Talk:Fireproof (film)

message: I took off the extremely hateful vitriol that is quoted in the criticism section. I don't have a problem with criticizing the acting in the movie but this garbage of "the movie hates women" is absolutely ridiculous. If this is included then we need to put quotes from people like Rush Limbaugh on every Spike Lee movie..or every other leftist propaganda Hollywood movie. 
It's a double standard to include quotes from idiot critics on Christian movies but not include them for lefty pages because you don't like what their idiot critics say.
Either don't include the ridiculous quotes on all pages or do..but don't disinclude them on "liberal" leftist pages and always include them on conservative traditionalist pages.
Ridiculous how many college kids ruin Wikipedia by regurgitating their professor's views with the way they edit these pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.174.204 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Onion's AV club is a well-known source of film criticism.  Rush Limbaugh is not known for film criticism (or intelligent discourse, but that's beyond the scope of this article).  Also, sign your posts.  Teflon Don (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hateful Quotation

message: :Image:Firerproof teaser image.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 07:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Firerproof teaser image.jpg

message: :Image:Fireproofpreview.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fireproofpreview.jpg

message: American Eagle has requested a reassessment of the article, and at this time it should remain at Future class (until the film's release). Otherwise a few quick changes can be made to ensure it reaches Start class at its release. I'd recommend removing the excessive links to Wiktionary for basic words and to remove the crew section (if you want to include that section, use prose to document the most notable crew members). Expand the plot once you've seen the film and add one more section (such as critical reception or box office performance) and you'll have yourself a start class. You can then either reassess it yourself or let me know and I'll take another look. Good work so far and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excess Wiktionary links removed, crew shortened (all I did was remove the least notable), I will be adding the box office results as soon as I see the on Box Office Mojo, and I plan to watch the movie on release date (September 26, 2008) and will expand and/or proofread the plot. I looked for any criticism it had gotten, and searched for awards, but I didn't find any. I will keep my eye out for any of those. A question: do you think I should shorten the "cast" section? I see that most pages on have about the top 5-10 actors and a few notes. I don't know about that. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FILMS/Assessment request response

message: The whole second part of "reviews" is complete unsourced NPOV, "Cameron acts like a childish jerk," "he—and the movie—hates women," etc. If a good reference is provided, it can be worked with. But if not, I will remove it again. And another thing, how is "The Onion's AV Club" notable? I chose my reviews and comments carefully, Baptist Press, Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, etc. Please do this also. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The A.V. Club is fairly well-known and well-regarded by many; I don't have a problem with including their review, as it seems fair to include negative reviews as well as positive ones. However, it is unacceptable to simply quote from the reviews without providing links to them - references, especially for negative reviews, must be provided. Could whoever originally added this section please do so? Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleanup the section, and added the references. But some users keep adding anti-Kirk Cameron hate speech that has no importance to the article. Unless you will provide a reason why the sentence should be there, I will remove it again. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "The acting in Fireproof is less than stellar in a few cases" is proper criticism and I think should be in the article. But saying Cameron "hates women" and is a "childish jerk" is not. That is anti-Cameron speech and not important to the article - not even as criticism. I am removing it, please do not add it again. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I have requested comment about this. Wikipedia should not be anti-anyone. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is what the quote says, "Cameron acts like a childish jerk, even in the reconciliation phase, and the underlying reason is that he—and the movie—hates women." That is talking about Cameron, not just his character. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like it is an adequately-sourced quotation that has relevance to the article. The information is not presented as fact, but as the opinion of the reviewer in question. I don't see a problem with including the quote. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm going to find a negative review of Fireproof from a more well-known critic who doesn't think that Cameron is "childish jerk." But that still reports that the movie is not good. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I am fine with the fact that he gave it an "F" and said "Fireproof gets hung up in a lot of Promise Keepers hoo-hah about reaffirming marriage as a covenant with God rather than a contract filed at City Hall." That is a critical opinion, and is fine. But the part where he says Cameron (and not just his character) is a "childish jerk" and "hates women" is non-Wikipedia and should not be here at all. Roadshell, please understand and don't add that part back. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The onion AV club, while hilarious, is not a WP:RS. It's designed to be a source of humor and parody, not a source of fact. Since this is an encyclopedia, we insist on reliable sources only. --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Roadshell, may I ask why you continue to war over adding an unreliable, unimportant, anti-Kirk Cameron critic that is not even notable? This situation may need an administrator soon, by the way. I'm tiring over it. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I did not remove it (see here), that was a false accusation. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with AE' that the sentence "Cameron acts like a childish jerk, even in the reconciliation phase, and the underlying reason is that he—and the movie—hates women" should be removed. If if a lie is sourced it doesn't make it true or encyclopedic. Why would Sherwood Pictures make three feature films in a row (all of whom have a married couple as main characters) if they 'hate women'? Invmog (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced NPOV 

message: Could someone add in this article that it won best feature film in SAICFF (San Antonio Independant Christian Film Festival) in Jan. 2009. http://www.independentchristianfilms.com/
Jehorn (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read some news reports about that and will be adding it shortly. Thanks. TheAE talk/sign 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be notably enough to include that in order to win the best feature film award it beat 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', 'The Widow's Might', and 'The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry' but I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to add that in there or not. Invmog (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: SAICFF

message: The statement that the movie was the highest grossing independent film in 2008 is incorrect, by the definition of "independent film" that is most commonly used, specifically that it was not produced by one of the "Big Six" Hollywood studios.  Several films, including Twilight, Rambo and Saw V were produced by independent producers and made more money.  (The statement does accurately quote the article it cites, that article is just wrong.)  For details, see http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm
There is an argument that the independent films with higher grosses are still part of the Hollywood system and Fireproof was made outside of that, so that its high grosses are still notable.  That makes sense to me, but it should be phrased more precisely than simply "independent film". I'm not sure of what the best phrasing would be.
I removed the statement once, but someone else put it back in.  I'll leave it for now to see if someone can come up with a better phrase to use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.99.155 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent Film

message: This article has great potential to become a WP:GA, but it needs some work. Here's a checklist for anyone to work on:
*Shorten plot summary: although it is a good plot, it is supposed to be a summary, not the entire detailed script (taking up half the article). The plot is currently 10½ paragraphs long. I'd recommend shortening this down (by removing unneeded trivial info, removing word clutter, etc.) to about six paragraphs.
*The references need a lot of formatting cleanup, and I will probably be able to do this myself.
*Many unreliable sources. The following sources need to be removed and replaced: 1, 2, 3, most the sources in "Marriage views", and a few others scattered.
*Check for spelling, grammar and correct MoS.
– American Eagle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you feel the need for having the plot summary edited right away, I'll volunteer to do that. I'm going to be quite busy the next two or three weeks though, so I doubt I'll be able to get to it during that timeframe... --Filmcom (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this article will probably take several weeks to get to GA. Thanks for the help. =) American Eagle (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm so impatient, I've gone ahead and did everything I mentioned. =) I've listed this article at WP:GAN for review. :D American Eagle (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: That wouldn't be neutral.  It's not our place to review the film. 68.222.103.70 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA comments 

message: 1) Fireproof has received generally negative to mixed reviews from the non-Christian, secular press.
'Secular' (implying no particular religious affiliation) is a useful adjective here, but 'non-Christian' is more troublesome. A secular critic (i.e. one who does not review movies with an overtly religious tone/viewpoint) can still be Christian.
2) The film was received extremely positively by Christians, a second movie would be a bounus with kids!
This wording is strange and biased. It treats "Christians" like they are some kind of atomic entity. Consider by analogy a phrase like "Friday was received extremely positively by African-Americans." If the most obvious fans of movie X are members of social/ethnic/religious group Y, it doesn't follow that all (or even most of) group Y are fans of movie X.  
To put it another way: over 75% of USA citizens consider themselves Christians, and I'm sure there is a very large spectrum of opinions about this movie. 
Also, when taken with #1, this line asserts that most movie critics are not Christians. Which is probably false.
--98.230.53.210 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're reading too much into the phrasing. In any case, there is a shockingly clear divide when you look at the reviews by secular mainstream sources and those by overtly Christian sources. 71.49.85.130 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reception" section bias 

message: I'm bringing up this page because of an obvious bias towards Christian reviewers/awards, and general language that violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.181.179 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide specific examples? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not. How long until the challenge is considered expired? 67.233.241.19 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he hasn't responded in three weeks, I went ahead and removed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Hello. Is there any evidence to suggest that (ie in Critical Reviews) the significance of the fact that Caleb's task is for the duration of 40 days? Has anyone come across anything to suggest that this is similar to the 40 days and nights that Jesus spent in the dessert? (Galaxycat (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The parallel is pretty obvious, similar to 40 Days of Purpose and the other Rick Warren programs, but that observation only belongs in the article if we can source it. All talk pages are for improving Wikipedia rather than our own speculations and research, however interesting! Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 Days 

message: Article currently  reads in part Sometime later, during a rescue, Caleb sustains first-degree burns and while he is being treated at the hospital where his wife works... (my wikilink). I'm skeptical... Catherine is certainly told by a gossiping nurse that the burns are superficial, but the truth is I think intended to be that they are far more serious... probably only second-degree but certainly that.
Perhaps the solution is to change this to the (easily sourced) statement that Catherine is told that the burns are superficial, without saying whether this is true.... I don't think the film actually says either way either, but I could be wrong. Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot detail 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fireproof (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090125130418/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?rid=11737 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?rid=11737
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206095725/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i55545185203bc0b1c6b88813cebf3212?imw=Y to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i55545185203bc0b1c6b88813cebf3212?imw=Y
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified