Talk:God's Not Dead (film)/Urban Legend

Urban Legend

It seems the first thing most people notice about this film is the similarity between it and a certain urban legend.[1] In fact, I've noticed it from all sides, Christian and Atheist. I am of the opinion that these similarities are enough to warrant the inclusion of their mention in the article, and I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to weigh in on the discussion.

• Atheist pointing out the similarities[2]
• Christian pointing out the similarities[3]

I haven't done so yet because I am would like to see sources based in the film industry making the comparison, and I haven't noticed any who outright say it, just those who repeatedly imply it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment Tonight describes the film as being "based off a chain email popular ten years ago". Probably should be noted.LM2000 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

One Christian source, one Atheist source, and one film industry source, it's good enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Patheos blog links do not meet WP:RS and are unacceptable for this article - they are self published blogs and are unreliable. The one by ET, that User:LM2000 is fine and I've added that back in the article, in the appropriate section. Furthermore, you are violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with your addition of addition of this reference as well as this link. Please undo your edits. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The patheos blogs are quite acceptable per WP:RS, as they are cited in references to statements about what the author wrote. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about this. In addition, there was no synthesis of information in the article to claim was improper. The article stated that several sources noted a similarity. Three of the sources cited explicitly noted the similarity, and the remaining three sources outlined that to which the film was compared. That is not a synthesis, nor original research. You might argue that including the links to the urban legends and chick tracts constitutes that, but then you have 'original research' that ceases to be original research by the removal of sources, which is nonsensical. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)