Talk:The God Who Wasn't There/Archive 1

message: I did not write or edit this Wikipedia entry, but I DID write the plot summary in question. I am the director/producer of the movie The God Who Wasn't There and made a plot summary available free to all here. This plot summary was used, in part, by Microcinema, IMDb, Wikipedia and other sites. (Wikipedia also quoted some promotional text, but that text was put in quotes, appropriately indicating that that is how the film was marketed.) Additionally, this Wikipedia entry contains other material unique to Wikipedia. I strongly suspect the attempts to delete this entry are ideologically motivated, but, motivation aside, they are also entirely unwarranted. I request that the administrators re-activate this page and allow the Wikipedia community to edit it if there are improvements to be made. I freely gave the text in question to the public domain. This can be confirmed by contacting me through the film's official site. --BrianFlemming 19:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in question was listed on Vfd. In my opinion it was wrongly listed for a Vfd- and I would actually have voted 'keep',. However, I genuinely believed that parts of it were a copyvio - and I listed it as a possible copyright infringement (see  as is normal procedure. If it isn't a copyvio - and you can evidence that, then it will survive that procedure. If I was wrong about the copyvio than I am happy to apologise to you for my error. --Doc (?) 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: What does a copyright owner have to do TO SAY IT'S OKAY TO USE THE MATERIAL? I wrote it, it's in the public domain, this would be obvious to anyone who looked.--BrianFlemming 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was tagged as a possible copyright infringement, the situation was resolved in under 36 hours, and it's time to drop it. Anger about a temporary notice placed on the article while sorting things out isn't productive, and the stress isn't healthy. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Page history looks intact to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Page history is intact. There was a previous discussion on this page that got blanked at some point or other, relating to the status of the copyright. Seeing as the issue has been resolved, I see no purpose in restoring it, but it's there. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio claim

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 16:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: "Much of the historical information in the film has been questioned for its accuracy, so viewers should be cautious in accepting historical claims presented."  The preceding is not a particularly encyclopedic sentence.  Noting or detailing the questions that have been raised regarding its accuracy is fine, but I don't know if such a general statement should be made, nor do I think that an article should be warning people about how they should view a movie (I wouldn't advocate adding such a warning to articles about the bible, much as I think it may deserve it).  Any thoughts on how to rephrase it, or whether to just strike it out? Шизомби 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of New Testament historians agree that Jesus existed (despite the fact that most of those are not conservative Christians).  The belief that Jesus did not exist belongs to a radical fringe group.  To the very least, the majority opinion among scholars should be known.  I'm adding that into the entry, and am giving the benefit of the doubt that this is a “growing” movement.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I decided the following review of the filming quality of Brian Flemming's movie "The God Who Wasn't There" should be alluded to.
Here is the review I read of the poor filming quality of Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There":
"The filming is poor. This is most likely the result of Flemming’s working from a shoestring budget and either his inexperience or lack of gifting. The poor quality is sometimes distracting. For instance, in two interviews with Robert Price and David and Barbara Mikkelson, there is a distracting reflection of camera light and sunlight in their eyeglasses. In the interview with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is directly in front of him. Changing the angle would have easily eliminated this. Flemming did not bother to straighten the tilted lampshade in his interview with Price. The quality of the filming reaches its low in Flemming’s interview with Scott Butcher. Because of backlighting, Butcher looks very dark. Flemming uses only one camera throughout his interviews and asks his questions from behind the camera, producing the impression that one is viewing a homemade video rather than a professional production. The graphics are very repetitive, seldom change, and are of a low quality. Yet, as we shall see, the film’s technical difficulties are the least of its problems."   ken 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don, I agree—I've already tried to make this point over here. But Buffalo still seems to think that the views of some Christian activist on Flemming's film-making skills are relevant. I guess we can overturn if it stays at two to one.—Laurence Boyce 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewer States Poor Filming Quality in the Movie "The God Who Wasn't There" 

message: I noticed that most of the criticisms section have been deleted. I will restore it, since I don't think that the criticisms were invalid, and are backed up by examples.
What has been put in seems slanted, e.g. "There he interviews a school administrator who seems to have expected more softball questions".
Perhaps a discussion needs to be on whether the removed criticisms are unfair or not? I'll put them back in for now. Don
-- 211.28.71.171 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section edit - most criticisms removed 

message: Please do not make repeated anonymous edits to the article without first explaining your actions on talk.—Laurence Boyce 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 132.241.x.x 

message: Hi Nod,
I certainly don't want to misrepresent Flemming. I just want to clarify what he is claiming. In his movie, he lists a number of gods, including Deva Tat of Thailand, and then a list of attributes similar to Christ. I'm a bit confused here. What is that list of gods doing there? Did their myths influence Christianity? If so, which ones and what is his evidence?
If the list is there just to say that these gods share similarities with Jesus, then I don't see the point. There were 1000s of gods, that some would share similarities is inevitable. Put a man in a room with a 1000 people and you are going to find similarities. I don't know any Christian who is or should be worried about this (unless you want to build a strawman argument).
But let's say that Flemming isn't claiming influence, let's say it is just similarities. What similarities does Deva Tat in Thailand have with Jesus, and what significance does this have?
I can't see why asking for clarification and evidence is a problem here. Aren't you interested in finding this out yourself?
-- Don --211.28.67.153 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deva Tat of Thailand"? 

message: Hi Satanael. I have reverted your recent edit. I think we've already had this discussion in the section above. The term "mythical" is used repeatedly in the movie, and also in the book The Jesus Puzzle upon which the movie is loosely based. I am sorry if you do not feel the term is appropriate, but it seems to me that whatever one may think about Jesus, he certainly has a certain mythical status. That, I'm guessing, is why the term was used by both Doherty and Flemming. Thank you for your input. Laurence Boyce 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine and all, but the makers of the documentary don't decide on how this article is written, or which words to be used. It doesn't matter if they used the term "cream-cake". A biologist featuring in a documentary about virgin birth(s) can call it "immaculate conception" all he wants, but that wouldn't mean an article about that documentary should follow his example. Lemegeton 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lemegeton/Satanael. I see you have waited a week before re-inserting your changes. I would be grateful if you would let me know why you are persisting with this and what your issue is with respect to the term "mythical." I accept your broader point that simply because somebody employs a term, does not in itself make it suitable; but in this case it seems to me that more or less everyone is using the term. It's called the "Jesus Myth," and it seems like a perfectly reasonable term to use, denoting as it does both the concept of a fictional character but equally of a character born out of ancient mythological concepts. So please tell us why you consider this term to be inappropriate. Laurence Boyce 17:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's more "reductio ad absurdum" than absurd as such. It is entirely reasonable, for instance, to assume that the Bible is the word of God, and then to reason from that point onwards arriving at a set of contradictions thereby disproving the original assumption. That said, some of the characters you mention have a much sounder historical provenance than does Jesus. Laurence Boyce 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythical vs fictional

message: First of all, citations are needed for the claim that something is "disputed by many contemporary New Testament scholars and historians". Secondly, one must establish that the claim that Jesus is entirely fictional is indeed relevant to the message of the movie. From the FAQ:
"Q: Does everyone in the movie claim that Jesus is most likely fictional?
A: No. Only Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price make claims in this area. Others in the movie -- including Sam Harris and Alan Dundes -- express no opinion on the historical status of Jesus and are interviewed for their perspectives in other areas."
Unless citations can be provided, and one can establish that the claim that Jesus never existed as just a normal man is central to the movie, the criticism section should be rewritten or simply removed. --Ritarri 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that criticism section doesn't really say anything beyond the fact that some Christians have criticised the film, which they obviously have done. I think we should remove the section. Laurence Boyce 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a small point, but I believe Alan Dundes' disbelief in Jesus' historicity is implicit, given his recitation of Raglan's scale.  He didn't attempt to dispute any point Somerset made. GeorgeC 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: There is no point in trying to cover up the following facts:
* "http://www.thegodmovie.com" is the official web site of the movie "The God Who Wasn't There".
* Scott Butcher did appear in the movie; see .
Also, what's up with the vandalism of Earl Doherty's book description?
-- Cat Whisperer 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your vigilance - this article is a "crank magnet" for obvious reasons.  Sophia 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points in the recent edit war 

message: There is an audio interview with Dawkins in the special features but that hardly qualifies him a place in the credits of the movie.  I have the dvd and it doesn't include Dawkins in the credits for the movie itself.  He's only mentioned in the special features section.  I think his name should be removed from where it currently is. Skeptic Jim 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me.  I just removed Dawkings and Doherty from the "starring" list.  Anything else? -- Cat Whisperer 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Dawkins