Talk:Heaven Is for Real

Comments

is there a movie

This section is not for questions to be posted. Search google, it will take you two minutes.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Beefcake this is the perfect place for him to post this question. Just because it's in question form doesn't mean it's in the wrong place. How in the world could you ever guess he wasn't asking so he could add a line to the page that say's "A movie based on the novel....yada yada". I see people just like you all the time, calm down. This is a Wikipedia talk page, stop taking it so seriously. If I want to come on here, ask a question in relation to improving the article, I will, and a man named Mr. Beefcake isn't going to stop that. You could easily just google it, take two minutes and answer his question, or leave it alone entirely. The seriousness of these talk pages is ridiculous. This talk page will have no more than 5 posting over the next 14 years, but be careful or we might fill up the page! Because archived pages aren't a thing right? The novel peaked in 2011, if the talk page wasn't full then it never will be. This is not Encarta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.40.134 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The link to the Susan Jacoby article in the Washington Post is now redirected to a Christian blog called Faithstreet. This seems to be intentional, since Faithstreet and the Washington Post have the same owners. Nonetheless, the link is no longer valid for the reference. I have no idea how to correct this, but if anyone is doing maintenance on this page, it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.176.237 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this also. The redirect is partly due to the fact that the article is no longer at the WaPo address. It is archived here: http://archive.is/ZAzR6 -- I'll try to edit it in when I'm not posting from a phone. 70.173.96.123 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Two potential NPOV bits?

Specifically the statement that it documents a trip to heaven, which makes it sound like that is something that undeniably happened and was documented, and the reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary, a specifically Catholic notion (The linked article is solely about Catholic views of Mary). Perhaps we should change it to simply say Virgin Mary and clarify the beginning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.252.77 (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of the name Virgin Mary is out of context because of Burpo be Protestant. Moreover may confuse anyone who reads, because it seems that they became Catholics. Would be more appropriate Mary (mother of Jesus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.3.140.155 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment those appear to be minor editing issues rather than a violation of WP:NPOV. I recommend that you fix it and move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Agreeing with Paul McDonald with clarification on the 173.2.252.77 comment. Protestants believe Mary existed and is the mother of Jesus, because it is in the New Testament. It is the term "blessed virgin" that can be problematic for some, but not all, Protestants. Item appears to have been corrected. Taram (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanging labels on Susan Jacoby

I have twice removed some qualifying labels attached to Susan Jacoby, saying she is an atheist and/or secularist. This is the most recent such label, added by DoctorEric but without a cited source for the labels. Previously, an IP from Pennsylvania labeled Jacoby an atheist, but he supplied source failed to include a positive statement about being an atheist.

I don't think Jacoby needs to be cut down, labeled, or qualified for the very negative review she gave. The review could have come from any person of any religion. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A second hurdle for someone trying to label Jacoby: if you find a reference naming her a secularist or atheist, the book Heaven Is for Real should be mentioned as well. That is, Jacoby's belief system should be described along with her take on the book. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Jacoby's "belief system" and take on the book are found together here [1]. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Your cited source says, "But Susan Jacoby, who bills herself 'The Spirited Atheist' on the blog she writes for On Faith in The Washington Post, cuts to the chase. 'Only in America could a book like this be classified as non-fiction.'" Jacoby's column—it's a newsblog, by the way, not just a blog—was called "The Spirited Atheist". She did not bill herself as such; it was simply the title of her column. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Would this be another group of folks who somehow confused the title of her review of the book for her standing byline [2]? Moreover, If you Google "Susan Jacoby/The Spirited Atheist" You get a listing of her columns supplied by WAPO. By the way, if we shouldn't label ("cut down"??) Jacoby as an atheist or secularist here why should we label or "cut down" Berean Call as a Christian Ministry? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Oh, here we go [3].Badmintonhist (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the original objection rather specious, for at least two reasons. First, the Susan Jacoby page clearly states, "She is an atheist and a secularist." It also says, "In February 2010 she was named to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Honorary Board of distinguished achievers. Also in 2010, she was awarded The Richard Dawkins Award by Atheist Alliance International." If these statements are not true, then significant edits of her page are in order. Second, if "hanging labels" on people is against Wikipedia policy - it's not, as far as I'm aware - then we also need to remove the other "labels" from the article, including "Christian pastor," "a Christian ministry," and "Author and pastor." Because a person's philosophy and world view color how they perceive and respond to things, it's necessary to be honest about who people are to put their comments into perspective. The fact that both Christians and atheists have problems with the book is more informative than just listing a couple of people who didn't like it. I also object to the idea that identifying a person as a secularist or an atheist is a "cut down". I doubt Miss Jacoby considers "atheist" to be a pejorative term - Why should Wikipedia editors treat it as such?

On the subject of her comments about the book, I was troubled to see that the latest edit contains a highly paraphrased version of what she said. While not wholly inaccurate in conveying her comments, it is inferior to a full, unedited quote, IMO (based on most Wikipedia article I've ever seen).

I am going to restore the "labels" (adjectives) to reflect Susan Jacoby's self-identified belief system. I am also going to restore the quote to what she actually said. If this seems unacceptable to any editors, I recommend turning to other members of the Wikipedia community to settle this, rather than engaging in an edit-war. DoctorEric (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that my edits, which (I think) were clearly explained and defended in May (see my post above), were removed in favor of the previous, highly paraphrased quotes and obfuscating language.

Please take note of the last paragraph of my post above. If anyone truly feels that my edits are unfairly "hanging labels" on Susan Jacoby or inaccurately representing what she wrote, he needs to take his grievances to the Wikipedia community for dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. DoctorEric (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links

As nearly as I can tell, the "Jesus Prince of Peace Official Website" external link is to a website which has nothing to do with the book or movie other than that it just sells stuff which happens to be related to the three big Christian books and movies, of late, Heaven is for Real being just one of them. How is this not, in effect spam? I'm removing it; and anyone who wants to put it back should first please post, here, why.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Extra sources

Here's two more sources to add to the criticism section, if anyone wants to work them in or draw from them. I felt the section did not reflect the criticism the book has received from a spectrum of American Christianity, but don't have the opportunity at the moment to do more on it. I did add a brief sentence and link to a review by John MacArthur.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/01/24/i-dont-have-to-read-the-book-or-see-the-movie-to-know-heaven-is-real/?comments
http://concordiatheology.org/2011/05/heaven-is-for-real/ Finarfen (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that there are more criticisms of the book by the Christian community. You may add the ones you mention if you wish, but I think that it's adequate to leave the criticism section as is (2 criticisms by Christian sources, 1 by an atheist), as it shows that the book's claims are not universally accepted by either camp. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean that it needs to provide an exhaustive listing of all opinions on every topic - sometimes an overview is enough, and I think that's the case here. DoctorEric (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Non fiction?

The main article says: "It became the No. 1 best-selling non-fiction paperback." About 5 out of 6 people in the world would say it was fiction. The boy has no evidence whatsoever to back up anything he says, so it is certainly not fact. It is a book cashing in on the fact that America is a country where televangelists made BILLIONS telling people what is now accepted as lies, about God talking to them and miracles, etc. So many gullible people, and so many more willing to take their money. (171.96.1.144 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC))

We follow what is documented by reliable secondary sources. The publishing world classified this book as non-fiction, and so Wikipedia follows suit. I would say that it relates real-life occurrences surrounding the visions and therefore is not a complete novelization or fictionalized account of something. Elizium23 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"non-fiction" is used by NYT best-seller list, which repeats untrammelled the claims of the publisher. ATTRIBUTEPOV can be used to describe POV assertions of fact. The criticism section summarises issues people take with the book, that should be enough. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"About 5 out of 6 people in the world would say it was fiction." You're claiming that over 83% of the world population is atheist? Or, more precisely, "about" 83% of the world doesn't believe in heaven, paradise, or some such thing/place? I really doubt that's anywhere near accurate. For someone who seems interested in "facts," that's a pretty broad assumption. Of course, if you REALLY had faith in your presumptions, you would A) not feel compelled to belittle people who disagree with them, and B) get a user account and sign your posts. I feel your obvious POV gets more than enough time on this page since the single largest section is "Criticism." Cheers! Jororo05 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Please avoid personal attacks. 2. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. Beth Malarkey's comments to John MacArthur on The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven are a good representation of how Christians closer to the Christian publishing industry see things. Criticism is entirely appropriate for this article.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Its still fiction. The kid admitted he made it up. Thanks --RThompson82 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

At least 80% of the worlds population are believers of one kind or another. However this book is non fiction because it describes the con that actually occurred, the contents of the story are complete fiction, which the child now admits, but the selling of the story is very real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.142.103 (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• In support of the anonymous commenter, most people in the world are atheists, religious non-Christians, or Christians who do not subscribe to this particular flavor of Christianity.
• However, it is Malarkey who has disavowed his book about visiting heaven. According to this article, as of January 2015, Burpo still stands by this book. Does the anonymous commenter have updated information on that? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey honey. The kid admitted he made it up. Don't edit on wikipedia. Ever. --RThompson82 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not according to this: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/carlton.burpo.stands.by.heaven.is.for.real/46173.htm. You're thinking of Alex Malarkey, a different kid who did retract his story. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RThompson: Do you have a reliable source for this information? If so please consider doing an appropriate edit to the article. THX1136 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I just made some prose changes to the passage in question - without affecting the meaning, I think. [4] Feel free to undo or amend.

Regarding the "non-fiction" question: That is the name of the category the NYT put it in. So that's what we report. --58.111.120.18 (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heaven Is for Real. 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/20131108031756/http://www.thebereancall.org/content/heaven-real-real-exercise-discernment-0 to http://www.thebereancall.org/content/heaven-real-real-exercise-discernment-0/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2024

Heaven Is for Real → Heaven Is for Real (book) – There is WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC because of the film. Heaven Is for Real needs to be a disambiguation page. Open to be moved to Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back. Theparties (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• The film is based on the book but the film has 10,864 views compared with only 4,596[[5]] for the novel. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternative merge Heaven is for Real (film) into Heaven is for Real page, placing current content under "Novel" header and new content under "Film" Scharb (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The film is notable on its own as the second-best performing Christian film of all time. The book is notable as the source material for the film. Both satisfy the requirements for an article. Theparties (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There are divided opinions. Relisting for more participation. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)