 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it is your argument. You are not notable and have not published this argument in reliable sources. I'm not being difficult but this is the only way to build a verifiable encyclopedia. If we all could get away with opinions and our own arguments I'd start with the "why is there nothing written in external sources about Jesus despite the major things he is claimed to have done?" one. You will have your own counter to that and I have mine but the wikipedia article is no place for it. Sophia 06:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I also meant to say "thank you" for discussing it here and being patient for my reply rather than just putting it back. If you have any other questions on how to add information or what information is suitable then please ask here or drop me a note on my talk page. Sophia06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

On reflection and having read the archive discussions (a fascinating and informative read), my only problem with this article is it’s inclusion in the philosophy section. I cannot see why this is the case. The item is a bald list of what the documentary is and the claims it makes. There's no room for a discussion on the page, which I guess is Sofia's point. So I suggest that it is only listed in the “Films” category. Does anyone object? Hamilti 08:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it really only should be in the 'films" category plus any ones about religion and controversy. I didn't realise it was in the philosophy section so go ahead and remove it. Thanks for noticing that. Sophia 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was also puzzled by its inclusion in Philo'. Having seen this discussion and agreed with its conclusions I have removed it from the Philosophy portal. Should be added to to some appropriate 'religious' portal? Dunno which one though. Mercury543210 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree that direct reference to Paul's writings would, in this instance, qualify as original research. However, I think an effort should be made to find references to criticisms (and their respective rebuttals) of this film from verifiable sources. For instance, there are several Christian philosophers and historians who make regular efforts to engage popular works in their areas. If one could find such arguments from such people, I don't see any problem with putting them here. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Beddru of Japan

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

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

Usable source for criticism

Analysis

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

Criticism section

Validity: Criticism section

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

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

Michael Licona is a nobody who has no business being in this article. One can only assume that Mr. Licona himself put this in here. It'd be like me putting my garbageman's thoughts on Titanic in the article. I'm removing this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.7.61 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality: Criticism section

The Criticism section is extremely one-sided. It should be changed to "Reception" will both supporters and critics represented.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly reasonable, but the content of such a section is limited by material that can be found for it. If you find supportive material for it, I'd encourage you to implement those changes. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Added some more neutral reviews. --neon white talk 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Richard Carrier a historian?

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

I dont know what you think qualifies a person as a historian, but he does claim to have a PhD in Ancient history. Is that not all that is required? If not he also belongs to the Association of Ancient Historians and is certainly claimed to be a historian in many more places than "the LA times", has lectured many times at prestigious universities, and published a lot of papers on the topic. 24.138.5.16 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

His CV, which you are free to dispute with evidence to the contrary: [17] Mrrealtime (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed Tektonics criticism

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

Third opinion

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

Propaganda is designed to influence behaviour for the direct benefit for the propagandist. Even if this film does change some people's minds, it's hard to see how that alone benefits the film maker. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition given by Mojo above is incomplete. Propaganda is also typically regarded as deceptive, usually deliberately so. I see no evidence that this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources as being deceptive. Whether something is propaganda is not something for Wikipedia editors to determine, but for reliable sources to report on. We must avoid making non-neutral, original research-type judgments. Nick Graves (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand the consensus here as the discussion has drifted a little. The only source I have seen that uses the term propaganda, does not refer to the film itself as propaganda, but says at times it drifts into a propagandistic style. This is an important distinction and we would need multiple reliable sources referring to the film specifically as propaganda and few arguing against this status before we label something like that. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. However, if a significant minority labels the film propaganda, even though we should not add the category, we should discuss the allegation as appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I see no evidence that for the most part this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources at all. here's another source though that describes the film as propaganda [18] --Palming (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to Palmings addition of another source. This source does not describe the film as propaganda either. Once again it says "like propaganda" we are not going to begin the article saying "...is a propaganda film" just because two sources say that it is a little like propaganda. Also I am unclear why Palming posted out of order, it makes the discussion hard to follow for other editors. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am inclined to ask, must a consensus fall on whether or not to call it propaganda or not? This would seem rather unimportant, and is only a category; so long as the article clearly produces the message of the film being critical towards Christiandom's teachings of the life of Jesus, and this is well-referenced (preferably film's website, interviews, so forth), whether or not it falls under the label of propaganda can be a case of nuance, to the point of not being significant enough for lengthy debate. I have to ask therefore, if consent can not be reached that producing a clear introduction is paramount, and can take the place of a mere categorical placing. Consent can be reached through voting on the talkpage about this, where agreement can be that the propaganda category will be avoided. My personal take on this, without having seen the movie, is that nobody seems to regard it as a pure piece of propaganda. On the other hand, some state this is what the producer intended. Surely if the latter can be provided in writing, that should end the debate. Unless we then say he is wrong in his assertion. Which I am sure we are fully capable of, dedicated Wikipedians the lot of us :) (Imdb does not use the word "propaganda", by the way) Scaller (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The blasphemy challenge

They challenged people on youtube to deny the holy spirit and "forsake their soul" and in return they'd get a free DVD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE Kind of interesting. Should we mention it?--Mithcoriel (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not remove Rael's name? Mentionning him gives more visibility to a clown and a fraudster... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.30 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't add or remove material based on whether or not it gives visibility to a clown or a fraud. It's relevant and sourced, so it is reasonable to mention it. Nightscream (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral position

In the Criticism area, it states a bunch of criticisms then posts a rebuttal "Flemming has responded to this criticism by claiming that Jesus often used parables to illustrate his own beliefs, and that in the parable in question, the King is obviously meant to be a stand-in for Jesus himself, in order to illustrate his view of those who disagree with him. Flemming has responded to some of his criticisms on the FAQ page of the film's official website.[8]"

Which isn't neutral. To post a reply to the criticism is to continue the debate. I motion that it should be removed because it's a NON-NEUTRAL statement/paragraph. --Monkey225 (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If the reply is attributed to someone considered a relevant figure in the article's subject (in this case, its director), and properly sourced, then it's not a question of neutrality. Neutrality has nothing to do with continuing a debate. It merely refers to wording that conveys an opinion on the part of the article, or the editor who added it. Saying "this movie is awful" is a violation of NPOV. Saying "Roger Ebert called the movie awful, at this following link...", is not. Nightscream (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Marginal/minority view

Sorry for stepping on anyone's toes yesterday. I've edited a sentence in the lead from:

"The documentary questions the existence of Jesus and examines evidence that supports the Jesus myth argument against the existence of an historical Jesus."

to

"The documentary supports the Jesus myth, a marginal view in religious studies that doubts the existence of an historical Jesus."

I'll make four points:

• Clearing up wordiness. "Question[ing] the existence of Jesus " and "examin[ing] evidence that supports the Jesus myth" are not two separate things: they are the same thing expressed two different ways. Non-controversial.
• Identifying fringe views. I think it's reasonable that an article dealing with a non-mainstream view should identify its scholarly status in a prominent way, e.g., in the lead. One could argue that it doesn't HAVE to characterize such views, but if an editor (like me) wants to put it in, I see no reason to take it out.
• The Jesus Myth is marginal. Let me point out that "marginal" or "fringe" does not mean false; it means having little or no currency in mainstream scholarship. Today's marginal scholarship may be tomorrow's mainstream scholarship. However, if the Jesus Myth article is to be trusted, the Jesus Myth is currently a fringe view in religious studies. The Criticism section seems definitive:

"Richard Burridge and Graham Gould state that the Jesus never existed part of the Jesus Myth hypothesis is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship.[110] Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as 'effectively refuted'.[111] Graham N. Stanton writes, 'Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...'"

Even more persuasive is this comment from a Jesus Myth advocate:

"Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant.' Most of their comments ... are limited to expressions of contempt. But contempt is not to be mistaken for refutation."

• "Fringe", "Marginal", or "Minority view"? Initially I described the Jesus Myth as a "fringe view". In retrospect, that was pejorative, and I think "marginal" is a more neutral term. I was tempted to call it a "minority view", but I think that overstates its acceptance in scholarly circles. Obviously, even one scholar can constitute a minority, but I think the phrase suggests something along the line of, say, one-tenth or one-fifth of scholars. If someone wants to argue that the Jesus Project is an important project that tilts the balance from "marginal" to "minority", I'm willing to listen.00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "they are the same thing expressed two different ways. Non-controversial."I don't see them as the same thing expressed in two different ways, but a general statement followed up by a more specific elaboration/example.

2. "I think it's reasonable that an article dealing with a non-mainstream view should identify its scholarly status in a prominent way" Only if it's scholarly status is mentioned in either the film, or by critics responding to it, and if any such identification is made in that context. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Nightscream (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the same thing described twice, the second time in more detail. What you want is something like this: "The documentary questions the existence of Jesus, EXAMINING evidence that supports the Jesus myth argument against the existence of an historical Jesus." In any case, you have also deleted, without explanation, the material I added about the film criticising other aspects of Christianity.15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)~~

The scholarly status of the thesis is discussed in the Criticism section. In any case, it is relevant information for Wikipedia readers. If you want to argue against that view, I expect a little more than one sentence plus a sentence fragment, considering I came up with a fairly detailed defense of my edit. I will hold off re-instating my edit until you've had a chance for a full response. 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)64.180.217.89 (talk)

First, I prefer to keep my posts intact and unbroken. Thanks. As to your points:

So if I understand what you're saying, you think the conjunction "and" should be removed in order to remove the implication that they are two different things. That sounds reasonable. I've removed it.

Sorry about that bit of detail that I didn't look at clearly enough. I restored it. Thanks.

The scholarly status of the thesis is only discussed in the Criticism section as it pertains to the movie. Information about the thesis or its status that does not pertain explicitly to the movie is not appropriate for inclusion in this article. It would be more appropriate for articles on the thesis itself. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't find your argument convincing, however. You can say the fringe status of the Jesus myth is irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, the reputation of the movie rests in large part on the credibility of its central thesis. Since this is well established as being low, adding this information to the article improves the article. A glaring problem with the article as it stands is that it serves in effect as a mouthpiece for historical arguments that are either discredited or of low credibility in mainstream scholarship. It's entirely appropriate that these be put in context.

Even if you don't accept that argument (and surely you would we were dealing with a documentary on Astrology or Cold Fusion!), let me make a second argument. The lead of an article, in general, summarizes the key points of the article body. Since the Criticism section stresses the weak or absent support for the Jesus Myth in mainstream scholarship, it's reasonable to mention this in the lead. One could argue whether the article HAS TO mention this, but so long as one editor (me) wants, refusal to permit this would raise issues of bias. Thanks again for your reply and the edits you've made so far.03:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.217.89 (talk)

I did not say nor imply that my mere saying something makes it so. :-) What makes a position or argument so or not so is the reasoning or evidence offered for it. In this case, I base my position on WP policy. Any information on the movie's "reputation" must be supported by reliable sources cited in the text, and therefore must pertain to the movie. Information that mentions the thesis but not the movie is not relevant to an article on the movie. It is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to assess the validity or credibility of its content; only the sources that mention that information in regards to the movie can do that. If they don't mention the movie, then they have nothing to do with an article about the movie, and including them would violate NPOV. The article does not serve as a mouthpiece for the arguments, it merely reports that the movie does this. However, I edited that section to emphasize the attributive nature of that content. And any response to that must be made in the context of the film. The movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed asserts much information about natural selection that has zero credibility/standing in the scientific community. But that doesn't mean that editors can refute it themselves. They must cite sources, and only those that provide that info in response to that movie. Failing to do that would come across as Wikipedia (or its editors) expressing their own viewpoint.

Can you mention some of the info from the Criticism section? Yes, absolutely. But only if it's actually in that section, and attributed as such. Since some the criticism includes issues with its scholarship, oversimplification and it being "propaganda", then you could mention that, as in "Critics denounced the film for its scholarship..." But an unattributed comment about it being a marginal view would not be permitted because it needs to be in the Criticism section, and sourced, and right now, there is no such mention in that section. If you find Criticism that you can add to it, though, that would be fine. Nightscream (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me illustrate my understanding of your position with an example from the Expelled article. A representative sentence from the lead to that article runs:

The film claims that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in nature and criticise evidence supporting evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, the theory explaining this evidence.[4][5]

Now, an edit:

The film claims that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in nature and criticise evidence supporting evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, the MAINSTREAM theory explaining this evidence.[4][5]

If I understand you correctly, you would claim that moving the word "mainstream" violates NPOV. I think that's stretch, to be honest, but I'm not disposed to argue further at this point.

In any case, I think I can address my main concern about the article following the procedure you've suggested. First, by adding some additional material from Mike Licona and then referencing it from the lead. Let me know what you think. 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)64.180.217.89 (talk)

I didn't say a thing about the word "mainstream". All I said was that any criticism of the movie or clarification of its fallacies or falsities must be attributed. In any event though, I think your subsequent edits have been solid. Nightscream (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

title allusion

is the title alluding to old book titled: "the god who is there"? 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs)

Criticism

shouldnt there be some kind of criticism section? I saw that a lot on other articles...Wrestlingdud09 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There was one, but it was removed because the only criticisms in it were supported by sources that were judged to fail WP:RS. Nightscream (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

By what grounds? I remember there used to be a quotation from Michael Licona's review in the article, but the only rationale I see in the discussion for deleting it is someone declaring him a "nobody" without giving any actual reason for such a declaration. He's notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and as he has a Ph.D. in New Testament studies so he's clearly qualified to speak about the subject. How is he a "nobody" and if he isn't, what was the rationale for removing it? Lord Seth (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I was the one who removed it. You should determine from the edit history which editor removed it, and see if you two can come to an agreement about it. Nightscream (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Seth. Mike Lichona is clearly qualified. Also, the comment above by the person who removed Lichona's criticism was unsigned, so there's little hope of contacting this person to resolve the issue. And just in case the typo confuses anyone, it wasn't Nightscream. I'll see if I can salvage the criticism section. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so I went burrowing into the edit history, and this is what I found. So the question now is how much of this should be put back, if any. I could really use the help of some veteran editors on this one. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As a (like the maker of the movie) former devoted Christian I appreciate the effort to represent this movie and relevant critique accurately. The Jesus Christ in comparative mythology portions of the movie seem to be clearly under theological dispute or at least debate and I will read that page with interest. If it's not already, my impression is that that debate merits a link in the body text and not only a "See also" at the end. Thanks again for the effort, this movie is important for me and many others --- CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability

The notability of this article was questioned, but I have removed those tags. Please note that it has been reviewed by the New York Times,and is listed in IMDB with reviews from 14 external reviewers. There is no justification for questioning the notability of this article based on Wikipedia guidelines. http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/331933/The-God-Who-Wasn-t-There/overview PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I'm inserting the following line at the end of the introduction. "The overwhelming consensus among biblical scholars is that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is at least in part based on a real historical person, contrary to the films major premise." I am then going to point to the "Counter Arguments" section of the "Christ Myth Theory" article. Feel free to tweak the wording if you like, but it is unacceptable not to include something like this in this article, and very early on. If this were a movie espousing the view that the law of conservation of energy is false, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the theory of evolution is false, it would be irresponsible not to let the reader know right away that the vast majority of people who study this stuff for a living categorically deny it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.133.225 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the overwhelming consensus among non-biblical scholars is that the story about Jesus is less reliable than reports about "WMD in Iraq". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please Only Address the Movie Specifically

A recent edit I will copy below and remove because it does not address the movie specifically. The text was added previously and removed for lack of sources. In response, it was re-added with a list of sources that was pulled directly out of the article Jesus myth theory. The problem we can see with this is that two of the sources clearly do not address the movie at all; the other two may or may not, but they are not quoted in any way to bring criticism to The God Who Wasn't There.

Please note that the academic discussion of the existence of Jesus should be kept to pages such as Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory. I am fine with including relevant criticisms of the movie's basis and premises, but again, this is an article about a movie, not about an academic theory. Thanks for your understanding.

The overwhelming consensus among biblical scholars is that the Jesus depicted in the New Testament is at least in part based on a real historical person, contrary to the film's major premise.

Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Added {{reflist|close=1}} to above so references can be seen.
—Telpardec  TALK  11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and sourcing

{{POV}} - the article is very lopsided, little better than a movie promo, it needs to include negative reviews also - {{Unreferenced}} - Without WP:RS the article is more than 90% WP:OR, it needs to be fixed or deleted IMO. Thanks.
—Telpardec  TALK  12:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give examples of passages in the article that are non-neutral? Nightscream (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The entire article appears to be expressing the POV of the movie. I have not seen it. It doesn't seem possible that everyone who saw it thought it was the best thing since Mom's Apple Pie. It is supposedly a movie dealing with controversial things, so there must be some contrary criticism somewhere. It needs reliable sources that can be verified to make things known, not (original research?) reviews by editors who may have seen it, or where ever the present statements in the article came from. It needs attribution for any "facts" stated.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  01:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give examples of passages in the article that appear to express the POV of the movie? The only thing I see is that it describes the content of the film. Describing a narrative work's content does not constitute expressing its viewpoint.

While contrary criticism would certainly be beneficial to the article, right now it doesn't seem to have any information on critical reception, either positive or negative, so any sort of critical material would be welcome.

As for sources and citations, they are not needed to describe the mere content of a narrative work. Works such as books, movies, TV episodes, etc. can be their own primary sources for their content, as per WP:PSTS. I do agree, however, that more secondary sources are needed to shore up the topic's notability, and to fill out the article with information on its real-world impact, so that the article is not just a plot description, which is what it mostly is now. Nightscream (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)