Jump to content

Talk:The Passion of the Christ/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Stupidity

OK. I will try to explain this in a way that even atheist libtards can understand, using analogy.

If you went to Wikipedia to read about one of the most sacred events in your cosmology, say "Woodstock" and the entry began "Woodstock was a movie produced by Joe Blow in 1969 about a music festival and shot entirely in CinemaScope. Joe Blow was later arrested for cocaine possession and sentenced to 2 years in prison" would you think the article was a good one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.160.152 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Hey, I'm not going to change anything on this article, but this whole article seems to have a very biased focus. It seems to me from reading it, that whoever wrote this article were probably atheists, and probably hate Christianity and Catholicism. Now like I said, I'm not going to change anything, but please, try and avoid the biased overtones. For reaction, the article places a very heavy emphasis on how criticised the film was from Protestants, yet everything I watched in the news showed Jews and atheists bashing the film, and Protestants embracing it. In fact, every protestant I know or have ever heard of loved the movie and supported it! Anyways, all I'm saying is try and watch the bias; this is wikipedia remember. DurotarLord (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I personally am a Non-Denominational Christian. Non only to Wikipedia's rules of editing, but to respect of other people's beliefs, all articles on Wikipedia is needs to be unbiased. --75.185.110.190 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As an atheist I feel that the article is biased towards a Christian perspective. For example, the opening statement assumes that Jesus was an actual real person, and no one knows this to be true. The truth is that it is almost certain that Jesus is just a myth. The opening should read that it is based on the story of a character in the fictional account known as the New Testament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.116.98 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Jesus doesn't exist? Thats the funniest thing I think I've ever heard. If you're not going to add anything to the discussion go elsewhere. No one wants to read you're deranged BS anyways. By the way, I thought the article was well-written. The film was obviously controversial in some circles, but I don't remember hearing anyone debating the FACT Jesus existed. Mr2b (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. That's just plain stupid. Sheesh, next thing these deranged BS-spouting atheist idiots are gonna claim is that Gandalf never existed! TomorrowTime (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, the historicity of Jesus is well established. The evidence is weak but sufficient to confirm the existence of Jesus. Proof of his magic powers is another thing entirely, however.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You had to get that in, didn't you, to let the world know what an enlightened scholar you are. 'Look at me, what a free thinker I am!' I'm not any kind of religious person, but I don't suppose those who are will have been moved by your 'insight', it just makes you feel less insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.102.34 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not the Jesus never existed, its that people dont want him to exist. Portillo (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Simpsons

I believe that there is a short part in a Simpson's show where the family's TV shows a commercial about passion of the salad or something like that. It's suppose to be satirical to both this movie and the veggietales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.8.47 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot Rewite/Shortening

Obviously the plot in this article is far too long, it's also making the page huge. It needs to be rewritten completely, or have parts trimmed out. I suggest the former. Why? Because the plot summary itself is poorly written, sometimes using broken English. Also, overly long plot summaries can constitute a copyright violation--which is a very, very bad thing. Suggestions, comments? --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nine months later, it's some 500 words shorter but still, at 2,000 words, far too long.
On Wikipedia, plot summary lengths tend to jump from stubs to long lengths in a single edit or series of edits by one editor, and this is the case here [1]. The plot summary was added as a stub in July, 2006, and expanded to 1600 words in a single edit by [2].
I'm going to suggest a radical rewrite. With some notable exceptions (for instance, the dream of Mary, mother of Jesus, and the temptation of Jesus by Satan) the plot is derived directly from the accounts in the four canonical gospels, and covers the events from Jesus' vigil at Gethsemane to his rising on the third day after his death. Here's a sketch of how I'd treat the plot:
The plot adheres largely to the accounts found in the Canonical gospels of the New Testament, and covers the period from Jesus' vigil in the Garden of Gethsemane up to his resurrection.
There are some embellishments. Jesus is tempted in the garden by a personified Satan, who appears as an androgynous albino. Mary, mother of Jesus, awakes from a dream with feelings of foreboding and quotes from the Passover Seder, Why is this night different than other nights, and Mary Magdalene replies with a traditional response: Because once we were slaves and we are slaves no longer. When questioned by Caiaphas, Jesus pronounces the ineffable Name of God in his response, which justifies Caiaphas' subsequent charge of blasphemy before witnesses. Herod Antipas is depicted as an effeminate homosexual. The people in the crowd that demands the freedom of Barabbas rather than Jesus have been paid to do so by Caiaphas.
An event similar to the story of Saint Veronica is in this account, but the woman is named "Seraphia" in the cast list. Although it is one of the Stations of the Cross, the story of Veronica wiping Jesus' brow with her veil on the Via Dolorosa is not present in the canonical gospels.
I think this and a reference to the source materials would be better than the long detailed repetition we have here. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The section "Differences from the New Testament" contains quite a few more differences that could go into the new plot summary. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current plot section is very confusing, in particular to a non-Christian reader or someone who doesn't feel familiar with the story. In my view this section badly needs further explanation of plot devices (no mention is made as to who Barabbas is and Herod Antipas is left completely without further explanation) and none of the events accounted are placed in any particular scene. I have never seen the movie, so I cannot write a synopsis but someone who has should.
Einaraxel (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti semitism

I took off one of the headers, as it was doubled and it's obvious (at least for me) that the antisemitism header was intended to be secondary to the "critical perceptions" one and not have its own second level header. I had to change the text a little to make both header's text match, but there's still space for improvement. --200.80.196.210 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked on ABC Primetime: 'Did the Jews kill Jesus?', Gibson answered: 'He was a child of Israel. There were Jews and Romans in Israel. There were no Norwegians there.'Kiujm (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


There is a citation needed for the opening statement in the Anti semitism section equally towards the end of second paragraph there is a citation needed prior to the last quoted statements. Please address the validity of the opening statement aswell as the premise behind the elaborating alleged statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick change re: critical reception

The old wording that, according to Rotten Tomatoes, 51% of critics praised the film made it seem inaccurately like a few hundred people decided black and white whether they praised it or did not praise it. No, this score of 51% is an average of various scores, and the wording was changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.58.200 (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

2 "Timothy K. Beal" paragraphs in the "Source material" section

It seems to me that Mr. Beal could be used as a source in this section for a claim such as "The Passion of the Christ is based primarily on the Gospel of John." However, Mr. Beal's thoughts on why and if different groups like the movie do not seem relevant in a section about sources. ShadwSrch (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Iranian version

Medical advice

I watched this film when it was broadcast on the Channel 4 network last night. There is no way that anyone would have survived such a brutal flogging, and certainly not be able to stand or speak afterwards, let alone carry a cross up a hill. Is there any medical advice on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.253.66 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be surprised what a person can endure. Google 'Aron Ralston', for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.94.96 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

delete cultural impact paragraph?

this section makes some pretty sensational claims - that the movie caused felons to turn themselves in - based on very obscure and isolated referencces. I have been unable to find any authorative publication that backs up those references. Also, one of the references is misrepresented. It talks about a man who (supposedly) chose not to commit suicide based on the movie. Yet this is used as an example of a felon turning themselves in. I think this section should be deleted unless some more concrete evidence is found and provided. If it is not deleted it needs to be rewritten in order to correctly represent the articles it cites. 122.108.25.170 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies

In a book about the history of the latin language by Prof. em. Munich University Wilfried Stroh, I read that the usage of latin in the film is historically wrong. At the time Jesus lived the lingua franca around the Mediterrenian Sea (and beyond) was ancient greek. Thus it was the main secondary language of ethnies that didn't speak it as their mother tongue and was primarily used as the world language of trade. Latin would most-probably not have been used in Pilate's announcements and the discussions with the jewish priests (greek instead). Can somebody of you delve into this issue? I have no primary resources around now, but I guess it can be obtained by looking into some ancient history books or special encyclopedias like Pauly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.199.242 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Me again. In the german Wikipedia article of the film this criticism is stated explicitly, quoting Carsten Peter Thiede, an expert on New Testament exgesis. I think that's enough authorization for including a note in the english article as well, that the film's usage of latin is wrong. (It may be that Pilate spoke latin with his wife, but not with the crowd in front of his palace). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.199.242 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right. Most Roman authorities and soldiers who were in Palestine in the first century AD would not have spoken Latin with one another. They would definitely have spoken Greek. Also, the authors of the article might wish to correct the misspelling of the name "Caiaphas" in this article.

I saw it for the first time last week, and I was told that the filmmakers' knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic is equal to their proficiency in Greek and Latin. Does anyone know whether that statement is true? Mardiste (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Protestant section

First of all; the Pope, who is clearly not a protestant, should not be put in the "protestant kritisim" section.

Secondly, most of the protestant critisism of the film is not that it contains extra material, or even that they show Mary, who is in the Gospel account in case the protestants actually want to read their bible for a change; but from the fact that the film is "too Christian". In the film the crucificion is directly linked to the last supper and all Christians (Assyrians, Coptics, Armenians, Maronites, Chaldeans, Ethiopians, Syrians, Greeks, Slavs and Of Course Catholics most of all) celebrate that link in their Liturgy (Mass). The protestants on the other hand have continuelly called the film "A Catholic Trap". Here is just one web site but there are many, oh so many. http://www.pawcreek.org/articles_pcm/end_times/passion_christ.htm

I have also seen this message of "don't go see the Passion because it is too Christian" printed in magazine articles for evangelicals and in chick track look a likes put on my car. Clearly the protestants have a problem with Christianity and the way this film promotes it.

On the other hand, Christians the world over have accepted the film and are very gratefull for it, even if they do not agree theologically 100% with Gibson or his actors. The Assyrian Church of the East in Chicago showed the film during the Homoly at Liturgy (without subtitles). The Oriental Orthodox have praised the movie and the Eastern Orthodox's only complaint was the lack of Greek in the film or on the sign over Christ's head. I have yet to meet a Catholic who does not like the film. I know Catholics who purposefully stayed away from the Nativity Story because of conserns that it misrepresented the faith and the nature of the relationship between Mary and Joseph but even they love the Passion. Even a muslim woman with whom I used to work praised the film; even though she does not believe the crucificion even happened.

Real Christian and conservative muslims and even Jews praise the film but the evengelicals call it a "Catholic Trap" and denounce the film for being too Christian. That is what needs to be put in the "protestant critisism" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"I have yet to meet a Catholic who does not like the film." Uh, how about the German catholic leaders, who, together with Protestant and Jewish leaders, heavily criticised the movie? But hey, given that you feel you have authority to say that Protestants aren't Christians, I bet you also feel you have authority to say that Cardinals aren't Catholics... If the section on "Protestant reaction" has a problem, then it is that it -like you- equates Protestantism with Evangelicalism, which is an insult to Protestants the world over who have a much more moderate view than the fanatics monopolising the designation "Protestant" in the US. --84.46.3.237 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive Edits

I just finished some rather massive edits to the article, doing the following:

  • I tried to find sources for a lot of the uncited stuff. That which I couldn't, I removed, if it was minor little factoids that I didn't feel losing would harm the article. Anything major but uncited, I left in. It still needs cited though, and I will return to it as I have time.
  • I put the two "anti-semitism" controversies together in a section titled "controversies", along with all the other controversy.
  • I renamed the "parody" section to "popular culture" and removed the trivia tag. I have seen plenty of articles that have listings of references of that topic in popular culture, I don't consider it a "trivia" section that needs to be removed or the facts put elsewhere.
  • I tried to re-arrange certain paragraphs into the sections or order I thought flowed better.
  • Reformatted the citations into citation templates, it's just a personal preference, but I think they're easier to read that way.
  • Changed the reference list to a two-column format.

And that's about it. I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes with what I've changed. If anyone wants to change anything I've done, go for it. I just saw the article needed some help and tried to provide it with such. Lets use this section also to suggest further improvements, the article definitely needs it. raven1977 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Biblical accuracy

I think the movie did a pretty good job as far as movies go. The makers followed the gospels nearly verbatum. One thing that stands out that is not biblical is Satan in the opening scene in the garden. He tried to convince Jesus he could not bear the sin of the world. Satan did not know. Not even the apostles knew he was dying for sin. The apostle Paul called it a mystery, and that it was hidden in scriptures. So that in fact, Satan would push people to do what they did.


He would not have sent the son of David to the cross if he knew the consequences. Satan thought he was beating Israel, which were God's people.

When Jesus told the apostles he was going to his death, Peter rebuked him. They expected the messiah to rule as king, like prophecy foretold. They didn't know he had to die first. I won't be making any changes to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.0.193 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also found that to be a blatant fabrication, although I won't speculate on what the devil may or may not know. I added it to the "Differences from the Traditional Passion" section. Albeit, I am comparing to the actual gospels. I do not know how the "Traditional" Passion is presented. --Bertrc (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi. It is a fabrication, you are right. God is smarter than everybody else, but I won't put that in the article. :)
1 Corinthians 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.234.2 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is the fact that the scene of the Devil tempting Jesus in the garden in the film (a direct contradiction to the scriptural account) not listed in this section? According to the scriptures, the Devil had no power whatsoever over Jesus, only daring to tempt him once (in the wilderness prior to Jesus' ministry) and being dismissed easily and without consideration. 65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't speculate on whether or not it was easy for Jesus, in the desert, nor whether the devil only tempted him once (only one instance is listed in the scriptures, but that is not the same) Hoever, the movie scene in the garden is certainly not recounted in scripture. I had added that fact to the article, but, it looks like somebody replaced it (as well as the bit about Judas being tormented by children) with an editorial. I have reverted.--Bertrc (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

R Rating

Is it relevant to have the mention of the R rating and the reason for it in the opening paragraph? Many Wikipedia articles have little or no mention of the film's rating. I am not saying it should be mentioned in the opening and I'm not saying it shouldn't. But could some of you reply here with your opinions on this issue? Perhaps the fact that the film is the most successful R-rated film in the U.S. is reason enough for its mention. But still, should we have a big bold mention of the reason for rating in the third sentence? What do you think? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

International box office: the matrix

The Passion is by far the top grossing R movie domestically but was surpassed by a healthy margin internationally by The Matrix Reloaded...I felt that this is of note and added it to the international BO section (see BOM for verification on my numbers). If anyone feels it does not belong I welcome discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.172.154 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen holds the record now; even a week before it opened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.224.220.1 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew?

As a native Hebrew speaker, I can tell you there's no real Hebrew in the movie. It doesn't sound like modern nor biblical Hebrews and without subtitles I could figure out only a few words pronounced mostly incorrectly. As the errors in Latin have been mentioned, this too may possibly be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.187.94 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its actually in Aramaic, the language Jesus (and others in Israel) spoke during that time period. Mr2b (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
He wasn't speaking about Aramic but about the few lines in Hebrew which had bad pronouncing and a flavor of American English accent.Actualy I understand them all and a lot of the Aeamic which share a lot with Hebrew-but the pronouncing was seriously flawed.--Gilisa (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful input on Hebrew pronunciation, Mr2b. Actually, any native Hebrew speaker such as the contributor can more or less instantly hear the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic (as you no doubt can as well?). Both languages are in the movie. What he's saying is that the Hebrew in the movie is wrong. It's neither modern Hebrew nor first-century Hebrew. Its just incorrect. Mardiste (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In media res

Is this phrase really that commonly known? I dislike it when people feel the need to put in phrases that 90% of people will have to click on to understand. Jabberwockgee (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rating controversy

Was there any controversy surrounding the rating in countries other then New Zealand? I know here there was some controversy as conservative Christian groups objected to the rating, arguing it was too high even though the same groups were also usually arguing that violent movies were rated too low. E.g. [3]. If this is a wider issue then it belongs in the article IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

POV statement removed

"After early and unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism" is a statement of opinion. Because people disagree on what constitutes anti-Semitic literature and anti-Semitic tropes, it's impossible to definitively state that accusations of anti-Semitism are unwarranted, and since the controversy is ongoing, it's a clearly partial statement. I removed "and unwarranted."

--173.76.115.220 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job man. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Israeli film

I understood that part of the film shots were taken in Israel, but it still don't make the passion for an Israeli movie. Please remove it from the "Israeli film" category.--Gilisa (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kill Christ

Not every college kid who gets threatened with a lawsuit is notable, sorry. The article doesn't even touch on the real lawsuits pertaining to the movie. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucifer

Luther: there is a film called "Luther" which includes lightning, and was considering relevance with Mr. Gibson's story concerning lightning striking one of the actors on the set, on a clear day, and I believe it was a desert scene. Persons paying for prayers on the sidewalk, and being opressed by those who slander, and are not being realistic, or providing places for voice of the people. I study signs and anomalous activity. Sometimes persons tend to get a little full of themselves. Pan, Kabbalah75.201.43.164 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

English Language Audio?

I have a family member who swears that when he saw this movie, it had English audio. When he bought it on DVD, he was surprised that they did not include the English audio track. Can anyone shed light on this? The article says nothing about an English language version, except for subtitles. Is he just wrong, or was there a limited release of an english language version, for markets where reading skill may not have been apt enough to read subtitles fast enough (he lives in such an area) SeanBrockest (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

error- suggested correction Temple condition

In the current plot section, it says the Temple was "destroyed" when Jesus died. This is a very poor choice of words and factually inaccurate. "Damaged" might be a better word. But the Temple was "destroyed" in 70 C.E. by the Romans.

I'm not going to be the one to make the change, but I suggest someone else do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.154.21.214 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Run-on Sentence

Wow, reading this discussion page gives me little hope that someone will actually fix this ridiculously long run-on sentence:

"According to ABC News' Diane Sawyer on an episode of Primetime called "Mel Gibson's Passion", at the behest of Maia Morgenstern, a Romanian Jew whose father was a Holocaust survivor and whose grandfather died at the Auschwitz concentration camp, Mel Gibson removed a subtitle referencing Matthew 27:25, in which a "potential curse" upon the Jewish people is stated by Caiphas, the high priest of the Sanhedrin, after Pontius Pilate washes his hands: "His blood be upon us and upon our children"." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.215.74 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Judas

How does one hang one's self from a dead donkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.82.248 (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to The Passion of the Christ#Allegations of anti-Semitism section.

There are some concerns with this edit: [4]

1. The first sentence discussing claims of anti-semitism are sourced through the reference that comes at the end of that section. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/30/entertainment/et-quick30.2 states some Jewish leaders say is anti-Semitic in its portrayal. Therefore there is no need for a citation request.

2. The basis behind the antisemitic criticisms of the movie are founded on Mel Gibson's artistical portrayal of the movies Source material of christian/Jewish relationships as found in the Gospels of The New Testament is not sourced so is original research which is against Wikipedia policy: WP:NOR. Adding the claim with a "citation needed" tag is not acceptable. If you want to add the information, then you must add the reference yourself.

3. When Father Di Noia of the Doctrinal Congregation was asked about the film he replied: "Mel Gibson's film is not a documentary but a work of artistic imagination" and "Gibson's film is entirely faithful to the New Testament" is reliably sourced and acceptable for inclusion. However, the edit is misrepresenting the context of those remarks. Those comments were made in response to the question "Is the film faithful to account of the passion of Christ in the New Testament?". They clearly relate to the topic of biblical accuracy. I think it is legitimate to include discourse on biblical accuracy so I've moved this out of the anti-semitism section (which they clearly do not relate to) to the The Passion of the Christ#Questions of historical accuracy: [5] Betty Logan (talk)

1. Which Jewish leaders? how prominent? Check the validity of the source WP:IRS (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES) Does not directly support quote
2. If the first statement is unverifiable, deny the verifiability of the second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who the Jewish leaders are or how prominent they were; they are not the source, the LA Times is. The LA Times is a reliable source for reporting news, and their piece supports the claim of anti-Semitic allegations in this article. If you don't think the LA Times can reliably report anti-Semitic allegations then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and find someone to support your stance. The second statement is unverifiable because you have not provided a source to corroborate what you have written. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see the source validates approximately twenty unnamed Jewish protesters so I will edit to'''some''' Before the film was even released, there were ''some'' allegations of anti-Semitic content in the movie.** I took the direct link to the paragraph off as it's not usual practice, a 'level 2 heading' is sufficient. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC) ** edit wasn't made.

Reports/allegations

I changed it to reported allegations instead of some. If there is an issue with the sentence construction feel free to edit grammatically. Again my issue is with the report of allegations the number of reported allegations equaling widespread consensus that the referenced source can verify. To clarify the extent of the sources claims it must be frased as a report to abstain from synthesis. If the original phrasing is to be kept which is tantamount to widespread consensus, then further source references must be must be added directly after. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 92.233.71.47 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Above edit reverted by Ocaasi by way of tool assisted edit. There is a talk from me (as above) on his talk page wiki/User_talk:Ocaasi for reference 92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here first. I do think that 'reports of allegations' is redundant. Here's my thinking. We would never call the film anti-semitic ourselves, since that would be expressing a POV. But we can find someone else who called it that. Those people expressed opinions that the film was anti-semitic, and we can say so as fact. The way we know about those people's opinions, is that the opinions were reported on in a reliable source (rather than just finding individual criticisms and grouping them together ourselves, which would be a bit of an original synthesis). The fact that these opinions were reported is inherent in our using them. If they weren't reported, we could not include them. So, reported allegations is too many references.
Also, 'allegations' is listed as a word to avoid in WP:WTA, since it tends to suggest that the claims are not really true (as opposed to just being neutrally claimed). Ideally, we can rephrase it to show who was making which claims about the film, rather than using the language about sources about opinions about a film. Let's start with the source: Gibson's film company, Icon Productions, is starting to look for a distributor to release "The Passion," which some Jewish leaders say is anti-Semitic in its portrayal of Jews during the time of Christ's Crucifixion.
There are others sources which addressed this issue, but this one at least establishes that 'some Jewish leaders criticized the film for being anti-semitic'. We can say that as is. No 'allegation' or 'report' is needed, because the source supports it. By including 'reports' of claims, it makes it seem like the claims were disputed--not the opinion itself, but literally whether or not the criticisms were made at all. Since we know they were, we can just state that. The only reason to bring the source or the reports into things is where that information would help explain the territory of a debate or issue. Here though, 'reports' just adds an air of dubiousness that is unwarranted. Ocaasi (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you addressed the issue, now it seems neutrally phrased. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Woman dies during screening"

I don't see how this section, while interesting, can possibly be relevant. Firstly, with the total time spent in cinemas and the incidence of death from heart attack, it must happen regularly. Secondly, it says nothing about the film in question. Thirdly, I doubt this has been reported about any other film. The Daily Mail says that Cate Blanchett's father died of a heart attack in a cinema, but doesn't bother to state which film he was seeing. Fourthly, there is no connection made in the article between the death and the film, except for a vague statement that critics have used the death as an argument against the film. That might be because of the violence, but certainly the official sources didn't make that connection. Hence the section really ought to go. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the info interesting and relevant. as I said. Hence, my suggestion WP:3O. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

Based on the available evidence, this doesn't warrant inclusion. It would be worth including if it were used to criticize, say, the level of violence in the movie but that is not the case. Of the three references provided, two are mere news items that reported the death at the time the incident took place and are of marginal value. The third is not available online so we don't know what it says. Regardless, that would be just one reference and probably not a reliable one at that (there appear to be many Catholic Heralds). I suggest removing that section in its entirety. --rgpk (comment) 23:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been so removed. Never particularly liked it myself. Always seemed like it was purely for shock value and given undue weight.oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, no big deal. Time to move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits by User:71.239.128.44

The recent edits by this user have not been particularly constructive. Will this editor please note that all claims must be backed up by a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. More problematic is that the edit is also removing a reference that is used to source a pre-existing claim in the article, which leaves that claim in the state of being unsourced. If the editor does not know how to add sources, another editor can add them for him if he provides them with the text they are being used to source on this talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the section on the 'devotional writings' just putting a Jesuit's position from the Jesuit magazine 'America' leaves an incredible slant. First off his view of the movie was as a film critic not a theologian. Second every Catholic knows that 'America' and the Jesuits are so anti magesterium that a balanced article would conversly quote the other side which I did w/ a quote from the Cardinal Newman Soc. I assume the author of the magazine quote was taking advantage of laymen, non-Catholics & ignorant Catholics. Either way the deletion of a legit quote doesn't seem Wikipdiesh or can I also assume that my source isn't considered legit? If so please recommend a more palatable reference. & yes I don't know the tech way to set up a footnote on this but either way deleting a cited reference is equally unpalatable
Regarding the section on ancient languages used under the 'Controversies' section, now this is totally in the relm of purely objective facts of history. As a phd in Roman history and the work I cited, it is well known that Latin was used, albeit in a limited manner which is what I changed the wording from "improbable" to 'limited'. And not only is it well established that some Latin was used in doing business w/ Rome but it's safely assumed Christ himself was semi conversant. To lable this as a controvery belies certain misleadings of the general laity to heap on so called issues w/ the movie from various academic and clerical fields that just don't exist in an effort that through shear weight the public can be brainwashed. Please tell that at least on this totally objective, well established fact on language this can't even be corrected. I'll contact the other administrator as well about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You have still failed to address the reasons for why your edits were reversed. In the case of the first part of your edit, it is irrelevant what you think of America Magazine. A the end of the day it is a national publication and a reliable source. An organization blog is not reliable per WP:SPS. The second part of your edit is borderline vandalism, since you keep removing a reference that is used to source a claim, and replace it with another unsourced claim, resulting in two unsourced pieces of information. Please stop removing the source, and provide a WP:RELIABLESOURCE] for the information you have added. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Betty Logan and will note that this IP was blocked and then resumed to run against policy. History2007 (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys we've added more references/cites & even softened some points but our points are in the historic record for both changes & the point at the beginning about Catholics questionning where we added "some" is just modifying another opinion which by the way you said were irrelevant. Tell us what was wrong with using Reilly, Weigel and Nagle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IP has received a 31h block for EW. Hopefully when they return they'll be willing to more thoroughly discuss their desired edits to the article before implementing them and will read up on how to properly cite sources. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • For their benefit I am going to through each part of their edit, since they don't seem to appreciate the problems with it:
  1. scholar and author George Weigal asserts the Church does not know which is true the life of Emmerich is one that practiced the "athleticism of Christ regardless of conjecture – This is poorly written and doesn't make any sense. That particular section is discussing the legitimacy of the Brentano text that the film is partially based on, and the edit seems to be a non sequitur.
  2. 'The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God', Basic Books, 2005 – Even if the previous sentence was a valid addition to the article, the reference for it has mutliple problems. It notably omits an author and a page number, which are both vital for the source to be WP:VERIFIABLE. The reference is poorly formatted too, although if we have all the details another editor can address that problem. For further advice on how to add a reference see WP:CITEFOOT.
  3. Patrick J Reilly of The Cardinal Newman Society "found the devotional writings inspiring and historically faithful to the life of Emmerich" and most Jesuit positions outside the magesterium, especially from magazine film critic priests claiming authority in canonical matters. 2/28/04 Cardinal Newman Society Blog. – Again, the sentence is poorly structured. What exactly is Reilly stating about the Jesuit position? Regardless, the claim is not properly sourced, and in any case blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:BLOGS.
  4. Latin was mainly spoken by the elites to do business with Rome, legions worth of troops and administrators during this early period of Roman administration. Use of Latin ended after Heraclius' reign during the early Eastern Roman (Byzantine) period. While Greek was used more often elite natives certainly were conversant while it's safe to assume Christ was familiar enough to be functional. DB Nagle, The Ancient World – Inserting a claim between another claim and the reference that sources it is simply unacceptable. For a start, the new claim is still unsourced, but this type of editing looks deceptive because it is made to look like the new content being added is referenced by the source currently in the article, when this is not the case. If you want to add this claim to the article, it needs to be referenced by a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, and the claim should be added after the pre-existing claim and source i.e. you should not add a new claim to the article in such a way that a current claim is split from its source.
Before making any further edits to the article I strongly suggest you propose them here first, by including the exact wording and the source and obtain a WP:CONSENSUS. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Lightning Strikes

the BBC article in question is unattributed (no author) hence unacceptable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm

also, the claims are unverified.

furthermore (from the article), this sounds like bollocks: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears."

i mean seriously... you didn't notice the giant lightning crack? your ears weren't blown out by the subsequent shockwave? dafuk... not to mention you weren't blinded? how on earth did you notice that... 70.54.38.145 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced that source with two others. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Languages in 1 cent Palistine.

The majority of NT scholars would not agree that Greek was the defacto language in 1 cent Palestine. The majority of the native population would have spoken Aramaic. The Roman soldiers latin. Greek would have been only used by the very elite in the society. This is well documented in text by Ehrman, Metzger and others. This part of the article should be reviewed against scholarly works, not doctrine.

C1 Palestine? "Palestine" (Syria Palestina) wasn't invented until 135 146.198.237.183 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ft. 86

Citation/Footnote 86 is presented as being a public statement made by the USCCB & the ADL. When I clicked on the link the article referenced shows the cited text to be only the personal opinion of one of the participants of the joint dicussion between the USCCB & the ADL. Therefore I am going to change the article to reflect that fact. Here is the citation: Pawlikowski, John T. (February 2004). "Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History, Present Challenges Reflections in Light of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ". Journal of Religion and Film. Here is the linked article: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/2004Symposium/Pawlikowski.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.214.133 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That "personal opinion" is actually a report of the scholarly consensus. Reverted. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Second Highest Grossing Rated R movie.

Passion of the Christ will be Second Highest Grossing Rated R movie because of matrix reloaded Rated R movie grossed $742,128,461 source:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Matrix_Reloaded Passion of the Christ grossed $611,899,420 which will become Second Highest Grossing Rated R movie after Matrix Reloaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram nareshji (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

· I was just checking this again in the light of Deadpool's recent performance at the box office. According to BoxOfficeMojo.com[1] The Passion of the Christ still has the highest US domestic gross of an R-rated film, above Deadpool, American Sniper and The Matrix Reloaded as of 19/4/2017 Meddlingmonk (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=R&p=.htm

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Inexplicable Reverts...

FlightTime OK, I don't get your argument about how I didn't cite reliable sources, because I didn't add any new sources in any of my edits on this page at all. That aside, I don't get why you would possibly want to revert all of my edits on this page because they merely edited, updated, or removed some things that needed to be edited/updated/removed (especially my addition of the "Citation needed" tag and the removal of the unnecessary MPAA rating that was out of context and is discussed in a different section anyway).--Neateditor123 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

I am simply questioning your source. If others think the source is Ok and reliable, then I'm good with it. Stop drama mongering. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
FlightTime What do you mean by "source" anyway? Just wondering as that would probably clear up a lot of issues here. Again, I see nothing wrong with my edits and don't see any reason why they shouldn't remain on the page.--Neateditor123 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection - a stand alone article (spin out)

The sequel to The Passion, entitled The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection,[1] ought to have its own page. The Passion was a huge success and its sequel should get the proper attention. Jim Caviezel is saying that the sequel will be "the biggest film in history."[2] Further, there is a lot of information out there in the public arena, and definitely enough to make an interesting page about it. For example, it has been reported that Jim Caviezel will reprise his role as Jesus,[3] Maia Morgenstern will return as the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Christo Jivkov and Francesco De Vito will return as St. John and St. Peter, respectively.[4] In addition, Mel Gibson is set to direct it,[5] and is teaming up with Braveheart screenplay writer, Randall Wallace,[6] who co-wrote The Resurrection screenplay with Gibson.[7] He says that he really wants to tell the story of Christ's Resurrection and that "The Passion is the beginning and there's a lot more story to tell."[8]

Moreover, just like The Passion, The Resurrection is already stirring up controversy. Some are concerned and dismayed that Mel Gibson is going to direct another film, others are worried about the alleged antisemitism in The Passion may continue in the sequel.[9] In addition, some are saying that The Resurrection will have obstacles that The Passion didn't have to worry about.[10]

Lastly, Jim Caviezel has also said that The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection will "shock the audience,"[11] and Mel Gibson said, in an interview with Steven Colbert, that it might include Jesus's decent into Hell[12][13] and, in an interview with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN, he said that the sequel would include a flashback to the fall of the angels.[14] JJPII (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel Titled 'Resurrection'".
  2. ^ "New 'Passion of the Christ' will be 'the biggest film in history,' Jim Caviezel promises".
  3. ^ "Jesus returns: Jim Caviezel to reprise his role in sequel to 'Passion of the Christ'".
  4. ^ The Passion of the Christ/Archive 3 at IMDb
  5. ^ "Mel Gibson confirms 'Passion of the Christ' sequel".
  6. ^ "Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ sequel to be called The Resurrection".
  7. ^ "Mel Gibson Planning 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel (Exclusive)".
  8. ^ "Mel Gibson is working on a 'Passion of the Christ' sequel".
  9. ^ "Mel Gibson Is Making Passion Of The Christ 2. Here's Why You Should Be Worried".
  10. ^ "Mel Gibson's sequel to The Passion of the Christ will face challenges its predecessor didn't".
  11. ^ "Mel Gibson's Controversial 'Passion of the Christ' to get Sequel That Will 'Shock the Audience,' Jim Caviezel Says".
  12. ^ "Mel Gibson Confirms Sequel To 'Passion Of The Christ'" (Interview).
  13. ^ "Passion of the Christ 2 Gets Titled Resurrection, May Take Jesus to Hell".
  14. ^ "Mel Gibson on "The Resurrection" movie script" (Interview).

UNDUE: 8.2 Disputed papal endorsement

This section is too long and too detailed. Storm in a tea cup, etc.

Zezen (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Passion_of_the_Christ/Archive_3&oldid=1206188101"