Talk:God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness

Tidy Infobox

I tidied the lists in the Infobox to use the same tidy formatting as the articles for the other two films in this series use. I formatted both lists consistently using the same Template:Plainlist which Template:Infobox film recommends

• My change was reverted but no reason was given.
• My change was reverted again and misleading reason was given, claiming I had added non-notable people to the article
  • My change did not not add or remove any people. I explained that my change was making this article consistent with the two previous films
• My change was reverted and I was told not to change lists according to my personal preference
  • I changed the lists according to previous films and the examples in the documentation

I've been reverted, so now please discuss. Please start by explaining clearly why my edit was reverted. -- 109.76.205.197 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You did not tidy the list, you changed it to a different, semantically identical list. It did not need to be touched.

Your time it was restored, it was explained, both when you were editing for 109.76.155.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and from this address. Agree that it did not modify the list members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it to a different list template that is semantically the same but the markup includes clear spacing and line breaks. It is not different for end readers but it is tidier for editors looking at the markup (any potential mistakes or errors are easier to see and correct). It is what the documentation of the template recommends . It is also what the other articles in the series use. I have provided multiple reason for the change.

You have not given any reasons for why you insist on using the other template without any spacing, why you don't want to use what Template:Infobox film recommends. If you actually believe the other list template is preferable why not use it consistently, for all three articles of the series? If your way of doing things is good why have you still not provided any explanations why do it that way? -- 109.76.205.197 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

To claim that it is tidier for editors is personal opinion. I have given reasons. That you don't like "there was no good reason to change them" is no reason to claim that it is not a reason. Thanks. I'm done here and, again, two different editors have reverted you. Don't change things just because you think they need to change. Change them because there is a policy, guideline, manual of style or documentation requirement to change them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a non-answer. This isn't a well polished finished article, it is a Start class article in need of improvement, by definition is is need of change. Why do you need to micro-manage the markup? There isn't enough here yet to make any a reasonable argument that the article has a set style. The article is not being actively improved.

You just said "Change them because there is a policy, guideline, manual of style or documentation requirement to change them" and while there is not strictly a requirement to change anything ever, the documentation does recommend doing things the way I did it, but you are unwilling or unable to explain why you don't want to do things the way the documentation shows.

If you aren't going to follow WP:BRD and sincerely WP:DISCUSS and provide a reason why other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT then WP:BRD falls apart and it would not be unreasonable for me to restore my changes. You have reverted but you have entirely failed to explain why you reverted. -- 109.76.209.8 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, just because you do not like the answer does not mean it is a non-answer. The reason is simple: it did not have to change and yet you insist on changing it. Don't do that. Ever. It's not my preference, it's a general editing guideline.

Most anons don't bother to discuss which is why I did not bother coming here first. For the record, you're clearly different, so create an account and stick around, and learn to take "no" for an answer rather than trying to wikilawywer your way into your preferred version.

Also, for the record, you were bold, you were reverted and you did not start the discussion and so you failed to follow BRD, not me or the other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion when I got something close to a reasonable edit summary from an editor who wasn't blindly insta-reverting, without even understanding the edit. That wasn't a credible revert.[1] I disagree with you Walter Görlitz, but I can see you are at least making some reasonable effort, however you are choosing not to follow the example of the (Template:Infobox film) documentation, but you are not accepting any of WP:BURDEN to even explain why you would want to do that. (Wikipedia claims to be open, there is no requirement or necessity to create an account, and I will not be using an account.)

If you're going to call me a wiki-lawyer and act like you WP:OWN the article then make some improvements already. You could still easily improve the article by adding a review to the article. If you want to try something difficult you could figure out why none of the producers from the previous films seem to be involved in this one, or add any kind of Production information at all to the article. If people really wanted to use ugly markup we'd be using XML or HTML not wiki syntax that at least in theory is suppose to be nice for humans to read, you know markup with spacing, like sentences with punctuation). Make a little more reasonable effort to improve the article and I'd be less bothered about your apparent need to ignore the documentation and choose such needlessly ugly markup. -- 109.76.209.8 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong on too many fronts here, and I won't even start to respond. Here, let me update the documentation to reflect MOS:ACCESS more closely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Documentation is updated to state that either {{ubl}} or {{plainlist}} can be used. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would you even want to use {{ubl}}? I see your change, I understand that it doesn't fail the minimum accessibility requirements but that only makes it acceptable in terms of accessibility requirements. There a different been good enough and good or better and best. -- 109.76.209.8 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=God%27s_Not_Dead:_A_Light_in_Darkness&diff=828818991&oldid=827932169 Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Using a list template for a list of people is more semantically meaningful than manually breaking up items manually using WP:LINEBREAK, that's why we use Plainlist or Ubl. But you haven't said why you would pick Ubl over Plainlist. -- 109.76.209.8 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It was there first. We don't change things just for the fun of it. Same principle as WP:NOTBROKEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha! "We don't change things just for the fun of it." Wikipedia edits are mercilessly nitpicked, and frequently changed. It is a strange contrast between insisting on strict date and punctuation formatting but being so insistent against using a more tidy template layout. Walter Görlitz knows full well he failed to preview and properly check the output of reFill tool, and it was that mistake that prompted me to try and improve this article and tidy the infobox too. Walter has clearly been here a while, I urge you to revisit the first principles, and read the WP:SIMPLE ruleset, paying close attention to "Try not to revert changes which are not obvious vandalism" and maybe revist WP:GOODFAITH too.

And maybe make some actual improvement to this article. -- 109.76.209.8 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If I failed to vet my edit, that's a shame, and it's good that we have editors who watch articles like this to find and fix problems, but the rest of your claim is supposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Commentary

All of film criticism is commentary, by definition. The uniting theme of the GND series is the Christian persecution complex. This is no exception. Yes, one of two thousand evangelical pastors was threatened with some conse4quences for deliberately flouting the law. Spoiler: no consequences were actually suffered. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in article lead

There are a number of editors who seem intent on characterising this film as "a Christian persecution complex", using Alissa Wilkinson's article as basis for this. I get it, the film sucks, I don't like it either, but this is the wrong way to go about writing the article. This "persecution complex" is an opinion of what the film is about and does not seem reasonably NPOV to me. It is fine to mention the opinion in the Reception section of the article, but this does not belong as a neutral statement of fact in the lead. JordiGH (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Editors are not intent on that, the coverage of this film is. WP:NPOV is about whether or not we summarize what the best sources say, not based on some ideal of "objectivity". If it were just a single source using that kind of language, I might agree that it shouldn't be in the lead, but I added a couple sources (and there are more) to show that it's not one person's opinion -- it's a description that runs throughout reliable source coverage of all of the films. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's about counting sources, I could also find some glowing reviews of the film who do not characterise it as a persecution complex. Do I need to do that to properly challenge that "persecution complex" is not a statement of fact? A persecution complex is a psychological disorder. Were the film makers diagnosed by a psychiatrist? If such a diagnosis were available, we could reasonably call it a fact. JordiGH (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, amazingly, yes: Christians don't think this is about the Christian persecution complex. But the reality-based community do. The fact that this is the one film in the trilogy that is not hilariously badly acted is not in fact relevant to the fact that it follows the other two in reversing the reality of Christian privilege, to pretend that Christians are persecuted in America. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You are showing your biases here by saying that Christians are not reality based. We don't make this kind of value judgement on the Christianity page itself; we shouldn't be making it in an article about a minor crappy film either. Having a snarl word about "Christian persecution complex" right in the lead is extremely jarring. We don't need it there; it's sufficient in the criticism page. Of the 20 reviews of the film on RT, I could find two positive ones and many that don't accuse the film of having a persecution complex. JordiGH (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, no, this is not about Christians being reality-based or not. It is about reality-based commentary on the premise of the film.

since 2008 only one of more than 2,000 mainly evangelical Christian clergy deliberately violating the law has been audited, and none punished.

The movie posits an existential threat to Christian values based on a neutral law of general applicability that forbids tax exempt organisations from campaigning for political candidates. The #1 group of people who challenge and disobey this law are evangelical Christians, yet not one of them has ever been punished for it, and in fact the Trump regime introduced a policy forbidding the IRS form even looking at it.

JzG, subpoenaing a few sermons could seem like harassment to some reality-based people, just like stop-and-frisk without any actual charges can be intimidation. Whether that's persecution or not is an opinion. How can you be so unable to see this? JordiGH (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You can certainly make a move showing how this blatant consequence-free violation of the law is a perfect example of Christian privilege. This movie does the exact opposite. Hence: it is not reality-based, and reality-based commentary on the movie, notes it. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's about counting sources, I could also find some glowing reviews of the film who do not characterise it as a persecution complex. - it's not about counting sources, but about WP:WEIGHT. When we look at the best sources (not all sources), what do they say about it? That's what our article should reflect. When it comes to film reviews, a decent [albeit somewhat arbitrary] standard to use is the "top critics" on Rotten Tomatoes. Obviously not all reviews are created equally -- some are published by advocacy organizations included in order to push a particular point rather than to review it as a film, but those aren't typically among the "top critics". If you would like to take the body of good sources and argue that mentioning this doesn't constitute due WP:WEIGHT, you're welcome to do so.

Christians don't think this is about the Christian persecution complex - to be fair, this film is intended to appeal to a specific subset of Christians. There are an awful lot of Christians who do not believe they are being persecuted for their beliefs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which sources say it. It's still a snarl word. I could find a lot of sources that call a film "schlocky", as you presumably yourself grepped through RT reviews looking for the word "complex". Would you then say "Such and such is a schlocky[3][4][5] film about such and such" in the lead of an article? JordiGH (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what grepped is, but the first time I looked into this I opened all of the topic critics and looked at how they described the film. A significant number (if not majority) of them described the same thing. Sometimes without the word "complex" but describing Christian persecution complex. It's a theme, not a single word descriptor. If you find it to be a snarl word, however, what would you propose as alternative wording of that theme? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, "grep" as a verb is Unix jargon for "search", my bad. How about "follows the theme of portraying Christians as a persecuted group"? JordiGH (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, that fails NPOV, because they aren't. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, it doesn't matter if they are or not. That's an opinion. We just have to say what the film is doing, which is a fact. Opinions belong in the Reception section. JordiGH (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, all of film criticism is opinion. The idea that Christians are persecute in America is also an opinion - just a hilariously obviously wrong one. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG So if you acknowlege it's film criticism, why are you using film criticism to state what a movie is? If you find reviews that said Iron Man is a bad film would you begin an article with "Iron Man is a bad[1][2] film adapted from the Marvel comics ..." JordiGH (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, it is a characterisation (and an accurate one) of the exact nature of the reality-reversal that underpins the movies. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

My overall point is that without a psychological evaluation, "Christian persecution complex" is an insult, not a statement of fact, so it should not be presented as a factual description of the film. It doesn't matter how many people use the insult; the article itself shouldn't repeat the insult without contextualising it. JordiGH (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, no, it's a critique, not an insult. When a movie is based on the "persecution" of one of two thousand evangelicals who deliberately flout the law, because one of them once nearly suffered some consequences, that's the Christian persecution complex. There's no more accurate way to describe it. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG how are you so unable to see that the events of the film being persecution or not is an opinion, not a fact? How are you so seemingly unable to distinguish your own opinions and the opinions of film reviewers from actual facts? It's undeniable that the film portrays Christians as being persecuted. Without a citation from a psychologist who has diagnosed them, it is not a fact that this portrayal is a psychlogical delusion.

As you say so yourself, it's a critique. Critiques belong in the critique section.

They already argue all the time that Wikipedia is being unfair to them. Don't give them more ammo fer crissakes. JordiGH (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

JordiGH, nope. Criticism sections are bad. This is a movie based on a reversal of reality, and we say that, because it's true. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

What have RS said?Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, exactly. We cite RS saying that it's part of the christian persecution narrative that runs through all three movies. All three, in fact, are based on cartoon reversals of real events, presenting opposition to christian privilege as oppression. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If that is what RS say, do do we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Here from Jordi's social media (hi Jordi! The media posting was not attempting to canvass in any way, by the way, merely to report on how they are crazy, those Wikipedia editors). My own opinion is that the description of the movie as fitting a certain theme of discourse common to the Christian right is accurate. However, our article on that theme of discourse, Christian persecution complex, is named by people hostile to those beliefs, and named after a more general topic persecution complex that is explicitly a form of insanity. It seems likely to me that the name was chosen in order to demean those beliefs. The problem is not the characterization of the movie, it is the name used for the link to the article about that characterization. Unfortunately I did not find any redirects to Christian persecution complex that might be used instead of its main title. Surely those people have a name that they use among themselves for this system of beliefs, and surely it is not "persecution complex". Maybe we could make some effort to find out whether there is a less-hostile (or, if you prefer, more in-universe) way of referring to these beliefs, and attempt to refer to them more respectfully? I don't know what that less-hostile name might be, and I don't expect Jordi does either (if you are thinking of Jordi as being from the US evangelical right, you are mistaken in multiple respects). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, when a group flatly refuses to acknowledge a problem with their internal narrative, the description will inevitably be driven by those outside the group who have no such problem.

The term "Christian persecution complex" is an accurate and succinct name for the worldview that holds white evangelical Christians to be uniquely persecuted in a country where they can ignore much of the law pretty much with impunity, because they have essentially captured two branches of government and obtained for themselves at worst a right of veto and in most cases actually complete control despite being a minority in the country.

When a 40ft cross is not a Christian symbol, corporations have sincerely held religious beliefs, incorrect opinions about birth control are protected by law, and the Supreme Court has, in one year and without actually even hearing most cases, invented an entirely new principle of law whereby a law is presumptively unconstitutional if it does not give organised religion the most favourable status of any activity or group, then it's safe to say that religion is not being oppressed.

Tell you who are oppressed though: the religiously unaffiliated. Last time I looked there is one atheist in Congress. In the 117th Congress there are I think 261 Republicans. Of these, exactly three are not Christian. Two of those are Jewish. 3.5% of the House is religiously unaffiliated, compared to 23% for the population as a whole. And, despite having won the Presidential popular vote only once since 1988, 2/3 of the Supreme Court is made up of hard-right religious activists selected by the Federalist Society. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that you are taking a very non-neutral point of view on this yourself in your "flatly refuses to acknowledge THE TRUTH" approach to the issue. It is not an issue of mathematical truth, where one side is correct and the other incorrect, but a question of political value. These people see value in having a community of religious belief, and in having the ability to enforce belief on a community basis by legal action against people of different belief than theirs. I very strongly disagree, but I do think that their assessment that this kind of community is threatened is non-delusional. So we can at least do them the respect of describing their beliefs neutrally, as a disagreement about the appropriate way to run communities, rather than using naming that tries to pretend they are insane. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, i was actually paraphrasing you. But consider: Christians, especially in the US, have monumental privilege, yet they make entire series of films claiming how persecuted they are. As a result, they are accused of harbouring a persecution complex. Nothing about that seems unreasonable to me. Though soliciting people via social media to "fix" our "bias" is often seen as a problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Egregious failure of WP:AGF noted. Yes, in the US they have enormous privilege. They see that privilege as being under threat. Are they incorrect to do so? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, eh? You noted the appeal to social media, I merely commented on it. You also noted that we can at least do them the respect of describing their beliefs, I agree - but they don't, instead they refuse to acknowledge that the narrative of Christian persecution is out of line with the compelling evidence of massive and increasing Christian privilege in America.

Obviously I'm expressing myself clumsily, because we seem to be talking past each other despite being, as far as I can tell,in fundamental agreement about most of this. My point is solely that when a community believes a false narrative but everyone outside the community readily identifies it as false, we don't need to pander to the believers and can in fact call it a false narrative. We do this all the time with anti-vaxers, for example.

I know it's a trite old saw, but "the loss of privilege feels like oppression" would absolutely cover this, except that right now there is no loss of privilege. In fact, it's going hard the other way! Guy (help! - typo?) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a subject which many reliable sources call a Christian/Evangelical "persecution complex" and which many reliable sources note as a theme in this film series. It seems like the question of whether the name of that phenomenon is called "Christian persecution complex" or something else is outside the scope of this particular talk page, isn't it? Perhaps a move discussion at Talk:Christian persecution complex? Personally, I don't have a problem with using different language, but the article it would link to is still called Christian persecution complex (and different language would need to capture how the RS describe it, which is not simply "depicts the persecution of Christians"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, fair point well made. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Christian persecution complex"

So, JzG is absolutely adamant about arguing that putting a snarl world and an insult as a statement of fact about this film stays. He openly states his biases, he has a huge page about them ( User:JzG/Politics). He's an admin. He's out to make sure that those Christians sons of bitches get told in their face that they're delusional. I can't win against this admin. What's my recourse? How do I talk to the manager's manager? The page is in the current state because of one stubborn admin who presents his opinions as facts.

People often complain that a Wikipedia page can reach a biased state because a single individual with too much time and power sits there making sure that a page reflects their opinions. I normally stick to less controversial subjects, but now I also want to make sure that this one page that I found is not as biased as JzG wants to make sure it is. JordiGH (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You have skimped on your research, and (ironically) projected your bias on others. RS say this is an example of the christian persecution complex. You dislike this. What a shame. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Because JzG is involved in this dispute, he won't be using his admin powers here and is an editor like the rest of us. If an admin abuses their power, there are venues like WP:AN, but I would advise against escalating to such a venue at this stage. You may wish to pursue one of the dispute resolution mechanisms we have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, in fact I am taking an adminbreak and don't even have the tools right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

After a couple of days, I decided I'm tired, and I don't care. You guys wanna to very neutrally and very NPOV tell Christians how deluded and mentally unhealthy they are, you got it. You sure showed them the truth and the neutrality. Good job, JzG, your zealous patrol of this article paid off, those Christian motherfuckers are getting what they deserved. Never compromise, never surrender, not by a single inch. GG. JordiGH (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)