Talk:The God Makers

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really a bad article. I would like to propose some changes here before editing. Starting with the beginning, I propose the following:

The God Makers is a film produced in 1982 by Ed Decker and Jeremiah Films. The film takes a highly critical view of the Mormon Church, its practices, and its teachings. It has been controversial among Mormons and non-Mormons since its release, provoking passionate debates about its veracity and message.

To me, this seems a rather accurate and neutral POV manner of introducing this film. 74.100.22.216 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, with a suggestion for an additional tweak. It is rather poor form to refer to the church as "the Mormon Church." It would more closely follow the church's requested style guide to refer to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I realize this is a bit long, but even "the LDS Church" is more neutral than "the Mormon Church." I would strongly encourage following this convention throughout. Thanks. Kingsfold (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I suggest deletion of the paragraph entitled "Criticism of Mormon Reaction to Godmakers Film." The author of this section writes, "they have not demonstrated nor proven that the picture contains prevarications," when in the article itself, just five sections earlier, we can read, "this is inaccurate, since the Chinese characters for 'Mormon' (摩门) is (sic) merely phonetic and does (sic) not actually have a meaning." With the quota for prevarications fulfilled, other competent analyses of the film, also documenting several inaccuracies (each), can be found at http://en.fairmormon.org/The_God_Makers and http://www.lightplanet.com/response/godmaker.htm

Lastly, I suggest deletion of the "Response from the Anti-Defamation League" paragraph: (A) The page found at the "[3]" link does not pertain directly to The God Makers, but rather a different video production. (B) While the linked article implies that The Godmakers is hateful, it does not say that The Godmakers contains "hate," as is claimed by the article. (C) The ADL statement (accessible at http://www.lightplanet.com/response/nccj.htm#bnai) says, "[T]he film repeatedly refers to the LDS Church as a cult, yet these individuals cases show people who have freely and knowingly joined the Church and just as freely chose to leave--hardly the mark of a cult." Most would consider this a specific example of hate, in the form of bearing false witness. (So... example provided = claim proved?)

Available to view?

I am wondering, since it's a couple decades old now, has this film been released to the public to view for free yet, or is the copyright holder still asking for sale money? Tyciol (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo&feature=channel_page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.103.194 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The video linked above has been removed, but I found another link at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H52Ix9YIVE4. Kingsfold (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Currently The God Makers redirects here. I think it's more appropriate to move this article there. Having film in parenthesis only seems necessary if there were something else using the name to help disambiguate from it. Since this is the only known thing going by that name, I think it would be much simpler to remove the parenthesis via a move there. This location can be redirected there, unlike the other way around as it currently is. Obviously the edit history needs to be retained so redirection is much more important than deletion. Tyciol (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it is listed as "film" is because there is a book by the same name. This article only deals with the movie and not the book. If you wish to move it, then this material should be noted as only dealing with the film version. Bochica (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback of edits by Frank777w

I have just rolled back a series of edits by User:Frank777w because the substantial portions of the edits appear to belong on a talk page and not in the main article. The article is not the place to discuss points of view. Please follow Wikipedia policy and discuss proposed major and/or controversial changes to the article here on this page. Thanks, Jusdafax 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Update - I see Frank 777w has chosen to revert my reverts without discussion here. Regrettable. Jusdafax 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Frank777w is constantly vandalizing this article. I suggest we get a moderator involved.--Mr. Erik (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Rollback by Jusdafax and Mr. Erik

Mr. Erik predicates, "User:Frank777w is constantly vandalizing this article. I suggest we get a moderator involved.--Mr. Erik" (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC). Mr. Erik accuses me of vandalism and throws a literary hand grenade at me. However, he doesn't provide a shard of proof that vandalism has taken place. Vandalism means to damage, hurt, partially destroy. Where, Mr. Erik, is the proof of this? What damage have I done to the article. Your claim to me appears to be spurious. The changes that I interpolated to the text of the article were for providing more balance for the article, the "God Makers." I am not pushing "points of view" as Mr. Erik asserts, rather I am trying to moderate the tone of the article, which is heavily biased against the film. The additions that I inserted, are necessary to uphold Wikipedia's desire to see a more professional, i.e. bias-free information zone. Let me say that I infer this from Wikipedia's statements. I believe that Mr. Erik and Jusdafax may be attempting to censor the article to favor their point of view. I saw the movie. Did they? If they did, then they need to all the more try to avoid bias in their discussion. Frank777wFrank777w (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank777w (talk • contribs)

Allow me to assure you that I have not seen the movie, know little about the Mormon Church, and have no stake in anything other than helping build an encyclopedia. You are welcome to discuss the issue further here, on this talk page, and build a consensus for what changes you advocate to this article (reading Wikipedia:Consensus may help you, as well as WP:RS. Right now I lean towards Mr. Erik's views, and feel, as he appears to, that you may well need a moderator to be involved in this matter. But do try to talk it over here first. Right now the article is hardly encyclopedic, wouldn't you say? Here's a hint: do you have any sources for reference, that are not involved with the Mormon Church, that you can cite? That would be a good start, and it's the core of how Wikipedia operates. Jusdafax 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A tip on signing. Add 4 tildes (4 of these ~) and your signature will be added with no further effort. Jusdafax 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief further thought; even if sources are from the Mormon church, they could be used to cite material to counter the movie's views, as you appear to be concerned with doing. Jusdafax 22:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about the article belongs here, not the article. Wikipedia does not do commentaries of films. That's called original research. You're free to write a commentary on this film, publish it, and then write a section mentioning your commentary. Distruptive edits, like yours, fall under vandalism.--Mr. Erik (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to commend Jusdafax for his honest admission as to not having seen the film, as well as his polite comments, to which I honestly will give consideration. Also, thank you for some needed technical advice. However, in Mr. Erik's criticism of my redaction of the article, again the issue that arises is "proof." Mr. Erik states, "distruptive edits, like yours, fall under vandalism." I cannot concur with this. Mr. Erik does not prove that any additions that I made to the article constitute "vandalism," or that they are "disruptive." How are they disruptive? They honestly seek to acknowledge different paradigms that may exist on the subject, and for the purpose of lessening bias in the God Makers article. Again, as I stated to Jusdafax, I believe my contributions to the article brought additional points of view, and were correctly inserted for removing bias in the article.Frank777w (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. Disregarding these rules and guidelines is inherently disruptive. Putting discussion about the article in the article is vandalism. Putting personal commentaries in a summary is vandalism, unless you're just ignorant then it's technically not. There's nothing wrong with putting published information or opinion in article. You can't just put your personal thoughts into an article. That's what blogs are for. Whether or not I have seen the film is irrelevant. If you're still confused you can always press the help button.--Mr. Erik (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)