Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spit the episode/season section?

I didn’t see this at first, but after looking through the article I realized that this show has nearly four seasons at this point. I think we should divide it to a separate article so it won’t fall into the “TL;DR” category if you know what I mean. I’m not familiar on what the requirements are to make the episode/season section a disunite article, but seeing it has quite a few seasons perhaps we do so? Wolfquack (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There is actually a standard for making that decision: MOS:TVSPLIT. At this point, the article doesn't meet this standard. In fact, I recently nominated the season 1 and 2 articles for deletion as they don't conform to this standard and a split was never discussed. They are exact duplicates of information already included in the main article (this one), with nothing additional beyond that. Per the WP:WikiProject Television guideline, There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content. But I digress... IMO, there's not enough at this time to warrant a list article for the episodes either. The current article is very small in terms of readable prose (13k) and there are only 26 episodes at this time, not enough to justify a list article. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok I can see that, thanks for sharing that link to the subsection on MOS. Since 50-60 eps are needed to divide the section and article, I can definitely see (since the show will without doubt be on air for a while due to its popularity) when it gets to about the fifth season that I (or someone else) can begin developing the article and publish it when it gets to the sixth-seventh season, because by then it would meet the formers criteria. Although if it gets cancelled I’ll have to reluctantly discard those ideas. Wolfquack (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Season pages be deleted, I’ll go over there to see if I could “vote” on the article, or at best give some input. Wolfquack (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this discussion rather than starting a new one. As noted elsewhere, I'd like to get this article to WP:GA status. Working towards that, the article has been expanded quite a bit in the last couple of months, now at around 3500 words of readable prose (w/o the episode summaries). Without the cast list and episode lists, it's at about 22k. Add in 1k for each episode summary (and assuming a summary for the remaining season 3 episodes) plus the cast list and we're probably around 45k - close to the recommended split threshold noted by MOS:TVSPLIT. One of the recommendations from the most recent assessment was to go ahead and split a list article for the episodes. Because we're right at the threshold meeting the MOS guideline, and seeing that it was recommended in assessment, I'm going to WP:PROSPLIT an episode list article, as discussion is not needed. However, since this discussion also brought up the season episodes, I want to note that we are still a long way from needing to split season articles. There simply is not enough content at this point in time to warrant individual season articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Cast in article

The size of the cast is somewhat problematic for displaying a cast list. There are a lot of moving parts as some characters shift from season to season. That was the reason for making a single list rather than splitting "main" and "recurring" lists. This was discussed above (and if I can find it, I'll revise this with a quick link). It was also discussed that due to the complexity, it would be a good idea to use the table display method. Generally, that should wait until there are 3 or more seasons, but someone put one in, it was worked on, and then someone removed it. Where it stood prior to removal is this edit: [1]. Note that using the table method is an "either/or" proposition - either we use a list or we use the table. It should not use both. But if a table is used, sections of prose can be used for describing the cast/characters. House (TV series) and Grey's Anatomy are good examples of how to approach this, and that's how I'd recommend approaching it. Ultimately, the cast display is one of the things that is going to either hold the article back or move it forward in terms of evaluating it as B-class or higher (see assessment discussion below). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Assessment discussion

The article is presently independently assessed as C-class by members of WP:WikiProject Television, and after hundreds of additional edits, there isn't any current improvement to the article since that assessment that would move it closer to B-class. I'll explain why shortly, but I want to point out that we should all be working towards getting the article to GA status so it can be a featured article. But that's going to take effort on the part of everyone to work collaboratively using established guidelines. Constant instability due to edit warring is an immediate fail for GA criteria. Since this article tends to attract new, inexperienced editors who are passionate about the subject but who are often unfamiliar with how article assessment works, it would be good for you to review the guidelines here: WP:ASSESS. You can view the Television Project's assessment criteria and discussions here: WP:TV/A. Let me point out that the majority of current editing I see on this article does nothing to improve it for assessment. Much of the focus in the past has generally been on "list" detail (cast and episodes) which really don't matter much for assessment, other than being complete. It is the other sections of the article, such as production and response sections, that need much more work. That is also why I have mentioned in separate discussion why it is important to not split this article. Inexperienced editors see shows with separate season articles and list articles and think that's what should happen here, too. But there are specific guidelines and criteria for that process (see MOS:TVSPLIT) and this article doesn't meet any of them (and probably won't for a while). What I'm trying to point out is that if you split this article too soon, you'll end up with a bunch of C-class and lower articles that will never stand a chance of making GA assessment and will never be a featured article. Focus on building out the content that matters first. If you're really trying to be part of the project in terms of making this a GA/featured article, stop looking at other low grade articles as your example and instead look at examples of ones that have made it to that point. Here are some examples of what you should try to emulate: Featured Article (FA): House (TV series), A-class/Good Article (GA): Grey's Anatomy, B-class: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That doesn't mean "do it exactly this way" - but those are examples of what we're working towards in terms of assessment. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Update/addendum to the above: I previously said the article hadn't made much progress towards B-class since its last assessment. I want to walk that back a bit, as a further review would suggest that it's farther along than I previously thought. The article structure is fairly complete with the key sections used by MOS:TV, which is B#3. Likewise, there is good coverage of available information: B#2. For the most part, I think it could meet most of the criteria for B-class with a little copy-editing and improvement of sources (see The Chosen (TV series)#Source review above). ButlerBlog (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox network/distributor

Per the docs for Template:Infobox television, the network and distributor parameters are the "original". So even though there has been some change in this regard (VidAngel => Angel Studios), that needs to be reflected. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan site or IMDb, so our information reflects "what was" not "what is". So these need to be reflected probably as a plainlist with dates indicating the years. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Pay It Forward

I feel a little sheepish because this is a very small and technical issue—not substantive—but I would like to get consensus on how to structure "pay it forward" within the article. The Chosen's pay-it-forward page on angel.com seems to treat it like a proper noun by capitalizing it with no hyphens and no double quotes. However, I don't put too much stock in that; that is, I don't think there was a meaningful consensus made by the writers or editors or whoever. In any case, I absolutely don't think double quotes should be used. I think it should be either capitalized as a proper noun or hyphenated (I lean heavily toward hyphenated):

the Pay It Forward model or the pay-it-forward model

Thanks for the thoughts. Scapulus^takk 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since we have our own style guide, we adhere to that regardless of what another site may (or may not) do. I don't think the case can be made to capitalize it, and where it is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, it is not capitalized nor hyphenated (although it should be noted, not everything within the WP sphere is always following our own manual of style, so just because something exists here doesn't mean it's done correctly). I could support quotes or no quotes, but definitely not capitalized and probably not hyphenated. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I do understand that we have the WP:MOS, but as far as I know, there is no entry for "pay it forward." That's why I brought up the angel.com usage. If it had some sort of official usage within the company, then I would give credence to that (again, in the absence of any official entry in WP:MOS). Thank you for bringing up Pay it forward. That is useful. However, it refers generally to the concept of paying it forward and not to the treatment of the phrase as an adjective. There are, currently, five instances of "pay it forward" within the article's running text. The first is using the phrase generally, in which case I don't think the scare quotes are needed because the phrase is arguably well known and not being used out of context. The other four are being used as adjectives with the word "model" after it. Based on the third section of MOS:HYPHEN, I think hyphenation can be well supported. But I agree that hyphens may not be needed. I'll reiterate that scare quotes should be out of the question given that their grammatical function doesn't apply to this circumstance. Scapulus^takk 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No quotes is probably best. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if I don't get anymore input soon from anyone else, I'll just go ahead with "pay it forward" (no quotes). Scapulus^takk 17:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take care of it for now. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Promotional tone

Lacks objectivity, reads as if it is advertisement. Cwaterous (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has passed B-class assessment based on independent review from the Television Project and is written in neutral point of view based on reliable sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Cast list

Time for the cast list to grow and evolve with the show. I have edited it; changes are up for discussion rather than revision back to the status quo. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting to status quo. Please leave it at status quo ante. I'll listen to your reasons for changing it, but there are specific reasons for the cast list is the way it currently stands - and I noted them to you in the edit summary - previous independent article class assessments noted the excessive length of the cast and determined to maintain it as main cast only. The remainder are noted in the plot summaries. Please also review MOS:TVCAST, especially noting that not every cast member is notable, nor needs to be included. This article is currently pending a review for GA status, so please don't edit war over this as article instability is an immediate fail of the GA assessment process. If you don't understand things, ask. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Butlerblog, won't it fail GA if anything in the article is copied verbatim from anything on the internet let alone an unreliable source? Not to mention, I don't see it passing GA right now at all because much of the wording throughout the article is not well written. Characters such as Pontius Pilate need to be in the cast list. So does Mary Salome, especially since she is an actual person written about in the Bible. I can understand that the list should probably be pared down some, but then again, if you're leaving out important characteristics and points regarding a character in the show, then it's not a good list. What say you? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RE Characters such as Pontius Pilate need to be in the cast list. So does Mary Salome, especially since she is an actual person written about in the Bible: This article is not about the Bible story - it's about the television show, and therefore it falls under the television manual of style. A character's prominence in the Biblical narrative is not the determining factor - the show's credits are. Pontius Pilate is not a main character at this point. His inclusion is noted in the plot summary of the episode in which he appears. While he may very well be in the main cast in later seasons, he is not main cast at present, and for reasons already noted, this article does not list recurring or guest characters that are main cast in at least one of the seasons listed.

As for copyvio issues, if there's something you believe to be copied verbatim, identify it. At present, I'm not aware of anything that is an issue. Also, keep in mind that other sites copy Wikipedia, so something you find somewhere else could easily have been copied from here and not the other way around (which is not uncommon). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the work for you. The verbatim content pulled from other online sources listing these characters is out there, you just have to look for it. You want the article to pass GA, so you'll have to do the work to get it there, right? You have certainly been editing this article heavily and I'm going to assume you know the show pretty well. Salome has been featured in scenes in all three seasons, right alongside her husband Zebedee, and she IS a documented follower of Jesus so I don't know why you'd want to keep her out of the cast list. I will also assume you know the main and most well known storylines around the life of Jesus. Since Pontius Pilate is the only high ranking Roman in the Bible, and Jenkins does pull his most well known characters in the Jesus story from the Bible, it only makes sense that Pilate will be in upcoming episodes. In fact, it's certain he will be. But I suppose we can wait until he appears again, although I don't know why because his presence is going to be pivotal in the storylines to come. As will Lazarus and Mary and Martha his sisters who become followers. Good luck on the GA. Is it protocol in Wikipedia to keep people from editing an article when GA is forthcoming? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the work for you. Just, wow. You're making a claim of copyvio. If there's validity to your claim, address it. Otherwise, there is nothing further to discuss on that point. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do suspect a copyright violation, but I'm not going to devote time to investigating. I just thought you might like to know it's a possibility. As to the other cast members, the list needs updating and improving, that's all I was trying to do. Hopefully there will be no issue with getting GA status. I would like to know if it's expected that no one edit the article while GA reviewing or voting or however it works is happening. If you could answer that point I'd appreciate it. Thank you! A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no specific hard-and-fast rule, but's best to avoid editing while GA is pending as article stability is a contributing factor. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Quickfail

Hello @Butlerblog: I see you have nominated this article for GA status. Immediately I have to quick fail the article due to the edit war which happened earlier in the month. There was a series of edits and a ongoing talk page discussion. Additionally there was indeed copy right violations. Finally the use of Fox News is problematic in this instance as they have been established to be unreliable on politics and science which both have a relative overlap with religion. Finally the article itself is good except for the reviews section which seems rather small and most of the reviews listed come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. So I would recommend hunting down more reviews, doing a source cleanup, and archive some of the sources. Thanks OLI 01:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I would ask you to take a look at the Fox News sources again. They are not religion articles, they are from the entertainment category which would pass WP:RSP (same as this article is not a religion article here at Wikipedia - it's a television article). Can you provide more specifics for any copyright violations. I have used Earwig's copyvio detector and found no specific issues. Can you point out what you believe to be problematic? ButlerBlog (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the genre of the show (its about Jesus) it could be classified as an article about religion OLI 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your QF and will be renominating at some point. I'm going to address below each of the items you pointed out so that they can be noted in a future review as to what has been addressed. Your list of items did not cover the specific GA criteria directly. I don't know if that's because you chose to QF the review or if it's due to lack of experience in the process. I'm going to assume the former, but you didn't specifically state that and then went on with additional items I would expect to see listed in terms of the GA criteria they represent.

• QF4 (not stable due to edit warring): As noted above, I disagree with your assessment of what occurred. The article history is pretty stable, and the editor in question accepted the reversion in the talk page discussion. That's not the kind of ongoing edit war and page instability that QF4 is intended to address.
• QF2 & GA2D (copyright): I'm assuming since you claimed there were copyright violations, that this also would be QF2 in your mind. I really do not see where you are getting this - and more importantly, why you're not pointing it out directly (even when asked, see above comment from 25 Aug). If there are copyvio issues, then you are obliged to point them out so they can be addressed. I personally have written well over half of the article's prose, so I'm pretty familiar with what was written and how it was cited. I have also run the article through WP:EARWIG on more than one occasion. With the exception of a blog that is very obviously a case of WP:BACKWARDSCOPY, there isn't even a question of copyvio. Any verbatim content from the sources is formatted as a quote. Anything else is attributed to the cited source. If there's a copyvio issue, you really need to point out exactly what it is. It can't be addressed otherwise. I'll further note that what User:Alaska4Me2 said on the talk page about I'm not going to do the work for you shows a total disregard for our process for reporting issues outlined at WP:DCV. I would appreciate you not doing the same. If you suspect it, address it directly. Otherwise, don't bother bring it up.
• GA2: Somewhere in the GA2 criteria, you're applying WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, which I would suggest you are misinterpreting/misapplying. The articles used were from the Fox News Entertainment category, which is perennial source under WP:FOXNEWS. Additionally, consider the context of what they are citing and how they are being applied. In GA2B, are these controversial statements and could they be challenged? The answer is a clear "no" because what they cited was non-controversial information taken from an interview with the series creator about his development of the series. They're not citing a declarative statement about religion or a controversial item (and as noted, the article is about a television series, not about religion anyway). Regardless, I reviewed the source material and removed or replaced most of the uses of Fox with the minor exception of two places in the article using the same single source, and if you'll look at where/how the source is used, you'll see that it is used appropriately.
• GA1B: I have taken what you noted about the reviews section and worked on that section. But like the other items, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of that section. Per MOS:TV, the article has all the appropriate sections (even though that is not technically required), and "reviews" is a subsection of "reception". The very first sentence of that section states the show's popularity began largely as an underground phenomenon, going unnoticed and unreviewed by major publications. Taking that in context, there is very little in terms of "standard" reviews (and awards/accolades) because the show has intentionally operated outside of the Hollywood mainstream. To attempt to seek out more content for this section would be "forced" and inauthentic in the article. Since sources such as Variety typically pan this type of production, you simply are not going to find many reviews that come from WP:RS qualified sources. If there aren't mainstream reviews (which there aren't), then there just aren't any. Now, with that in mind, I have sought out some additional content for this section, and I'll note that I disagree with the assessment that they come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. If you disagree with that, then I would ask what sources you think are not "typical".

ButlerBlog (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GAN/I#N4/WP:GAN/I#N5, I am renominating to get a different reviewer. As I noted in the above comments, I believe the previous QF was invalid or inappropriately applied criteria. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah thats fair I've kinda been going through something elsewhere on the wiki :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 19:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the AfC issues, too. I think that all of it is due primarily to inexperience. Don't take it personally, as we all have to start somewhere. As far as this one goes, I've already moved on with renomination, but you do owe some follow-up to Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1)/GA1, or at least withdraw from the process so someone else can complete a review (WP:GAN/I#N4a). ButlerBlog (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Character boxes

How is main or recurring status determined for the series and season?

There are folks that appear in:

• Opening title credits
• End credits: Also starring

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the discussions around the cast list are in the archive. Through the process of two independent assessments (from "start" to "C" class, then "C" to "B" class), it was recommended that, due to the length and complexity of the entire cast, that the list be limited to main cast only. I think that through discussion (in the archive), that was essentially determined by opening credits. I did the first two seasons, and if I recall correctly, someone else added the 3rd, but I confirmed it and all of that was based on opening credits (i.e. per MOS:TVCAST, the billing of main cast is determined by the production, not by our own personal taste). Also per MOS:TVCAST, new main cast is added in order (so old main cast that may not carry over to the next season still remains). At some point, it will likely be necessary to have a list article for cast/characters. First, that would alleviate some of the contention that certain characters be included even though they may not be listed in the opening credits. And second, that prevents clutter of dozens of minor characters in the main article. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify - the list is "main cast" (opening credits) over three seasons. So while someone may have been main cast in only one or two seasons, it lists their status from any other season they also appeared in (rather than only taking their main cast season alone). The models used for example were The Killing (American TV series)#Cast, House (TV series), and Grey's Anatomy (as far as how the table was applied. House has a separate list article for cast and characters that could serve as a model for expanding a list article to incorporate a listing of main plus recurring and guest cast. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 In progress Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs:, could you please take a look at the article talk page and the diff history of the article's edits over the last 48 hours in addition to the ANI case related to same? [2] I think that in relation to reviewing the article for GA status, it might be important to note needed changes to the article for the sake of accuracy are being ignored and argued over. Thank you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

David - in light of the fact that this review has been indefinitely on hold, and considering recent events, I'm withdrawing the article's current GA nomination. I'll consider re-nomination at a later date. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point, noting that there are periods of article instability from time-to-time, and considering that part of that is driven by the fact that the series has not yet concluded, it makes sense to put GA nom on hold until after it has concluded. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Butler, I thought I'd saved my review months ago, but apparently the edit didn't go through. I'm in the process of re-reviewing the article (sadly didn't keep my off-wiki draft); if the article status remains unstable then I'll note it, but at this point considering you've had it in the queue for months I think it'd be a more productive use of time to give feedback rather than have it go to the bottom of the nom list again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

David - No worries on the save/edit. I honestly hadn't thought about it until a week ago or so. I respect your feedback, so even if it's not for GA status, it will be duly welcomed. TIA. (Should I replace the nom that I removed, or just let it go?) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the template to the talk page; it's not listen on the nominations page at present but I will see if that repopulates it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs The nomination is on the list, but as a review-in-progress. Are you still intending to review this? If not, I think you can G7 it? -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Have the disagreements with this article settled out so it's in a relatively stable position? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Yes - it has been stable for some time now. And I'm available to address anything that is necessary for review. Just let me know. I'm subscribed to notices on this. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments as follows:

• General/layout:
  • Covers main expected topics of a TV series article (premise, episodes, development, distribution and reception.)
    • The lead doesn't really cover the reception of the show, and doesn't really detail much of the production besides the crowdfunding aspects and the initial concept and writing.
  • If there's an overall issue with the article at present, it seems like it hasn't been effectively updated. There's issues throughout where it seems like a lack of information about the present state of the show; for example "international distribution" only mentions season 1 and 2 getting dubbed or subtitled, with no update for seasons 3. Likewise, the critical reception section feels scattershot and not effectively organized, mostly focusing on initial impressions when it was an underground hit and not any greater attention over the course of its run. (And only mentions one season on Rotten Tomatoes.) Viewership, awards and accolades: this all feels like it's missing info.
• References:
  • References are inconsistently formatted; you've got some websites or newspapers listed in the publisher field when they should be in the work/website field (c.f. Deseret News), some works wikilinked in some instances, not in others (c.f. Christian Post). Current ref 88 is missing retrieval dates, Ref 89 has a date in the author field, and there's some bare URLs or improperly fleshed-out fields (c.f. Ref 40, 67.)
  • I don't think Aleteia should be used for anything other than opinion; it's a for-profit ideological institution.
  • The Daily Universe as a campus newspaper likewise I don't think is a great source to be using, let alone repeatedly.
  • What makes Eternity News, Techbuzz, Religion News Service, ChurchLeaders.com, ChristianHeadlines.com, Movieguide, TheDirect, TheCatholicSpirit.com, and Rush to Press reliable sources?
  • Spotchecks: checked statements attributed to this version refs # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 19, 20, 23, 36, 37, 45, 48, 51, 57, 67, 86, 94, 106
    • Ref 1 is used to support Noting there had never been a multi-season, episode-based portrayal of Jesus and his disciples that could be "binge-watched" in the same way as shows on streaming mediums such as Netflix but that source doesn't really talk about trying to create a bingeable Netflix show, just says "using an episodic formula not unlike what a viewer might see on popular networks or streaming services".
    • Translation into as many as 600 languages is being funded by the Come and See Foundation. really should be updated given that this is two years out of date, and also implies that doing the translation is essentially locked.
    • Ref 20 is used to support At the end of January 2019, the first fundraising round had raised over $10.2 million from more than 16,000 investors for the project, which surpassed Mystery Science Theater 3000 as the top crowdfunded TV series project. Each investor received equity in "The Chosen LLC", which is regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)., but the source gives the number as $11 million, doesn't mention the LLC or MST3K.
    • Ref 3 is used to cite the average contribution, but given that it's three years out of date, this needs additional context.
    • Ref 67 is used to support The finale opened in theaters on February 2, 2023, and was #1 at the box office with $1.67 million. but it doesn't show it being #1 at the box office at all from what I can tell (and I don't see how it would be with a $1.67 million day-one gross.)
• Media:
  • The images all use links to a press site which isn't archived and is now a 404 link. I've checked the updated press site and there's no information on CC licensing, but the pages were verified at the time so they should be acceptable.
  • Infobox image reasonably meets PD-text threshold.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I'll go over your comments and see about getting these addressed. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Review response

@David Fuchs: Thanks for your review and comments. I have edited the article and tried to address each item. Note that after both removing some items and shifting others, the source numbers from your original comments are no longer valid. I also did a complete audit of the sources to make sure formatting was consistent throughout. What follows is a list of what I addressed relative to your specific comments. If anything is unclear, unacceptable, requires additional attention, or anything else, just let me know and I'll get on it quickly.

The lead doesn't really cover the reception of the show, and doesn't really detail much of the production besides the crowdfunding aspects and the initial concept and writing.

• I did a complete rework of lead to remove some redundant items and unnecessary detail (covered elsewhere) and added coverage of production and reception.

If there's an overall issue with the article at present, it seems like it hasn't been effectively updated. There's issues throughout where it seems like a lack of information about the present state of the show; for example "international distribution" only mentions season 1 and 2 getting dubbed or subtitled, with no update for seasons 3. Likewise, the critical reception section feels scattershot and not effectively organized, mostly focusing on initial impressions when it was an underground hit and not any greater attention over the course of its run. (And only mentions one season on Rotten Tomatoes.) Viewership, awards and accolades: this all feels like it's missing info.

• Some of this is due to being limited to what is available in reliable sources. It goes in spurts, and outside of self-published sites and fan sites, there's not as much available yet on season 3, and even less on season 4. So I'm working with what's available instead of trying to "force it".
• I didn't see the critical reception section the same way. My line of thinking was cover the fact that it is largely an underground phenomenon - even now it is mostly panned by mainstream Hollywood sources. So I started there, and led into a discussion of positive and of course negative. Then actual reviews, followed by awards. (After looking at this flow a little more, I did move the viewership subsection up to before the reviews as that may segue better. It may even be better just working it into the content just prior.)
• RE: Rotton Tomatoes - since we don't generally use audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes, I only used what has been long-standing general consensus in TV - the reviews. Unfortunately, there's only one season that has a review rating for this season, leaving three possibilities - leave it as-is because that's what's available, take it out as unnecessary or incomplete, or include audience ratings. I don't necessarily have a strong opinion towards any of those so I'd defer to what you think it should be. I did make some revisions to the article overall to smooth it out so that it doesn't give the impression that it's missing updated info.
• Awards - I am reworking this and I think it's probably time to display this in a table format. There are a couple of additional awards to add so I think a table format will make it readable/accessible (in progress) Done

References are inconsistently formatted; you've got some websites or newspapers listed in the publisher field when they should be in the work/website field (c.f. Deseret News), some works wikilinked in some instances, not in others (c.f. Christian Post). Current ref 88 is missing retrieval dates, Ref 89 has a date in the author field, and there's some bare URLs or improperly fleshed-out fields (c.f. Ref 40, 67.)

• Some of this may be due to using the visual editor's citation insert, and some of it was me missing certain edits/additions by other editors in the interim while waiting for the review. I addressed the bare URLs and the other specific refs mentioned. Then, I did a full audit of all sources to validate links, fill in empty parameters, make sure parameters were correct (such as faulty author info from automatically generated citations), cleanup the publisher/work/website fields and wikilink all instances that have an available article (also made sure all citations that have a source used elsewhere were listed consistently), and made sure all sources had retrieval dates.

I don't think Aleteia should be used for anything other than opinion; it's a for-profit ideological institution. & The Daily Universe as a campus newspaper likewise I don't think is a great source to be using, let alone repeatedly.

• No disagreement from me on either of these. Eliminated...

What makes Eternity News, Techbuzz, Religion News Service, ChurchLeaders.com, ChristianHeadlines.com, Movieguide, TheDirect, TheCatholicSpirit.com, and Rush to Press reliable sources?

• Some of these slipped in unawares in the interim between the GA nom and the actual review. Most are unacceptable sources, some were added as bare URL refs (so I know that wasn't me), and frankly, I just missed that they were slipped in. In several cases they were used as a second source (the statement/fact already has another source). Where a second source existed, I removed the unacceptable source, leaving the reliable source. In a couple of cases, I removed the entire statement that was being cited. I purged any use of the following questioned sources: Eternity news, Techbuzz, TheDirect, TheCatholicSpirit, and replaced the churchleaders.com source with something similar from the Salt Lake Tribune.

• Christianheadlines.com is part of crosswalk.com, which is part of Salem Media Group. I would consider Salem Media to be a reliable source. All of the Christianheadlines.com stuff has now been duplicated on the crosswalk.com site, so anything from christianheadlines.com was either replaced in my audit, or updated to the corresponding crosswalk.com URL.

• I will defend a couple of these as useful. The Religion News Service doesn't show a reason to not be used as a reliable source for citing statements of fact. Likewise, Movieguide is a reliable source in Christian media circles.

• Rush to Press covers Christian publishing and is primarily press releases (so a primary source). In this case, it's only being used to support author and date of release. But I'm open to taking it out if that's better.

Ref 1 is used to support Noting there had never been a multi-season, episode-based portrayal of Jesus and his disciples that could be "binge-watched" in the same way as shows on streaming mediums such as Netflix but that source doesn't really talk about trying to create a bingeable Netflix show, just says "using an episodic formula not unlike what a viewer might see on popular networks or streaming services".

• I think that over time, some citations were moved around or edited, and the "binge" part of it comes from another source. But in my rework of the lead to make room for other stuff without ending up with an overly long lead, I ended up reworking it significantly and that part came out anyway. (Everything not cited in the lead, BTW, is covered in the article and is specifically cited there)

Translation into as many as 600 languages is being funded by the Come and See Foundation. really should be updated given that this is two years out of date, and also implies that doing the translation is essentially locked.

• It essentially is locked - the "600 languages" is part of their current pitch and hasn't changed. I saw a video interview from late 2023 that still uses this same number. I wouldn't expect this number to change anytime soon as it will likely take them a decade to achieve it. (Note: that's actually a similar case with other numbers that circulate around - they are using numbers from seasons 1 and 2 in even current interviews, so when quoted in a secondary source, the viewership numbers they use are from previous seasons)

Ref 20 is used to support At the end of January 2019, the first fundraising round had raised over $10.2 million from more than 16,000 investors for the project, which surpassed Mystery Science Theater 3000 as the top crowdfunded TV series project. Each investor received equity in "The Chosen LLC", which is regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)., but the source gives the number as $11 million, doesn't mention the LLC or MST3K.

• Addressed this by revising text to more correctly state what is in the source, and located the source of the MST part of it. Removed anything not specifically stated. I do recall where the LLC part and similar info came from - it was early in the article's history and the source was the actual SEC filing, which is a primary source and rather non-specific. I think that source was replaced along the way, but the sentence wasn't revised.

Ref 3 is used to cite the average contribution, but given that it's three years out of date, this needs additional context.

• Put a date on this and moved it into a place where it flows from the previous crowdfunding through Angel (which is when that data is from) to now what is the Come and See Foundation (for which the average contribution information is not available). I haven't found any reliable source that states the average contribution more recently.

Ref 67 is used to support The finale opened in theaters on February 2, 2023, and was #1 at the box office with $1.67 million. but it doesn't show it being #1 at the box office at all from what I can tell (and I don't see how it would be with a $1.67 million day-one gross.)

• Got rid of this altogether for two reasons - first, the cited source issue. But also, because somewhere along the line, a table was added that displays theatrical release dates and gross receipts. Repeating the same information in prose is simply redundant.

Sorry for the length, but I wanted to reference each item specifically. Feel free to reformat the above if it makes things easier to read or more compliant. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding two notes to the above - I reworked the lead, covering the key points without being too long, and I converted the awards/accolades section to a table display (adding the more recent nominations and awards). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Accepting the caveat that you can't flesh out some sections better due to sourcing, I think the reception section still needs work. I'm not sure why there's a "reviews" section that is separate from the general reception, because critical reception is generally what we base these on, and it's weird for it to sum up reception (including negative reception) but then restate it from critics afterwards. The reviews section also mostly just lists reviewers and stray comments from them rather than being a cohesive and organized summary. WP:RECEPTION has some pointers on this; I would suggest that the critic opinion get mixed in with the commentary on its general popularity rather than trying to separate them, especially if what's present in the reviews section is most of what's out there from reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 09:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs:I definitely see what you mean. Over time, there were some rewrites of this section after the B-class review, and then again after the previous GA review. It kind of over-evolved based on those - the pendulum swung from under written to over-written. I have hacked it down by merging duplicate thoughts and copy-editing the whole thing to get it from scattershot to something more fluid/coherent. Here's a breakdown of the progression I hope the c/e conveys:

• Point out that it started largely underground, being panned by mainstream coverage. After being picked up by Peacock, viewership grew from there. (Eliminated viewership subsection and moved this information into this opening paragraph.
• Coverage of reviews that point out the show's insularity and largely Christian audience, although it has been noted to have mainstream crossover potential.
• Coverage of its authenticity, acting, production value, etc.
• Coverage of negative reception.

Obviously, I'll re-edit as needed, but I think this is much better now. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thanks. Passing the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for your review and all your help along the way, David. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Status query

David Fuchs, Butlerblog, where does this review stand? There were a few strikes on this page early last month, and a few recent edits to the article; is there good progress being made? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Blue I am still working on the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding added content

@Butlerblog The sources that previously claimed a supposed heresy belong to the same page I cited to add positive contexts about the series, 1. In the first instance 2, I synthesized two sources improperly, for which I apologize. In the second instance 3, I refer to the source itself. Considering the 3rd reversion 4 of my edit for trying to include context, there must be a specific issue regarding this. As the sources are blogs, it would be best to leave it without that mention. Best regards. Berposen (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There are several problems with what was added. First, there's the issue of grammatical/structural style. It appears from the edits as well as your words here ("[adding] positive contexts about the series") that you're trying to offset the section of critical review. By doing that, the paragraph structure is thrown off. Additionally, there's no need for that as there is already a clear differentiation between positive and critical review of the series. In fact, that entire section consists of predominately positive review. Related to this is that your copy is very editorial in style (such as "Among the quarantine phenomena that have made a splash on Catholic social media, one stands out from the rest"). Don't write in a persuasive style. This is not really appropriate copy for encyclopedic content. See WP:EDITORIAL. As far as sources are concerned, I didn't have as much of a problem with the first source (although I did have a problem with the content as noted already), but the second one is clearly problematic as it is definitely a blog and not appropriate as an RS (see WP:SELFPUBLISH). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Clearly, understood. Thank you for the time you dedicated to this. Kind regards." Berposen (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Disciples, not Apostles

The 12 men following Jesus in the show are not Apostles. They are not referred to as Apostles. "Apostles" as a label was not given to the 12 Disciples until after Jesus' death, resurrection, and the Holy Spirit descended on all of them, as recorded in the Book of Acts. The Chosen is a show based on the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Acts is not one of the Gospel books. The cast/character descriptions need to match what's happening in the show and the literature the show is based on, not what was written about the Disciples/Apostles in books not included in the Gospels or in the show's content. Butlerblog, for whatever reason, is set on keeping the description of the 12 students/followers of Jesus as "Apostles", but not once have the writers referred to the Disciples in the show as Apostles, nor has that been reflected in the script. In fact, there was no such thing AS an apostle in Christendom until after the events of the Book of Acts took place. I believe using "Apostles" in this article isn't just incorrect, is anachronistic and changes the narrative of the show. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me address this statement: "[N]ot once have the writers referred to the Disciples in the show as Apostles, nor has that been reflected in the script". That is incorrect, otherwise I would not have reverted your changes. In season 3, episode 2, Roumie (Jesus) says the following (emphasis added) "There will be many more followers and like those not here, all will have roles and responsibilities. Most will be disciples, students. But I have chosen you twelve as my apostles."[3].

To address your noting that "[t]he cast/character descriptions need to match what's happening in the show and the literature the show is based on..." you're partially right. You need to leave it at "what's happening in the show". We've been through this issue before, but it bears repeating. The show is the subject of the article and is a work of historical fiction, so the info about characters or names or anything else is "in-universe" regardless of what scripture says (or doesn't say). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Radiant Fellow & Butlerblog: Yes, Jesus chose them to be His Apostles, but for the future, for a later time. The 11 (not 12 because of Judas' betrayal and suicide) became apostles later, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They could not be apostles while Jesus was still on earth because while He was there, they were his students, His disciples. Apostles are emissaries. Jesus commissioned the disciples to be His emissaries AFTER He had resurrected. Even in the body of this article, they are referred to repeatedly as disciples, not apostles. Dallas Jenkins, in interviews, refers to them as disciples, not apostles. The actors themselves, refer to their characters as disciples, not apostles. This link to Angel Studios' list of the cast in the show refers to them as disciples, not apostles. [4] Their characters are disciples in the show, therefore, they need to be referred to as disciples in this article as well. The article is about the show, so we need to stick to the facts of and about the show based on sources (like the cast list from Angel Studios - and others elsewhere online). We can't justify using "apostle" because it was uttered once in the show. Repeated use of "disciples" to describe the 12's characters in cast lists, scripts, and by the writers themselves is evidence enough that "disciples" is correct and "apostles" is not. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: At this point, your continued reverts are against consensus, so stop doing it. I have no problem with discussing this and considering a change. However, your repeated reverts are not the way to accomplish that (nor is that a positive way of swaying my opinion). You made a change, you were reverted. At that point, the preferred path forward is WP:BRD. BRD is not arguing your point while also continually reverting to your preferred change. It is understanding that your change was not accepted by other editors and leaving it status quo ante while discussion ensues. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: and @Radiant Fellow:, you are reverting without discussing. Your repeated reverts are not the way to come to a consensus, so why you claimed in an edit summary there was already consensus makes no sense. Your quote of one instance in the show and script where "apostles" was used vs. the multiple times "disciple(s)" is used in the show, as well as the multiple cast lists found online that say "disciple" (including from Angel Studios, see link in my previous comments above) is not persuasive. Attacking me in your last comments and trying to make a case against me as an editor is not discussing the issue and topic at hand. Please stick with the facts of the show, the actual scripts and cast lists that refer to the characters of the 12 as disciples (not apostles), and go from there. If you revert again without actual discussion and consideration of the very valid points I made above, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring and just being plain stubborn in a POV manner. I don't want to do that, but at this point feel as if you are intentionally forcing my hand that direction. Please, if you have strong evidence other than one utterance of "apostles" during the three seasons and 24 episodes that "disciples" isn't accurate, then bring it here so we can talk about it. Thank you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: It is clear that you do not understand what consensus is, nor how it is arrived at, and your continued reverts and historical pattern of trying to force edits through edit warring are detrimental to the article stability. Consensus on the version status quo ante was arrived at some time ago [5] through editing. Further, two editors have reverted your change. You do not seem to understand that editing is a form of consensus building and I would refer you to WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You need to put the article back to the status quo ante version until consensus changes through discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

hello, @Butlerblog, as per the request of @Alaska4Me2, the link that the latter provided mentions the word "Apostles," hence, distinguishing the definition between apostles (the twelve) and disciples (other followers besides the twelve). Hoping this will come to light in agreement, since the article says otherwise, seeing that we must follow what the show is chronologically. Radiant Fellow (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog and @Alaska4Me2, I stated the reason above my justification, thank you. In addition, the details of the show here in Wikipedia must be based on the sequential terms in the series. Radiant Fellow (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog and @Alaska4Me2, in addition, considering these twelve disciples are not only disciples but are termed for the show itself, specifically the content, as "Apostles" (based on the link given [6] which mentions the special title of Apostles). Reconsider this aspect as it's for the more accurate information of the characters in the series. As @Butlerblog initially agreed with me, and with the link @Alaska4Me2 clearly provided that the latter used to support the latter's change, the term 'Apostles' is more fitting and satisfactory for this medium due to the current course of the show. Thank you. Radiant Fellow (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Except it's not more fitting since the official cast/character list at Angel Studios refers to every one of the 12 as "disciples". "Apostles" isn't mentioned there once. Are you saying Angel Studios isn't a reliable source? Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2, you are explicitly wrong when you said, ""Apostles" isn't mentioned there once." The term "Apostles" is mentioned in the link you, @Alaska4Me2, provided, such as where it states, "The Chosen’s main cast of characters—mostly comprised of Jesus, the Apostles or disciples, and those closest to Him." Please, reconsider this with my justification for this matter, alongside the presented arguments. Furthermore, I'm not implying Angel Studios isn't a reliable source as I examine it. @Butlerblog, what's your take? Radiant Fellow (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

While the term "apostles" is mentioned there, "disciples" is used in the descriptions, and we should use it here. As for the source, it's not what we'd consider "ideal" as a source, but that's not the same as saying "not reliable". I'd consider it useable, but on a limited basis. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Radiant Fellow: - you have reverted back to your preferred, albeit incorrect, version of the article without discussing a thing at this page. Not once have you tried to talk about it. Your edit summary says, "corroborating ButlerBlog" and claims there has been consensus. [7] How can there be consensus without discussion? It would be great if you actually came here to discuss rather than acting in proxy for another editor who, it now seems from all appearances, feels he has ownership over the article. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The premises that the term apostle should only be used for followers of Jesus after his death and that the apostles did not include Judas Iscariot are not in accord with the Gospels of Luke (6.13: "When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles:"[8], with Greek αποστολους) or Matthew (10.1-2,5: "Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles ... and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions:"). While disciple means, roughly, pupil / apprentice / follower, apostle means one who is sent out, and Jesus is described as sending them out as apostles quite early in those gospels. NebY (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: What you've mentioned here MAY be a faulty premise (from a theological and exegetical perspective, I don't believe it is at all). But since this is a TV show article not a New Testament Bible or theology article, we have to go with with the reliable sources say. Right now, the reliable written source we have available to us is the studio that has produced the released series episodes up to this point, Angel Studios. And at their official cast/character list, the (later) Apostles are each noted to be a "disciple", not apostle. Not to mention, in cast/crew/production staff interviews found online (especially from Dallas Jenkins, the show's creator, director, and co-writer), "disciple" to describe the 12 is used repeatedly, if not almost exclusively. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We are not restricted to the vocabulary of cast lists nor, as you acknowledge, were those involved. Apostles is a common, conventional and gospel term for those disciples individually and collectively, and vice versa; the twelve apostles are often referred to as disciples. Our articles Apostle, Apostles in the New Testament, Commissioning of the Twelve Apostles and Disciple (Christianity) go into some detail on the matter. NebY (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's my understanding that we are restricted to what sources say and that Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source. Anything else way may find that doesn't support the subject of the article or we have personal knowledge of is original research, is it not? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the use of the term "apostles" for the twelve apostles does not constitute WP:OR. I include those links to our articles for your information, in response to your "from a theological and exegetical perspective, I don't believe it is at all" and I would still encourage you to read them, but I acknowledge that I'm unlikely to convince someone who's started from the egregious WP:OR that ""Apostles" as a label was not given to the 12 Disciples until after Jesus' death, resurrection, and the Holy Spirit descended on all of them, as recorded in the Book of Acts" and so will end here by saying that you do not have consensus for your assertions that the disciples should not be referred to as apostles. NebY (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It does constitute original research in relation to the tv show, this article's subject. I agree that the apostles were apostles eventually. But while they were walking and talking and learning from their Rabbi (Jesus) during the course of the Gospels, they were still disciples. The television show, The Chosen, is about and based on the Gospels and the activity that took place as recorded in the Gospels. Even the description of the show and its purpose states as much at the beginning of season one, episode one: "The Chosen is based on the true stories of the gospels of Jesus Christ...". The 12 were not referred to, nor did they refer to themselves, as apostles until AFTER the time period of the Gospels closed out. They became Jesus' emissaries (which is what an apostle is) after He issued His Great Commission, which is in the very last chapter of the Book of Matthew. At that point, they became Apostles, and that is recorded in the Book of Acts.

Regardless, none of this is part of the storyline of The Chosen (yet). And the official cast list/character description(s) of the 12 still says "disciple". That is the source we have, and that is the one we are using to support the use of disciple. Everything else presented that is wholly unrelated to the show, the article subject, is off-topic. The show is what we are writing about, not theology or apologetics. I hope this further explanation helps you better understand. Thank you, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"The very last chapter of the Book of Matthew" is not the first reference in that book to Jesus sending out apostles. The beginning of Matthew 10 describes Jesus sending out his twelve disciples, and names them:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; ³Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; ⁴Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
— Matthew 10:1-5

All three synoptic gospels are alike in this - see Luke 6:12–16 and   Mark 3:13–19. This is depicted in the third season of The Chosen and that is appropriately described in our article using "apostles". NebY (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: Again, they were not, and could not be, considered apostles until AFTER they were done being under the tutelage of Jesus, their Rabbi. In order to understand the dynamics, one has to understand the relationship between a Rabbi and their student(s). Christianity isn't the only religious belief system that uses the word "disciple". It has been used in Judaism for many millennia. Even into adulthood, Jewish males (and some females) were, in Jesus' day, called disciples if they were studying under a rabbi and spending years of dedicated time to learning in order to become rabbinic teachers. In the New Testament, it's apparent from the purpose of Jesus' training of the 12, they were being apprenticed to be rabbinic teachers. Once their time of intense study, internship, and learning was completed, the student (the disciple) became a rabbinic teacher themselves, but only after their rabbi formally released them from their disciple-status. That is exactly what the Great Commission is: Jesus releasing His 11 students (not 12 because Judas had not yet been replaced) to go out and be apostles (i.e., rabbinic teachers to the world). Remember, Jesus and the disciples/apostles were not "Christians", they were Jewish men who adhered not just to the Law but also to tradition. There was a method to how things were done and they stuck with it (except for the new things God was doing via Jesus' Messianic ministry, which was definitely not Jewish- and Law-traditional). When the disciples went out two-by-two, they were in an internship phase of their training and learning. When Jesus died, rose from the grave, and appeared to the disciples, He was soon to ascend into heaven, and not return to earth until the end of the age. He needed emissaries ("apostles"), Rabbinic teachers, to go out and be His ambassadors for Him and His Gospel. We see the "end of the age" reference in Matthew 28:20. This is Jesus telling the disciples He needed them to teach the world about Him, and so He was preparing them to become apostles (Rabbinic teachers) when He left them and the earth, until He returns at "the end of the age". The end of the age being the Millennium. He gave them that waypoint, because when He returned/returns, there will be no more need for His emissaries (apostles), as His 1000 year reign will commence, the time when He will reign for 1000 years over Israel and the world.

This is common knowledge and theology within Christendom, especially evangelical Christianity. Keep in mind that the creator and director of The Chosen, as well as several of his development advisors for the show, are also evangelical Christians. It makes sense that their approach to how they refer to the 12 would follow that theology. And they continually refer to the 12 as "disciples". Not just in the scripts, but also in interviews and the roundtables that can be watched at the end of the episodes. They were referred to as "disciples" at ChosenCon in Dallas, TX back in October, too. But most importantly, that's how they are referred to in the scripts and in the official cast list at the Angel Studios webpage. It doesn't matter what you and I know or believe theologically, what conclusions we come to based on research. What we try to piece together to prove "disciples" or "apostles" is one more correct than the other (ButlerBlog is right, what you produced above is WP:SYNTH, and we can't use it as a support for inclusion in the article).

The source for "disciple" is solid and it's what we have to go with BECAUSE we are writing about the show, not theology. Again, I hope this explanation helps you better understand why we are sticking with "disciple" rather than going back to "apostle". A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you accept that

• Matthew 10:1-5 describes Jesus sending out twelve disciples and calls them apostles (KJV: Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; Gr: Τῶν δὲ δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστιν ταῦτα)
• Luke 6:12-16 describes Jesus sending out twelve disciples and Jesus calling them apostles (KJV: whom he also named apostles; Gr: καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν)?

NebY (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with @NebY. Radiant Fellow (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: Why do you keep going back to what the Bible says about it? This is not a Bible article. It is a television show that is historical fiction. The Bible is not a source for this article - the show is. What you are supporting this with is clear editorial synthesis. You are an experienced editor and should know the difference. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have to go with what is explicitly depicted in the show and not to be close-minded. Radiant Fellow (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the truth within the show, and I agree. Radiant Fellow (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Radiant Fellow (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Folks, we have to go with the sources, not our own research, not our own religious and theological beliefs, not with what we think we see in the storyline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are about facts, not feelings.

Two reliable sources that we have for using disciples rather than apostles is the script and the official cast/character list. That's what we have to go with. Everything else mentioned above is outside the realm of sourcing per Wikipedia guidelines for this particular article. It truly doesn't matter what the Bible tells us for writing and improving upon this article. Dallas Jenkins himself has said repeatedly in interviews (both video and print) that 95% of the show isn't directly from the Bible.[9] But please remember, this article is about the show, not theology. It's not a Biblical Lexicon or Vine's Concordance and Dictionary or even a theological commentary. We have to remember that when writing good articles here, there is no room or reason for WP:SYNTH or WP:POV or WP:OR.

While it does frustrate me any seasoned editor would concur with support for an argument that flies directly in the face of accepted and long standing policy on how to write a Wikipedia article and how not to do it, I do understand the desire to "correct" the record. To correct what looks wrong and what we think we know to be right. BUT, if we do that, we have strayed from the topic at hand, and that is making the article all about the article subject. In this case, the article subject is a television program in the category of historical drama. A historical drama that, from the mouth of the creator/director/co-writer, is 95% not found in the Bible. If arguments for content inclusion are based on accepted hermeneutics or a personal interpretation of Scripture, that's taking the article the wrong direction.

The Chosen is a TV program. It's not a Bible documentary. And we must stick with the sources that relate directly to the show itself. Anything outside that doesn't belong in the article. There's just no other way to approach this particular subject. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

One morning, after having spent the entire night on a mountain praying with God the Father, Jesus called His disciples together. He selected 12 of them, and named them apostles in His service (Luke 6:12-13). The word ‘apostle’ comes from the Greek term ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), which means “messenger” or “delegate” — a title that would take on even more special significance following the Jesus' death and resurrection, when the responsibility for sharing the Gospel would fall to the Apostles themselves.
— Angel Studios, January 3, 2023[10]

NebY (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Episode 2, Two by Two: Jesus is a problem for the Romans. With pilgrims from everywhere setting up a tent city at the gates of Capernaum to see Jesus, tensions rise. Jesus officially sends the twelve apostles on an exciting but dangerous mission, causing Little James to ask why he hasn’t been healed.
— Angel Studios[11]

NebY (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you just start with this in the first place? ButlerBlog (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ask rather why Alaska4Me2 started this discussion with such claims and persisted. I thought they might let go of them if I explained that their claims - not taken from The Chosen - such as "In fact, there was no such thing AS an apostle in Christendom until after the events of the Book of Acts took place" were not in accordance with the gospels; I did not imagine that it would be necessary to delve so deep. NebY (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In my reading of the discussion, it appears that your primary concern was that she capitualate on what was not in accordance with the gospels. To be very frank, with regards to this article, that is irrelevant. And from what she said at in her first response to you (But since this is a TV show article not a New Testament Bible or theology article, we have to go with with the reliable sources say), I'd say that she does understand the difference. If your concern is what is correct from an exegetical perspective, have that discussion elsewhere where it is relevant. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Should have also added - I mentioned below that I was out of this discussion from here on - and after this, I stand by that. If anything more needs to be said about me or other editors specifically, bring it to my/their talk page. But as far as article content discussion here, I'm out. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see you wish to draw this discussion to a close. It might be helpful in documenting consensus if you stated whether or not you agree that the term "apostles" is appropriate - perhaps on the basis of common parlance, or gospels, or Angel Studios' website, or the words spoken in that episode, as you wish. NebY (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC) (Written before I saw your post above.) NebY (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, but this really is the last one ;-) I'd accept support either - as long as the case is made based using an appropriate source. You can use WP:PRIMARY (i.e. the show itself or Angel Studios, as long as it's not interpretive) or, preferrably, WP:SECONDARY. The gospels themselves aren't a valid source for this because they are a reverse, editorial synthesis. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I referred to the gospels to rebut the argument that they could not have been apostles, and to our articles to provide background on common parlance, but more specifically we do have Angel Studios referring to them as apostles and the words used in the show itself. "Enough! or Too much." NebY (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Butlerblog and @NebY. Radiant Fellow (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Link to Angel Studios' official cast/character list for The Chosen: [12]

"The Chosen is the first-ever multi-season show about the ministry and life of Jesus. Presented by an exceptionally talented cast–and written with grit, life, and real emotion–this series allows audiences to understand Jesus and His disciples on a deeper level than ever before."

"Simon ... is rescued by Jesus and becomes one of His most loyal disciples. ."

"Matthew ... one of the twelve disciples of Jesus"

"Andrew ... one of His twelve disciples."

"John ... a former Capernaum fisherman-turned-disciple of Jesus."

"Big James ... one of Jesus’ twelve disciples."

"Thaddeus is ... one of Jesus’ twelve disciples."

"Little James ... One of Jesus’ twelve disciples."

"Thomas... We first meet Thomas at a wedding feast attended by Jesus and His disciples...was called to become one of His twelve disciples."

"Philip ... is one of Jesus’ twelve disciples."

"Nathanael is ... one of Jesus’ twelve disciples."

"Simon Z is ... one of the twelve disciples of Jesus."

"Ramah ... We first meet Ramah at a wedding feast attended by Jesus and His disciples."

"Judas Iscariot ... becomes one of the twelve disciples of Jesus."

"Lazarus is ... close with Mary and the other disciples."

"Melech ... Jesus and His disciples meet Melech and his family".

"Leander ... supports Jesus and His disciples".

A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

But I have chosen you twelve as my apostles.
— The Chosen, Season 3, Episode 2, 00:36:40[13]

NebY (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, we're just WP:BLUDGEONING. Unless there is something actually new to add, then this discussion needs to close. And sometimes the consensus is "no consensus". If someone has something new, add it. Otherwise, I'd respectfully request that all editors currently involved (myself included) self-police and end this discussion. I'm involved, so it's not closeable by me, nor any other involved editor, so this is an informal request. If someone wants to continue beyond what we have here, then open an RfC or seek dispute resolution more formally - I'd support an RfC and participate if notified - but I don't see anything more that could be said that hasn't already been stated several different ways. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: can you please clarify what you mean by "I'd accept either"? This is a collaborative effort, without one person being the "decider", correct? Maybe I'm reading into your comment, but to me, on the surface, it looks like you plan to gatekeep. But, I'm wrong about that, yes? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes; @NebY asked for my position, I answered. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: In light of where this went, "I'd support either" may have been a better word choice to convey intent - in my mind the same thing, obviously not for everyone, though. I have struck and replaced with notation in the original above as well. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)