Talk:King of Kings (statue)

message: Here are some links to the nicknames: Giant Jesus,  Big Butter Jesus, Touchdown Jesus, Drowning Jesus, Quicksand Jesus and Backflip Jesus. The only one I could not find was Viva Las Jesus, so I'll remove that one. Morhange 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those are blogs, so they're not acceptable sources. I've added roadsideamerica.com as a reliable source for three of the names. Saikokira 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I lived near there and most folks call it "Big Butter Jesus" (even before the Heywood Banks song) but it's not on the Nickname list, so I'm adding it back in. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: In my opinion, "Touchdown Jesus" should redirect to the mural at Notre Dame.  The mural was known by the nickname long before the statue in Ohio was even built.  If anything, the statue's nickname was derived directly from the mural.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.136.146 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "Touchdown Jesus" should be a disambiguation page with links to both articles? cmadler (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the Notre Dame "Touchdown Jesus" mural is both older and vastly more famous. When somebody looks for "Touchdown Jesus" on Wikipedia, that's almost always going to be the one they're looking for. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have changed the redirect to a disambiguation page. cmadler (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad it goes to a disambig rather than straight to the mural. I had never heard of either "Touchdown Jesus" until I saw this cartoon, which clearly refers to the King of Kings statue. So when I looked for "Touchdown Jesus" on Wikipedia, the one I wanted is the statue in Ohio. +Angr 10:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Touchdown Jesus" Redirect 

message: Um, I believe the statue's Facebook page may help confirm "total loss":
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7716425&id=210905350402#!/photo.php?pid=361919&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=210905350402&id=100000082210790&ref=pf
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7716425&id=210905350402#!/photo.php?pid=1132917&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=210905350402&id=1034378751&ref=pf&fbid=1401473950251
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7716425&id=210905350402#!/photo.php?pid=30838577&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=210905350402&id=1230435627&ref=pf&fbid=1335223980578
But I think the best one is:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7716425&id=210905350402#!/photo.php?pid=40814113&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=210905350402&id=21424784&ref=pf&fbid=742513105835
The Middletown Journal was quoted as saying: 
The statue was constructed of wood and styrofoam over a steel framework that was anchored in concrete and covered with a fiberglass mat and resin exterior, according to the church. It was slated to undergo renovations this summer.
Which those photographs and the information, its safe to say the statue is a total loss.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.221.194 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we need a source to actually state that it's a total loss, we can't make that interpretation no matter how clear the photos may seem. Also, if anyone is in the area or passing by, it would be nice to add a new (post-fire) photo to the "Destruction" section of this article. cmadler (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added  to this page. cmadler (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Loss?

message: Please change the cost of the statue to be $250,000 and not $500,000.  The source clearly states the cost at $250,000.
jayjax02 (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 12:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I got an edit conflict on the article and on the talk page! :-) cmadler (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Jayjax02, 15 June 2010 

message: Please remove "WLWT reported that lightning had "razed" the statue, which was sculpted...." to "The statue, which was..."
This is established news by many news outlets... the fact that WLWT, which actually reported "Lightening Razes 'King of Kings' Statue; Will Be Rebuilt is not relevant.  It could be considered relevant if reporting that it will be rebuilt, but the source in the article would need to be cited.
Furthermore, the quotation of 'razed' is a pun intended to inflame christians, who believe "He is risen" (ascension to heaven).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity 
Rpm911 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm glad you saw what I didn't. :D SpigotMap 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Rpm911, 15 June 2010 

message: Several users have added statements to the effect that the insurance company considers the lightning strike and resultant fire and act of God. I think this is generally the case, but I'd suggest that it shouldn't be put in the article unless we can cite a statement that the actual insurer of this particular statue termed this particular case as an "act of God". The last time someone put it in (which I just removed), they cited it to  which does use the phrase "act of God" but says nothing whatsoever about the insurance; I think in that case they're just trying to be funny similar to the "razed" pun ("raised") and others, because that phrase appears in the headline but nowhere in that article. There are a lot of people who saw humor in this statue, both before and after the fire (check out some of the Photoshopped pictures of it on Facebook, Flickr, etc.) but we need to be sure we're not mistaking attempts at humor for serious reporting; both have their place but we need to be clear on the difference. cmadler (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a reference to insurance company calling it an act of God.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think that's sufficient. First, it says that "Insurance companies have described the incident as an act of God", and it's true that insurance companies generally describe lightning strikes as acts of God. But it doesn't say anything about the actual insurer in this case. Also, it seems likely that if the actual insurer in this actual case termed it an "act of God", that explicit fact would get some decent news coverage more locally -- Radio New Zealand is not going to be the only source for such a story. cmadler (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Countdown said that the Cincinatti Enquirer had the headline "Statue of Jesus destroyed by act of God".  I haven't been able to find it though.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  Here is Countdown saying what the newspaper headline was. wp:rs#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says that WP should use secondary sources.  The newspaper is a primary source, the Countdown report is a secondary source. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The insurance claim would be a primary source, the newspaper is a secondary source. And again, even if a newspaper refers to it as an "act of God" (which some have -- see above), that's just their headline (like the line about it being "razed"); the only place I've seen the "act of God" statement attributed to the insurance company is the removed claim in this article. On the other hand, this Cincinnati Enquirer article clearly suggests that the insurance is paying the claim. (Because of insurance coverage, “Now we get to build a whole brand-new one, paid-for,” Bishop said. “We are blessed.”) cmadler (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because the insurance company is paying doesn't mean that it is not an act of God.  You can get insurance against acts of God.  From act of God: "... an act of God may be no excuse, and in fact may be the central risk assumed by the promisor, e.g., flood insurance or crop insurance,... " Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But in this article, we're not talking about flood insurance or crop insurance or Y2K insurance. My point is that we're talking about a particular case and a particular insurer. I know that lightning strikes are generally classified as "acts of God" by insurers and others. But is there a source saying that this insurer in this case deems it an act of God? Not a headline trying to be funny, not a generality, but an actual specific statement about it? I haven't seen one yet, and it just seems like if the insurer did make that determination, it would be easy to find given how much coverage this is already getting. cmadler (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Act of God" 

message: I suggest that the pre-fire picture be at the top.  This article is about the entire statue. If this were an article about just the fire, then the post-fire picture should be at the top.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.182.53 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as both images remain in the article, I don't care about the order; I can see arguments going both ways. cmadler (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  placement of before and after picts 

message: To anyone who's watching & updating this page: they've unveiled the design for the replacement statue. November 2nd article on the Fairfield Echo homepage:
http://www.fairfield-echo.com/news/fairfield-news/solid-rock-unveils-new-jesus-statue-991724.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
Enjoy! --SandChigger (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New statue design unveiled 

message: Does anyone know what happened to the photo of the statue showing its appearance post-fire? It was located at :File:Afterjesus.jpg, but as far as I can tell it must have been deleted. Was it a copyvio (I didn't think it was)? cmadler (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-fire photo 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:KingOfKingsStatue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion