Talk:Jesus Camp

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jesus Camp 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What I Deleted 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ages?

message: 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)
replies: text: By the press I suspect! --Wikipediatastic 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Advert/Delete discussion

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Did Wikipedia agree to work in cohort with Jesus Camp? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! 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  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)

text: On reflection, I agree with Fuzheado and the editor (Interiot) who tagged this article . 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text: Go for it! — Twisted86 - Talk - at 23:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I had a hunch that was the intent. Thanks for the post. Happy editing. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 07:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medved ed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  An IMDB user comment...are freakin' serious? 

message: 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  .  --—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 .  And Lakewood, ND can't be found on Google Maps.   --Interiot 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Devils Lake 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reaction from Christian community? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Odd sentence in Controversy section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it seems that this way of nominating is less POV than traditional nominating and reviews. Idioma 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: POV in [[Jesus Camp|Reviews]] section

message: 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)
thread_title: North Dakotans' reaction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: exactly? does atheist society make it unreliable source? Speaker1978 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright infringment with link to watch online 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added new pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wife Swap]] connection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biased source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Response from subjects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Levi was taught... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bunch of piddling suggestions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  tag; there may still be problems but the cleanup tag is too vague to be helpful.  I also removed the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Overview" section needs major cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Jesus Camp at [[Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders|Joshua Komisarjevsky's trial]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Devout Children?

message: 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)
thread_title:  This isn't true christianity 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421164332/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0638%2Cnelson%2C74510%2C20.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007133420/http://newyorkmetro.com/movies/reviews/21366/index1.html to http://newyorkmetro.com/movies/reviews/21366/index1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822095107/http://www.magpictures.com/profile.aspx?id=07c96423-06b3-43c6-9c47-64d782362b8e to http://www.magpictures.com/profile.aspx?id=07c96423-06b3-43c6-9c47-64d782362b8e
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified