Talk:Felix Manalo (film)

Bias (POV) issues?

I am marking this article with a {{pov}} tag because it seems to be written in an unbalanced, pro-Iglesia ni Cristo fashion. Calling the movie "epic" even though it has not yet been released, and referring to the InC's "humble" beginnings, are just two things which could probably be toned down. See this related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Puffery and POV has more discussion about the same problems. Elizium23 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

INC Portal shows tithing?

There hasn't been any evidence of the sort outside of rumors and their spokesperson has come out many times saying there's not tithing at all. The most recent of this was when Wall Street Journal did a recent interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.80.139 (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Ang Sugo: The Last Messenger → Felix Manalo (film) – According to reliable secondary sources, this is the name of the film. Disambiguation is needed from the article about the subject. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources needed for cast, crew, runtime

Since this is an unreleased film as of my writing, we will need to make sure that references are provided for all cast and crew, as well as other aspects of the film such as runtime, that are normally not known until the point of release. Unreferenced information is subject to immediate removal per WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Do I really have to mention that an Instagram photo is not a reliable secondary source? Elizium23 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring discussion

@Crossleague: and @TheRedPenOfDoom:

Both of you should know better than to have engaged in the kind of edit war that just happened. I could have blocked both of you, but lucky for y'all I'm feeling pretty lazy.

The two of you need to sort out whether the contested source meets WP:RS. WP:RSN can help with that. Another possible avenue would be to instead find a similar review that both of you can agree meet WP:RS, but that's just a suggestion. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2015 a

The review by blogger LionHeartTV be removed as failing to meet the WP:RS and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response.

Or at a minimum the IP's edit [1] should be reverted to indicate there is concern about the sources that has not been addressed by community consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This would have been easier if you specifically explained how it fails WP:RS, but looking in to it, the source appears to be a blog. If Crossleague can provide evidence that LionHeartTV has editorial oversight, then it may be reinstated. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2015 b

that the plot section be removed as a cut and paste copyright violation of [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Or it could be rephrased, as I have done. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

How to make clear this is not a "bio pic" so much as a propaganda film

We need to make clear in the lead and in the production section that [ http://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3WVK#sthash.Ap7jZyiP.dpuf The script was written by the head of evangelism of INC and I had to be guided as the story of the film can’t veer away from their church doctrine ] - this is not a bio pic that explores the life of the subject so much as hagiographic propaganda dictated by the church. Suggestions on how to present that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is propaganda or not has not been specified by any reputable sources. And no, Rappler is not a decent source because of their clear anti-INC stance on things.2601:601:8000:29A0:3126:C13:9F16:199A (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The films director has made it clear that it is a propaganda film - read his quote. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No he didn't. He merely said that they were there to make sure that doctrines were accurate. Just as there are technical advisors for period clothing, ancient customs, Spanish, Nihongo, and the like is it too much to ask for there to also be advisors in the film to prevent things like accidentally including urban legends like the non-existent tithing into the story because of preconceived notions? The Passion of the Christ, another more prominent film surrounding a religious figure, had technical advisors for Aramaic, Jewish religious procedures, Roman military equipment, and so on, so what Felix Manalo did during production regarding technical advice is nothing out of the ordinary. Or would you prefer movies where Gandhi eats fish, or Muhammad say Allah is the Moon God, or Joseph Smith support the Trinity, ad nauseam?2601:601:8000:29A0:3126:C13:9F16:199A (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The film appears to be sold as a biopic and is referred to as such by sources. Even Rappler refers to it as a biopic, and that is about the only source that starts to come close to calling it propaganda. Even if Rappler supposedly has some anti-INC stance, it meets the standards . Interpreting the director's quote to call this a propaganda piece in Wikipedia's voice would be WP:Original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that we take out all reference to "bio pic" but that we make it clear the church's overall control of the content (which makes it propaganda by default whether we or any other source explicitly use the term). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require impeccable sourcing. In order to make such an case for this film as "propaganda" you are going to need at least a few absolutely rock-solid WP:RS explicitly spelling this kind of thing out. Ian thomson is correct. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is the most UN-extraordinary of claims to state that when the church has written the script and has complete control over the content of the film it is "propaganda" for the church. it would be extraordinary to claim that it wasn't. And we have "rock solid" sourcing - the director stating so in plain language at a press conference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the New Testament is where even secular archeologists and historians get most of their data about Jesus, so by that metric all biopics about Christ or even the Apostles that stay close to scripture would be propaganda. This isn't limited to Christianity, many people throughout history mostly or even only have information about them from their own supporters. Historians are not precogs so they cannot anticipate who will be a historically prominent person in the future, so until enough attention is warranted by an individual you're going to be stuck with using data from people who did know them before the general population did.2601:601:8000:29A0:E157:C915:3AC9:B49C (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicking sources for the ratings?

Of the three ratings given in the page, one or 33% of it is from a source with clear anti-INC sentiments that should be apparent just by reading their articles compared to other stations. I don't think two negative scores out of three, one of which is clearly biased due to the network's agenda, can be objectively described as "heavily panned". Additionally, while Rappler is written down there, I fail to see IMDB for some reason. Does a long-established, international reference like IMDB now bear less weight than a recent, local, clearly biased blog masquerading as a legitimate news outlet?2601:601:8000:29A0:3126:C13:9F16:199A (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that Rappler somehow fails our reliable sourcing. For example, LionHeartTV failed because they really are a blog that lacks any indication of editorial oversight. Claiming that Rappler supposedly has an anti-INC stance does not work, especially when you've provided no proof whatsoever for that claim.

IMDB is user generated, and open to abuse by a few people voting multiple times. Reviews need to be written by professionals. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Check these previous articles they issued which provides no evidence for their claims which paint the organization like an introverted mafia of sorts, their response to the recent public assembly claiming it was anchored on supposedly false information and that the government was merely doing its job when in fact the country's Justice Secretary violated several protocols regarding how city-level cases should be handled especially after the NBI already concluded that the case was closed and this during a time when the Mamasapano Massacre requires closer attention due to actually having solid evidence that 44 officers died. Rappler even uses weasel words like "an insider" or an "INC member" in many of their articles. They also used the blog incsilentnomore as a reference, the same blog whose evidence has been revealed by places like theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com or iglesianicristoreadme.blogspot.com to actually be either using fabricated data, official statements that were then cut in such a way as to send a different message, or images misattributed to other people. Trying to get unbiased news from Rappler when it comes to the INC is like getting news about Democrats from Fox News, there is a conflict of interest inherent to it. Rappler isn't even shy about showing its colors as a "liberal" and "progressive" network if we're going to be honest.2601:601:8000:29A0:E157:C915:3AC9:B49C (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting sources can use "weasel words" , Wikipedians cannot. Reliable sources can use primary sources and other sources that Wikipedia cannot because they have expertise and editorial oversight that Wikipedians do not. Wikipedia can use sources that are "bias" when that "bias" represents a significant portion of the mainstream views of the subject . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Speaking of reviews, I found some more: one published by the Philippine Online Chronicles, and another by the Philippine Entertainment Portal. Do any of them count? Alexius08 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)