Talk:Flywheel (film)

I don't do assessment yet

I don't do assessment yet, but the plot doesn't give me a fairly good idea on the film. At least try to give a bit more plot, so it's worth class B (in my opinion). Hoverfish 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a very strong start but not a B class article. The plot section is a stub, and all the other sections could do with more information. The style of the article needs to be more encyclopedic as well. The article is a start that could easily be turned into a B.--Supernumerary 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep the Article

I'd say keep the article because it was the first of three films made by the McKendrik brothers whose movies Facing the Giants and Fireproof have won many awards and since they're still making movies I'd say it's better to improve this article and hang onto it instead of removing it and having to remake it later. I'm removing the deletion tag because it says that it can be removed if the deletion is contested for any reason and it states on the proposed deletion page that that type of deletion tag is only "for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable" Invmog (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry; I said "McKendrik brothers;" I mean "Kendrik brothers" Invmog (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1 The McKendrik bros are so non-notable that they don't even deserve articles (the only minorly notable article related to them is Fireproof, which grossed high for an independent film).

2None of their films (including this one) have won any real awards (they have one a few meaningless awards from Christians organizations, but that doesn't establish notability). Critically all of the films have been considered very negative by nearly all mainstream sources as well (in fact Flywheel is so non-notable that it isn't even listed on Rotten Tomatoes).

3 You will need to provide real evidence of mainstream notability. In fact nearly every article related to the Kendrick brothers is up for deletion for being outright spam (the only exception is Fireproof).--SuaveArt (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If this film article is not notable enough to stand by itself then could there be an article made called "Kendrik Brothers" and have a list of their films with plot summaries on it? Invmog (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, SuaveArt, after consultation, I no longer contest the deletion of this article for now if you'll be sure to let Flywheel (disambiguation) have a link to Alex Kendrik's article. So, go ahead and delete it. Happy editing! Invmog (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly contest. There are literally hundreds of news articles on Google News about this. It just needs some work. Do some research and then improve the article, please. American Eagle (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After more review and the numerous improvements which American Eagle has made to this article I withdraw my previous "no longer contest the deletion" and favor keeping the article. Invmog (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Austin became a Christian

There was a sentence in the opening paragraph speaking of how during the film Jay Austin "became a more devout Christian" which is ridiculous to have the "more devout" in there because he wasn't a Christian at all, not even to the most liberal means of defining who is a Christian (according to Christian.) Besides, the film-makers made it clear that he became a Christian in the movie, which is why I have the removed the "more devout" part, and I've removed it now for the third time, each time with an explanation, which is why I'm creating this section in case anyone contests my actions. Oh, and yes, he did cheat his pastor before he was saved, but the film hints that he only went to church once every two weeks because his wife was a Christian; he was not. In fact, he even put empty envelopes in the offering plate. Invmog (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Saved" (aka being one of the Elect) doesn't equal "Christian" in general contexts. It's a purely evangelical Protestant (I believe it originated in Calvinism) definition of Christian which doesn't convey a worldwide view of the subject. In layman terms, since he attends a Christian church, that makes him a follower of the religion of Christianity, regardless of whether he is "saved" or one of the "Elect".--SuaveArt (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So an atheist who attends a Christian church is a Christian, too? Seregain (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's basically an oxymoron and it shows how little your understanding of the worldwide definition of "Christian". Basically you believe there should be a "litmus" test for "Christian" (meaning just identifying with the religion isn't enough if according to you, the individual doesn't pass the litmus test). That would be like me asserting that the 9/11 hijackers "weren't Muslims" because they visited a strip bar the night before the terror attack (which violates the teachings of Islam), and is nonsenical. I changed the link to born-again Christian.--SuaveArt (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tone down the hostility, please. I was simply asking a question based upon the parameters you set. "...since he attends a Christian church, that makes him a follower of the religion of Christianity, regardless of whether he is "saved" or one of the "Elect"." According to that sentence, an unsaved atheist can attend a Christian church and be called a Christian. Also, please do not presume to dictate what I do or do not know or believe. There is a specific definition as to who is a Christian and who is not and it most certainly has nothing to do with church attendance! A truly devout or born-again Christian can be someone who, for some reason or another (e.g. location, health, etc.), cannot often attend church. Conversely, someone who regularly attends church can be someone who is just going through the motions with no real belief or conviction behind it. (I know for a fact that my church has and had many in the first group and I would guess we probably have some in the second group.) In the end, though, your solution to the issue was excellent. Seregain (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think SuaveArt came up with a most excellent solution so it's all settled and needn't be reopened. Invmog (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt, you told me to look at the Christian page and their definition of who is and who isn't a Christian. I did so, and this is what I found;

"Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, and public opinion pollsters define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian."

Well, in the film the Sherwood Baptist Church team clearly portrayed that Jay Austin did not 'sincerely believe himself to be Christian,' so even according to the liberal/secular view he wasn't a Christian in the beginning of the film. That should be evidence enough, but I might as well mention that seeing as how Baptists made the film then in the film-maker's opinion they would

"only those persons who have been "born again" or have made a personal commitment to follow Jesus irrespective of their denomination."

But that's irrelevant because even according to the 'public opinion pollsters' and 'liberals' and 'secularists' someone would have to 'sincerely' believe themselves a Christian in order to be one, which Austin wasn't, but he got saved during the film. Therefore I'm going to remove the 'more devout' from before 'Christian' for the fourth time. Invmog (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.- To make sure that SauveArt and I don't keep on reverting each other's edits on this subject I'm informally requesting for comments. Here's what it's about: in the first sentence it says,

"...film about a car salesman who intentionally overcharges his customers until reaching a turning point in his life where he decides to end his shady business practices and become a Christian."

SauveArt wanted to/wants to change that last part to "a more devout Christian" citing that my assumed 'more conservative view' of who qualifies as a Christian doesn't matter in a neutral article and that I should look at broader meanings of who qualifies as a Christian on the Christian page, which I did and the rest I explained yesterday in the above comments. Hopefully we can find a nice, happy, neutral, consensus. Happy editing! Invmog (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SuaveArt, for changing it to 'born-again Christian'; I'm perfectly satisfied with that. Thanks also for holding me accountable to make sure that I wasn't using original research or just making stuff up. Invmog (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Suaveart is mistaken. A Christian is a person who is a member of a Christian church. There is a difference between attendance and membership. Trust me, I attended a church for many years and was not a Christian. I may attend services in future or other events, and it still won't make me a Christian. The 9/11 hijackers analogy was poor. Auntie E. (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're suppose to only use the talk pages for discussions which will help the article, and the discussion for this particular improvement on the article has been settled, so let's all be WP: CIVIL, and work on improving this and other articles, while WP:AGF. Invmog (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)