Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Many Faces of Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Many Faces of Jesus has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 20, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Christianity Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Nordic

	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 Nordic cinema task force.

Freedom of speech Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from The Many Faces of Jesus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a pornographic screenplay about Jesus led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of a non-existent gay Jesus film?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Many Faces of Jesus.

Wikipedia

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)[reply]

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

... 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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]