Talk:God's Not Dead 2

WP:COATRACK violation?

Recently, someone added info about two of the people in the film opposing a California bill, which is currently in the "Related" section of the article. I expanded and clarified this info, but I still think that this info could be a violation of WP:COATRACK, as it seems to concern only the two people involved, rather than the actual film. I agree with the section title that this is "related", but I question whether it is worthy of inclusion in this specific article. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Small correction: Two people in the film and the film's executive producer. The source confusingly starts with "Pat Boone and Mike Huckabee sent a letter..." Later it says "...now Pat Boone and Mike Huckabee, who are both in God’s Not Dead 2, along with the movie’s executive producer, Troy Duhon, have injected themselves..."

As to whether or not this is a COATRACK issue, I don't think so. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." This, to me, is warning of articles where side issues -- whether accidentally or by design -- begin to overwhelm the main topic. In one case I ran across, an article on a food product had roughly 2/3 of the article was an extensive bit about artificial colors and alleged health concerns tied to them. Another was an article on a politician and much of the article was on a bill he had co-sponsored at one point in his 15+ year career. In the present case, this is currently one sentence (that we should break into two...). IMO, we're nowhere near COATRACK territory. Were it several times longer, we could ask about WP:WEIGHT.

As to whether or not this is on-topic, I believe it is because the three people were clearly connected by the film, and the source article clearly and repeatedly ties it to the film. If the source did not mention the film, it would clearly have to go. IMO, the more the source is discussing the film in relation to this, the more clearly it is on-topic.

IMO, it adds some interest to the topic. Were it not already clear to the reader, this bit emphasizes that these guys are believers in Christianity mixing in with education. It is, however, one source. A couple sentences seems to be about right to me.

Pending other opinions, I'm going to make a couple of tweaks to the language and see if I can't split the sentence in two to make comprehension a bit easier. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ETA: I would, of course, prefer to have a second source for this. The source we have misses the boat on a few points: only schools accepting state funds are affected, their reading of the bill's restrictions are a bit a of reach, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I questioned whether it should have been added. I fell on the side of include after a bit of redacting, but I would have no problems deleting it. It has little to do with the film and more to do with the creators of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

SummerPhD, thanks for improving the wording. I still think, however, that it would be better to remove this info entirely from the article. The main reason why I brought this to the talk page rather than just removing it was because the source, as you mentioned SummerPhD, strongly ties and connects this to the film. But the more I think of it, I think it might be better to put this info, with hopefully another source, onto the articles of all the people involved, as I still don't see how this really has to do with the actual film, even if some of the people involved in the film are the subjects. What do you two (and possibly others) think about this? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been almost two months and nobody's responded, so I moved the info to Mike Huckabee and Pat Boone (Troy Duhon doesn't have an article). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Bias in the critical review" section reads like illiterate apologia

I'll set aside the horrendous spelling, atrocious grammar, and overall 2nd grade writing-level of this section (after all, the author may not speak English as his first language, and judging by this work it could even conceivably be his 4th or 5th tongue.) But even granting all that leeway, the section's entire premise is ludicrous. It is nothing but a poorly constructed apologia of the film's politics, interwoven with rambling accusations that the only reason this movie got such awful reviews is because every critic in the world is a "leftist" and part of a global liberal conspiracy to give bad reviews to conservative movies. Why did this movie and Dinesh D'souza's "documentary" get such bad reviews, while Bowling for Columbine was critically lauded, the author asks? Is it because all of Hollywood and every movie critic in America is a secret puppet of the Liberal Agenda, as the author claims? Or is it because conservatives are far more prone to producing unentertaining, preachy, bald-faced propaganda films with only the loosest association with fact, disguised as "entertainment?" If this movie were set in an alternate universe version of America where school boards composed fully of atheists are common, and where cases before the Supreme Court involve the losing side being forced to renounce their religion, and where Christians are a poor, persecuted minority in our country, then it might make more sense, but this film is claimed to be based on true events happening today. I'd fix the section, but frankly I find it just so darn funny I couldn't bring myself to alter even one single malformed sentence or misspelled word. RyokoMocha (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this should definitely be deleted. 81.110.88.13 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to deconstruct their reasoning or discuss whether or not to remove this. The material was clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. I've removed it twice. If it pops up again, we might want page protection. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

On a related note...

The source for the CinemaScores rating includes the comment that "faith-based films have an easy time gaining A CinemaScores". I think that is relevant in the context of a film which professional reviewers think is pretty poor. The dominant view seems to e that this movie is preaching to the choir, and all the CinemaScores number tells us is that the choir likes it. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with keeping the note about CinemaScore, but I also think that The Christian Post review should be reinserted, as there is no real reason to keep it out. It is true that "the choir" appears to like the film, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning that, and also there are films where the intended audience may not like the film. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? They are not known for their expertise in judging film. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

For a major Christian film, we should note what other Christians think about the film. The Christian Post is an excellent example of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

They are known for their expertise in reviewing film, and particularly film geared toward a Christian, or at least Evangelical, sub-market. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

They described the plot as "more believable". That indicates a total absence of critical faculties. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Your response fails WP:NPOV. Suspension of disbelief is key to many stories. It seems that faith-based films are not permitted to use this device. I'm not buying your protests. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean suspension of disbelief? There is no disbelief in the film at all, other than in caricature. As the reviews point out, the film is clumsy propaganda. Of course the choir loved the preaching, they always do. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Simply because a film may be preaching to a choir does not disqualify a review by the choir from being added, especially if it a notable reviewer. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Plot section

Is the plot section accurate? The first paragraph is about starting a legal case over a supposed violation of separation of church and state. Then the second paragraph is on an "expert witness" who is testifying on the resurrection and historicity of Jesus. What is the actual topic of the trial?

And the case is brought to the Supreme Court of the United States and is decided by the jury? But the supreme court cases are not decided by trial by jury. They are decided by the "majority vote of the Justices". Is the court described actually a fictionalized version of the Supreme Court or another court entirely? Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The plot section actually is not accurate. Thanks for pointing it out. The case was NOT brought to the Supreme Court. It was held in a court in Little Rock, Arkansas. I am not an expert in the judicial system, but it seemed like the teacher was tried at a criminal court. I believe that the trial was over whether the teacher was violating the separation of church and state by proselytizing to her students, so she and her attorney decided to show the court that Jesus was a historical figure and thus legal to speak about in a public school classroom. It was a while since I saw the film, but that is what I remember about the plot. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Add this and the original God's Not Dead to the Discrimination against atheists category?

I feel this and the original God's Not Dead (film) should be added to the Discrimination against atheists category, and probably should also be addressed in the main Discrimination against atheists article as well, due to the critical reception both films have received and due to the fact that it negatively stereotypes and paints atheists in a bad light. It makes atheists out to be these horrible, manipulative people who either blackmail others or file court cases against them due to them being Christian and that they're all out to persecute Christians. They both make blatant strawman arguments and push an obvious persecution complex due to it also painting Christians as this victimized, persecuted group, placing both atheists and Christians in completely unrealistic situations that are highly unlikely to occur.

This post also exists in the original God's Not Dead talk page as well.

Mateoski06 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As this is essentially one discussion, please make all comments at Talk:God's Not Dead (film)#Add this and God.27s Not Dead 2 to the Discrimination against atheists category.3F - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Focus on the Family's "Plugged In"

I have removed the sentence summarizing the article in question as it is not a critical review. The 4.5/5 "plugs" is not 4.5/5 stars. Reading over the article, it became evident that the author was not commenting on the quality of the film. Instead, the article is "based on the film's content elements and worldview". As a result, the film focuses on "positive elements" which are "useful" to their audience, discusses "spiritual elements" and assumes that sex, drugs, violence and "crude or profane" language are "negative elements".

The article does not discuss the overall quality of the film: plot, acting, mounting, etc. Rather, it is more focused on identifying parts of the film that match FotF's agenda. The "Plugged In rating"? "The more family friendly a film in, the higher the rating." Presumably The Passion of the Christ would receive a low score, while a poorly done cartoon would be highly rated.

In general, Wikipedia's film articles do not cover various groups' content ratings. There is simply too much ground to cover. While Focus on the Family may be happy with much of the content, others would object to material that doesn't show up on FotF's score card: women speaking in church, men/women with uncovered heads, saying the word "God" in any context, etc. The rare exceptions are those where the interest groups' content ratings are discussed in independent reliable sources. Though I am not currently aware of any, it wouldn't be surprising to see independent sources discussing Answers in Genesis turning up their noses at the original because it didn't take a hard-line young Earth creationist stance at every turn. (Note that we don't have content here from the ACLU's response to the film's two-dimensional caricature of separation of church and state.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: OK, OK, first things first, yes, I'm REALLY sorry if the inclusion of Focus On The Family's/Plugged In's review offended or upset you in any way. In truth, even though I am a Christian myself, I absolutely can't stand their reviews and how they go absolutely BONKERS at the slightest thing. In fact, except for their Passion Of The Christ review (they liked it due to its spiritual themes), all of what you said above is absolutely 100% correct, no joke (the "poorly done cartoon" being My Little Pony: The Movie). In fact, the ONLY reason I would even REMOTELY consider putting one of their reviews in a Wikipedia article would be because faith-based movies (which they often give 4-5 stars) The Shack and the first God's Not Dead have reviews by them too and I thought it might be best to follow suit just to please any FOTF (Focus On The Family) fans that might be out there. However, reading your comments have made me think twice and I will NEVER do ANY reviews by them again.

Warmest regards, --Neateditor123 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Does Focus on the Family even qualify as a reliable source and does it have a reputation of fact-checking? The article has a section which points out that the organization is misrepresenting sources, if not outright fabricating them:

"Social scientists have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their research in order to bolster its own perspective.[57] Researcher Judith Stacey whose work Focus on the Family used to claim that gays and lesbians do not make good parents, said that the claim was "a direct misrepresentation of the research."[58] She elaborated, "Whenever you hear Focus on the Family, legislators or lawyers say, 'Studies prove that children do better in families with a mother and a father,' they are referring to studies which compare two-parent heterosexual households to single-parent households. The studies they are talking about do not cite research on families headed by gay and lesbian couples."[59] FOTF claimed that Stacey's allegation was without merit and that their position is that the best interests of children are served when there is a father and a mother. "We haven't said anything about sexual orientation" said Glenn Stanton.[58]

James Dobson cited the research of Kyle Pruett and Carol Gilligan in a Time Magazine guest article in the service of a claim that two women cannot raise a child; upon finding out that her work had been used in this way, Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson asking him to apologize and to cease and desist from citing her work, describing herself as "mortified to learn that you had distorted my work...Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with...there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article."[60][61][62] Pruett wrote a similar letter, in which he said that Dobson "cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions", and asked that FOTF not cite him again without permission.[63]

After Elizabeth Saewyc's research on teen suicide was used by Focus on the Family to promote conversion therapy she said that "the research has been hijacked for somebody's political purposes or ideological purposes and that's worrisome", and that research in fact linked the suicide rate among LGBT teens to harassment, discrimination, and closeting.[64] Other scientists who have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their findings include Robert Spitzer,[65] Gary Remafedi[63] and Angela Phillips.[65] " Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I think that's way off topic here. I think there is little doubt that they are a reliable source for what their opinions are. If Focus on the Family says they like/don't like a movie, I don't doubt that they like/don't like it.

The proposed use here, which no one is supporting, has been excluded for a much better reason. - SummerPhD^v2.0

See Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. No one was suggesting citing them as a source for legal, medical or any fact of any sort.

More to the point, no one is arguing to add the material. The issue is moot. If you're simply trying to find something to argue about, I'd suggest going to the article on the original film and challenging the Answers in Genesis review. Heck, let's skip over the argument phase: Go ahead and take it to the RS/N. (Spoiler alert: Expect me to ask if Kerrang! would be a reliable source for a claim that some one is an unindicted felon vs. the same source saying the newest album by the Screaming Banshees of Viking Death Metal is "totally scorching!" Answers in Genesis is wrong about basically any field of science you'd care to mention. Their opinion on a mass market Christian film is relevant. I wouldn't trust Kerrang! to tell me what channel Jimmy Kimmel is on, but their opinions on Viking death metal bands are relevant.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"ACLU prosecutor"

I have not seen this movie. That said, I strongly doubt the filmmakers would have been dumb enough to have an "ACLU prosecutor".

First of all, my guess is the filmmakers did not say "ACLU" and instead created an overblown caricature of the ACLU with a wind and a nod.

The plot summary is fairly muddled. Was the teacher disciplined/fired and sued the school district for wrongful termination? Was the school district suing the teacher? Was the teacher in criminal court? These are three different situations. In each case, there would (likely) be legal counsel on both sides, but, to my knowledge, in the U.S. there would only be a prosecutor if it were a criminal case. A prosecutor would be representing "the people" and would be from the D.A.'s office.

As a stop-gap, I've replaced "ACLU prosecutor" with simply "prosecutor". It may or may not be correct. Unless someone can backup the absurd "ACLU prosecutor", though, it's less laughable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, it's a persecution fantasy, why would it be anything like real life? Guy (help!) 00:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I completely understand, but my guess is some viewer wrote the plot summary in such a way that it added additional errors to the plot. We want the article to present an accurate picture of the filmmakers' caricatures. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

In this revert, TheJoebro64 describes as "clear violations of WP:NPOV" the following:

• Restoration of a sourced claim recently removed by an IP and Popcornfud but restored by Rhododendrites that this movie is about the Christian persecution complex - a statement that is present in numerous reliable sources ([1], [2]), sufficiently so as to have inspired an SNL skit. As The Wrap says, "since the film refuses to disclose any reasons for the subpoena, the audience is encouraged to assume that the widespread persecution of all Christians is at hand. In Arkansas." - "a persecution-based war fantasy", they call it.
• Removal of a review by the fringe group Answers in Genesis sourced to their own website (seeWP:UNDUE and WP:PROFRINGE).
• Removal of a claim of fact that the RNC prevented display of the film sourced to Fox News, an unreliable source in this area, especially, and the story does not even report it as a fact, only as an allegation (see WP:UNDUE, WP:RS).
• Removal of a blog post at Catholic World Report, (see WP:SPS., WP:UNDUE). Even if this were not a blog, there is no article on the publication (it's a redirect) and it adheres to a fringe position, traditionalist Catholicism.
• Removal of speculation about a sequel sourced to CNSNews.com, listed at WP:RSP as an unreliable source and in any case superseded by the documented fact of the existence of the third film.

Wikipedia is here to describe things from a reality-based perspective, not to present a sympathetic portrayal of a movie generally regarded as (a) very bad and (b) a mix of projection and paranoid nonsense. Guy (help!) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a very bad film but it's not the article's place to preload it in those terms. We are describing a work of fiction here, a film, not a dinosaur fossil. We can't simply present the views of sources about the film as if they are fact. Putting aside separate debates about source quality, your prose edits are obvious WP:NPOV violations, as numerous editors agreed in the identical discussion at God's Not Dead, and frankly it makes the article look deranged. I have no doubt that the consensus will be against you on this one. Popcornfud (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would prevail here with wildly loaded terms that have been introduced.

I also don't get the objection to Catholic World Report, which is backed by Ignatius Press, widely regarded as producing solid mainstream content. There is nothing "fringe" about it. The blog would come under WP:NEWSBLOG; this reviewer typically publishes under their "Dispatch" section and he's clearly their in-house reviewer. Elizium23 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, I agree we are dealing with a work of fiction, but it asserts that it is based on reality (which it kind of is, since it portrays the opposite of real events).

But there are specifics. For example, we should not cite AiG as a primary source ever. They are creationist cranks. I don't have a problem attributing POV, but the film's basis ion the Christian persecution complex is more of a fact than a POV. Note The Wrap's take on the likelihood of persecution of Christians in Arkansas, and the consensus among multiple sources that the film's portrayal of atheists and secular activists is a straw man caricature. Guy (help!) 12:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud pretty much said everything I was going to say, and besides, I shouldn't be having to repeat myself from the prior discussion at the first film's talk page. This is a clear-cut case of an NPOV violation. JOEBRO64 12:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, I would suggest that edit-warring to include primary-sourced commentary from AiG is about as clear an NPOV violation as you can get. Guy (help!) 12:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

... you were the one who was edit warring to add in gross NPOV violations. That could easily be removed again. JOEBRO64 12:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you really ok with just repeating the claim that they are NPOV violations without providing any argumentation at all and then promising the edit war? (ditto Popcornfud, sans the latter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, as I said above, the article presents the views of sources about the film as if they are fact, in Wikipedia's voice. Popcornfud (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that. As per below, I suspect what you're primarily referring to regards the Christian persecution complex stuff? In general, when it comes to descriptions of the movie rather than, say, value judgments, if there's a strong consensus among the best sources, it's pretty common to present that in Wikipedia's voice. For example, in The Birth of a Nation, which is a GA, the lead includes the text "the film portrayed African-Americans (many played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive towards white women and presented the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) as a heroic force" - it's cited, but it's in Wikipedia's voice because it's widely shared view. Obviously there are some people who, if you ask them, are going to disagree because of their own beliefs, but that doesn't make it non-neutral. So it's not the case that we can never say these kinds of things in Wikipedia's voice -- it's a matter of whether the sourcing is strong enough. If the sourcing is strong enough to mention it but not in Wikipedia's voice, then the question becomes how to frame a la "regarded by most mainstream sources as..." or the like... (FWIW I hope nobody thinks I'm making a comparison between evangelicals and the klan, or between this movie and Birth of a Nation -- it's just the example that came to mind) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the Birth of a Nation example, I think that's appropriate, because the kind of claim being made isn't exactly the same. For example, I wouldn't object to this article saying something like The film portrays Christians as persecuted for their beliefs, or The film presents atheists as close-minded and arrogant, or somesuch (assuming of course that these are properly cited). But the prose at it stands goes further than that, with spicy claims like it presents an evangelical perspective on the separation of church and state that is "wholly divorced from any rational understanding of the topic" and saying the film includes "two-dimensional stereotypes". Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation article uses Wikipedia's voice to talk about "highly racist content" and says that it "received widespread criticism for its blatant racism". It's not just presenting what the film says, but the broad consensus among reliable sources. The argument that Guy has been making, which I think has merit, is that in this case you are arguing for the article to say just what the film says, and not what the broad consensus among reliable sources is. In the sources, when it talks about "persecution" it's typically criticizing it in the sense of the persecution complex, not merely saying "the film portrays Christians as persecuted for their beliefs" unqualified. The film says atheists are close-minded and arrogant; the sources do not. The sources, in fact, criticize it for making that point. Presenting what the film purports is not NPOV except perhaps in the plot section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

you are arguing for the article to say just what the film says, and not what the broad consensus among reliable sources is No, I don't think I am. It's essential that we convey what sources say about the film, but we must use proper WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV when we do it, and use caution with when we phrase things in Wikipedia's voice.

... This is getting off the point, but I also raise my eyebrows at the Birth of a Nation article saying the film received widespread criticism for its blatant racism. This wording presupposes that the film does indeed contain "blatant" racism, which was widely criticised. I would prefer to write that as the film was widely criticised as racist, which I think conveys exactly the same information in more neutral terms. I make that point here as an example of how we can have it both ways. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's back up a little here. Wikipedia operates by consensus based interpretation of our policies and guidelines. Guy presented his arguments. It would be really helpful if folks removing this material could articulate how it runs afoul of NPOV by responding to those arguments. If I may, I'm going to guess that the five bulletpoints outlined by Guy are not all equally controversial here. For example, removal of AiG and CNSNews shouldn't be at all controversial. I'm going to guess that removing Fox News and CWR are somewhat more controversial (FWIW I don't actually have a problem with the Fox one -- it's covering something also in the Hollywood Reporter and it's not all that contentious, I don't think). But, of course, mentioning Christian persecution complex is likely to be the most controversial, and maybe the thing worth focusing on? Fair? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't really go in-depth because I'd already gone in-depth at the first film's talk page. The problem I have is that JzG is treating those views as objective facts when they're not. For instance, in an earlier revision of the article, JzG wrote As with the original, the film is cheaply made, blunt, unsubtle and relies on stereotypes and straw men, "filled with a sense of paranoiac persecution and seething resentment towards secular public schools" and other evangelical bêtes noires in Wikivoice. That is completely unacceptable, and when other users (myself included) told him that it was an NPOV violation, he buckled down and refused to acknowledge that. Sure, the film is awful, but the way we should be getting that across is in a neutral article that addresses all sides and lets the reader decide. (Also, I don't see why having a Fox reference would be controversial at all; per WP:RS/P, Fox is reliable for content from its news content, and that reference is from the news section). JOEBRO64 15:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that JzG's edits constitute NPOV violations. Social issues aside, even when a film is universally panned, we never write directly, "The film had bad writing." We apply WP:SUBSTANTIATE and say something like, "The film's screenplay was lambasted by critics." We are working with film critics' opinions here. Furthermore, we need sourcing to discuss how a film was criticized overall to make sweeping claims. Even if sources say a film is bad, we cannot engage in WP:SYNTH of combining individual film critics' opinions to claim an overall perspective. In essence, the content should be removed or use in-text attribution to indicate who said what. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of working out a compromise for the lead, how about this:

God's Not Dead 2 is a 2016 American Christian drama film, directed by Harold Cronk, and starring Melissa Joan Hart, Jesse Metcalfe, David A. R. White, Hayley Orrantia and Sadie Robertson. It is a sequel to the 2014 film God's Not Dead, continuing its themes of conflict between Christians and atheists from an evangelical point of view. It follows a high school teacher facing a court case that could end her career, after having answered a student's question about Jesus - an apparent inversion of historical cases of prosecution of science teachers over the teaching of evolution.

God's Not Dead 2 was released on April 1, 2016. It was the final film role for Fred Dalton Thompson, who died in November 2015. Though it was moderately successful at the box office, earning $24 million on a $5 million budget, it grossed less than a third of its predecessor. It received negative reviews, and was widely criticized for being unrealistic, its basis in the Christian persecution complex, using two-dimensional stereotypes of atheists, and an inaccurate understanding of the separation of church and state. A sequel, A Light in Darkness, was released in March 2018.

I think this takes into consideration Guy's points, but also contextualizes some of the more controversial statements and removes them from the first two sentences. It also paraphrases a quote that doesn't appear in the body. I'm still unsure about the plot line summary at the end of [what's now the] first paragraph, but it feels like a start. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Shall I take no response to mean that nobody is particularly enthusiastic about this version, and thus that it might be a fine compromise (at least for now)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I think that's a great improvement. I started typing a few extra thoughts about this when you first suggested it but got distracted. I'll come back to you later today or some time this week. Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I didn't notice this before. I think we still need to include the link to the Christian persecution complex, because several sources identify the topic of the movie as being the fallacious claim of persecution of Christians in America today and that article describes it well; a lot of people are unaware that the Christian persecution narrative is mainly bunk (after all, they get the "war on Christmas" bullshit on Fox every year). As Jon Stewart put it:

Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.

— Jon Stewart - "The Long War On Christianity"

I don't mind using "inaccurate" as a characterisation of its misunderstanding of the separation of church and state, I used a quote from a professional film reviewer because I did not want to be accused of synthesis, but your suggestion there is fine. Guy (help!) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the link, I should be clear that the version I posted above simply has all markup stripped. I would assume the mention of that topic would be linked. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)