Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• The Many Faces of Jesus
• Gay Jesus film hoax

)

• ... that a pornographic script about Jesus led to condemnations by a pope and a queen, a firebombing, and the writer's ban from the UK—and spawned a hoax that led thousands per week to demand the ban of a non-existent gay Jesus film? Source: Pope, queen, bombing, and ban from UK all in Dean 1980. That it was specifically a firebombing is in Rorich 1973. Connection to hoax and "thousands per week" both in Simbro 1984.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Badlam; Template:Did you know nominations/Triste (film)
  • Comment: I'm a few hours past 7 days on Gay Jesus film hoax. I was hoping to get in under the wire, but I didn't realize just how much there would be to write about The Many Faces of Jesus. I beg the reviewer's mercy. Noting that the WP:DYKCNN script flags this hook as over the character count, but it fails to account for the WP:DYKMOS rule "only text in the the first boldlink counts toward the limit". With that accounted for, this is precisely 200 199 characters of prose, which is the shortest I could get it for such a wild and sprawling story. QPQs koming shortly done 02:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC). Revised slightly (net -1 char.) for more accurate summary of Jesus' depiction in The Many Faces 20:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC).

Created by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 08:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Many Faces of Jesus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This is wonderful. I confer my mercy upon you; the articles are new enough. QPQs are done, hook's certainly interesting, articles are seaworthy. Earwig's happy - couldn't see any copyvios. Thank you for the excellent nomination!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

GA todo

• Synopsis, more description of the screenplay qua screenplay

  Conclusion: There really doesn't seem to be RS coverage of it as an artistic work, beyond what's already discussed. Stet. 07:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit more background

   Done 08:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Impact on Danish attitudes to pornography, blasphemy, and censorship, esp. Muhammad cartoons controversy

  Muhammad cartoons seems to be the main thing, with rest implied. 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hehehe, this looks fun. Happy you ended up nomming it. I'll try to get a review in over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Criterion #1: Well-written

• Fascinating use of section titles; this isn't against MoS or anything, I've just never seen them used like that. Might steal it.

Lede

• Not many problems. I might put "alternately The Sex Life of Jesus or The Love Affairs of Jesus" in parens to break up a very long initial sentence.
  • I think the commas and boldfacing make it easy enough for readers' eyes to scan to the verb.
• Wikilink Revenue Minister to Minister of National Revenue since that is a very strange title that readers might not recognize.
  •  Done

Background etc.

• I think you're missing a semicolon after "Thorsen was fascinated with both Jesus and sex", and should uncapitalize "Creating" after the cite.
  • Oh, good catch! I actually just forgot to finish that sentence.  Fixed

1973 etc.

• No problems here.

1975 etc.

• No problems here.

1978 etc.

• do we need the "thusly"? I think we can just say "Jack Stevenson summarized the reaction:"
  • I think "thusly" sets a better tone for introducing one scholar's opinion.
    • yeah fair enough I guess! All other corrections good. Generalissima (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• No problems here.

Criterion #2: Verifiable

• Everything is correctly cited in-line.
• Essentially nothing returned by Earwig.
• Doing a few source spot-checks;
  • 75; Klausen, 2009; pp 108-108

    Checks out, confirms cite.

  • 32; Reuter 1976a

    Confirms cite.

  • 50, Eliaser 1976

    Confirms cite.

  • 61, CP 1978a

    Confirms cite.

  • 64, Wilson 1980

    Confirms cite.

Criterion #3: Broad in its coverage

Absolutely. Short of a summary of the screenplay itself (which from what I understand is not avaliable), there is nothing I am missing on this story.

There are copies out there of Thorsens Jesusfilm, which I could in theory get my hands on and find a Danish-speaker to help me with, and I was tempted to do that for a bit while writing this. But in the end what I concluded is that there is essentially no coverage of the screenplay qua screenplay, and basically everyone reacting to the screenplay was only reacting to the idea of it without having read it (except, apparently, Mary Whitehouse), so it would not be due weight to say much more about its plot than is already in the article from secondhand accounts.

Criterion #4: Neutral

Very well done, avoids casting any negative scope on the film, rather summarizing negative responses.

Criterion #5: Stable

Yep, no issues here.

Criterion #6: Illustrated

All image copyrights check out. Makes me wish for a nice image of JC himself in the lede though.

General thoughts

Seems like just a couple of extremely minor prose corrections and we're good to go. @Tamzin: Generalissima (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Thanks so much for reviewing! :) I've responded above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Seems we're all good to go here. Generalissima (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Queen

Is a quote from a Buckingham Palace spokesperson the same thing as the Queen herself publicly commenting? Maybe I'm being too pedantic here, but the Free Lance-Star source is actually her spokesman saying "Her Majesty finds this proposal quite as obnoxious as most of her subjects do" - did she actually use the word "obnoxious" in the letters that were sent out in response to the NVALA complaints? It's also perhaps a little inaccurate to describe it as a "rare public comment" when the spokesman said the Queen "did not intend to make a public statement on the matter." Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Sources all treat it as a statement by the queen, even if she wasn't the one to say the words. I think that "public" in the sense the spokesman used refers to just that distinction: that she did not intend to say it with her own mouth. But obviously it was public in the sense most people use that term, in that it was deliberately directed at a wide audience without expectation of privacy. I do agree the spokesman detail is important, though. I've clarified that in body and lede, and also changed out the ambiguous wording "rare public comment". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)