Talk:Jesus (1979 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV Troubles

First, the statistics section is ridiculous. 4 billion people is impossible. Second, where did the criticisms section go? Third, The phrase "decisions for Christ", as used in stats. section, is clearly not NPOV.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia and helping to improve the quality of this entry. Please remember to sign your comments, and may I suggest signing up to get a user account since anonymous entries are going to show up as an IP address. (This will make it easier for everyone to follow in a dialogue.)

News

You are correct in pointing out a discrepancy with the "4 billion people" number in the statistics section. The published stat (remember, Wikipedia can only quote published sources, so rather you agree with a stat or not it's all we have to work is) claims that the film's viewership is over 5 billion--one person who sees the film multiple times gets counted each time the film is viewed. Whoever wrote in the article "Including unique and non-unique viewings, the conservative estimate is that 4 billion people have viewed the film" obviously worded the sentance incorrectly, so I'm going to edit it accordingly.

The criticism section was moved to the discussion page (scroll down) until it could be properly sourced and rewritten without weasel words.

The phrase "decisions for Christ" should state that "over 200 million people have indicated making a decision to receive Christ" after viewing the film. The shorthand phrase "decisions for Christ" is Christian jargon.

I'm going to make the edits mentioned above and remove the NPOV template.

--Sixtrojans 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "making a decision to receive Christ" is also jargon. Some Christians, myself included, understand this phrase as a reference to the Communion service, which I think is not what is meant here. May I suggest ""over 200 million people have indicated making a decision to become a Christian"? It's a hard one to de-jargonise because each way of putting it reflects a POV. 94.173.202.21 (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent sentence?

What do you reckon this is supposed to say:

Some locations used in the film, such as the River Jordan and what is believed to be the home of Simon the Tanner were used.

--Jim Henry 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "Some Biblical sites were used in location shots in the film, for example the River Jordan and the purported home of Simon the Tanner." 94.173.202.21 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Section Needs Sources and Editing

Section in Progress

A criticism of Jesus, particularly by liberal Christians{source}, is that the film is melodramatic{source} and a weak attempt{source} to commercialize the faith.{source}

Another criticism is that its depiction of the passion (suffering) of Jesus does not feature the crown of thorns.{source} Supporters of the film say{source} this is due to the fact that the Gospel of Luke does not mention the crown of thorns. Although the opening of the film features a quote from the Gospel of John, the omission of the crown of thorns may have been a production decision to remain as accurate as possible to the Gospel of Luke.{source}

Discussion of Criticism Section

I moved the criticism section to the talk page for discussion. In its original form in the article, it lacked NPOV and didn't offer any sources. --Sixtrojans 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Nations

Today someone modified the text to say that Jesus Film Teams have shown the film in 229 nations, which comes, I believe, from the Jesus Film statistics page. Could someone please explain how they are counting countries around the world? Most authorities (United Nations, CIA Fact Book) claim there are only 191 or 192 nations around the world. Was the Island on LOST finally discovered? Now that would be something if the Dharma folks had a Jesus orientation film hidden in one of the hatches. --Sixtrojans 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he or she meant that they showed the Jesus film in 229 languages not the number of nations or states. Stevenphil (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in the definition of the term "nation". The film has been shown all over the world, including in "nations" that some people might not count as separate countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau (all technically part of China, but having a certain degree of autonomy) or countries with questionable status such as the Vatican, Antarctica or Western Sahara. See Wikipedia's list of countries for more food for thought. The project's webpage ought to have a list of countries or drop the statistic; it appears they may have done the latter. BBrucker2 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jesus.film.1979.jpg

Image:Jesus.film.1979.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While legally there may be a question about fair use, given that the owners of the Jesus film are not intending to make money out of it, but distribute it to as many people as possible, I would think it very unlikely that they would object to us using a poster image. 199.71.183.2 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to locate the original artwork for the film online. I'll continue to do so, but am fairly certain that the graphic used is from the video cover, not from the cinema film.

94.173.202.21 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I'm proposing that Jesus Film Project be merged here. The article cites no sources, and isn't independently notable outside of it's association with this film.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The organization has a history and commitments of its own. It is not just about the film. -Garik 11 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to address my concerns? The article has no sources and doesn't establish notability outside association with this film. I believe the article doesn't meet WP:ORG and therefore could easily qualify for deletion. I'm trying to salvage content, but we have to keep in mind content needs to meet wikipedia policies and be verifiable.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does meet WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations (activities far from being local in scope, longevity, size, etc). Also, I've slightly trimmed the article . -Garik 11 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. The two citations you added are not independent of the organization. Notability has to be established if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. It goes on and says press releases (what you cited) do not count towards this goal. Please don't get me wrong. I'm really glad you are working on this article. I'm just trying to make sure that you understand out guidelines, and that your efforts are pointed in the right direction (so they don't go to waste if the notability guidelines are not meet and the article deleted). Thanks for your work so far!-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the quality of the other article, I think it makes sense to merge the two. Neither is a very long article; the Jesus Film Project's existence is entirely bound up with the film, and a separate section on the organization would be entirely appropriate. 199.71.183.2 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look into expanding the other article, as I have a friend who works for the project, and he ought to be able to get me some independent sources of info. While it is mainly noteworthy for its association with the film, the film is only part of what they do, and without the project, as I think is indicated in the article, the movie would have been no more than a nother box-office flop footnote in the pages of history. The JESUS Film Project has shown the film all over the world in over a thousand languages, and continues to develop other versions and new media projects far less directly related to the film. BBrucker2 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your contribution to that one.Garik 11 (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that discussion on a possible merger is well and truly stale so I'm going to remove the merger tags. Given the pretty irregular comments in this section I'd suggest that the proposal is not particularly controversial, and therefore anyone who feels strongly enough about a merger should simply go ahead and be bold, perhaps after giving BBrucker2 a couple of weeks to see what he/she can do to save it first. Make of this what you will, but I note that the article doesn't appear to be attracting a lot of traffic. Debate 木 13:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new article for the jesus film project.......................

Maybe we can make a new article about the jesus film project. because it may be to long and there may be new articles about the film and the project. we can get some ideas from the official jesus film project website. (jesusfilm.org) Stevenphil (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jesusfilm.jpg

Image:Jesusfilm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see my comment above at 'Fair use rationale for Image:Jesus.film.1979.jpg' 94.173.202.21 (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with my version?

SixTrojans' version eliminates most of the Wikified years. I also feel my latest version flows better. Link I just have an issue with putting the filming location in the first paragraph; it fits better later in the article. GeorgeC (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with wikified years. I do have a problem with the other edits you made which just moved words around to create awkward sentances like "who advised that advised." There are other errors, like using "the" in front of Campus Crusade for Christ and turning Bill Bright into the producer of the Jesus Film. A producer's job is to acquire all of the resources necessary for making a film, from funding to talent to props & equipment to locations. The source for that quote does not say anything about Bill Bright doing any of those things -- he just wanted to provide private financing for a film someone else would produce.

Of course you are as entitled as anyone else to making edits to any article you want to. But if you're going to use poor grammar and get facts mixed up, others have the same right will edit and/or revert your changes. --Sixtrojans (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using poor grammar. I'll concede that you might have a point about the "the", but the New York Times article I cited does, in fact, use the phrase "the Campus Crusade for Christ" Link. However, nowhere did I say that Bill Bright produced the film; he wanted to produce it back in the 1950's. Really, I think this is a difference over style than actual content. GeorgeC (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on Wikified years is being revised -- it is no longer considered desirable unless it addds substantially to an understanding of the article.--Sixtrojans (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeC, I am concerned by your recent edits. You changed the date of the film's origins from 1945 to 1950 without citing a source (when one was already cited for 1945). You added details such as Bill Bright recommending doing just the story of Jesus rather than the whole Bible without citing sources... in fact, other places in the article say that the recommendation came from many of the scholars consulted on the film. --Sixtrojans (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this crap. It's people like you who take all the enjoyment out of Wikipedia. God bless you and good-bye. GeorgeC (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make those changes. However, the year given as the year Bill Bright conceived the film is 1950. Link GeorgeC (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that GeorgeC has come back after all these years and tried to get the article back to his 2008 version. I have the same problem with these edits that I did back in 2008 -- the article reads smoothly until he begins to muck up things up with awkward word choices. If you are reading this GeorgeC, let's discuss what changes you would like to make and try to arrive at a consensus.Sixtrojans (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The time between edits is irrelevant. A slightly longer and more detailed introduction would be nice. I would like mediation. GeorgeC (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we sandbox a new intro together here on this page? It will be easier to reach consensus if bite pieces off in smaller chunks.Sixtrojans (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm willing to work with you. You just seem to be obsessed with this article. I think a slightly longer and slightly more detailed introduction works better and I genuinely want to make this article a nice one. Set it up and post the address since I've never messed with the sandbox feature.GeorgeC (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my use of the word "sandbox" was confusing, I forgot that was an actual feature on wikipedia. I just meant let's create a section on the talk page here to collaborate on a new intro. I set one up below. Sixtrojans (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article lead

starting text

Jesus (alternately called The Jesus Film), is a 1979 motion picture which depicts the life of Jesus Christ according primarily to the Gospel of Luke in the Christian Bible. It was co-directed by Australian Peter Sykes and Englishman John Krisch and filmed in Israel.

proposed changes #1

Jesus (alternately called The Jesus Film), is a 1979 motion picture dramatizing the life of Jesus. It was co-directed by Peter Sykes and John Krisch and co-produced by John Heyman and Richard F. Dalton. The screenplay, based almost exclusively on the Gospel of Luke^[1], was written by Barnet Bain under the pseudonym Barnet Fishbein. It was filmed in Israel over several months at locations referred to in Luke. Footage for Jesus For Children, which replaces much of Jesus' more graphic and violent scenes, was filmed concurrently with the main production. Most of the film's $6 million budget was donated.

It stars British Shakespearian actor Brian Deacon in the titular role.

Jesus was distributed in the United States by Warner Bros. Pictures on October 19, 1979. After its original theatrical run, the Jesus Film Project, the organization created to distribute the film, began to translate it into non-English languages and employed it as an evangelical tool. Jesus has been presented throughout the world in a variety of locales. According to a New York Times article, it is likely the most-viewed motion picture in history; according to the article, over five billion people have seen it.^[2] To date, Jesus has been translated to 1,098 languages. Audio dramatizations are available in 425 languages.^[3]

GeorgeC - put your text above here

discussion of proposed changes version #1

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section) for style guidelines to writing a lead. Sixtrojans (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Expansion

Because of its significance this article should be expanded, (production, legacy, plot).--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article on the film has largely been ignored, and there's enough info to be provided in pretty much each section.

EDIT: There should probably be a music section; the audio clip of the Jesus theme in the filming section seems misplaced. And a casting section too. Just bringing it up for consideration. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The JESUS Film Project | Why was the film based on the Gospel of Luke?

[2] The Passion and the Precedent: The Most-Watched Film Ever? - NYTimes.com

[3] The JESUS Film Project | Languages Completed

[1]

[2]

[3]