Talk:Is God Dead?

Is God Dead? was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
September 30, 2011	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 21, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Time magazine editor Otto Fuerbringer was responsible for the controversial 1966 "Is God Dead?" cover?

Current status: Delisted good article

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Journalism Low‑importance

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

Philosophy: Literature / Religion / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of religion
	Contemporary philosophy

Atheism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

B

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Is God Dead?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfortunately, I don't think this meets the GA criteria at the moment. I am going to place it on hold for one week to give you time to fix the problems below that are keeping me from promoting it.

I see from the list at WP:GAN that the GA reviewer is seeking a second opinion about this review. From reading the article and the discussion here it seems to me that the remaining issue is that of the apparent POV question, and that the GA reviewer would have consequent reservations about GA criterion 2c. However, in my view it's not due to missing citations (the source, by definition, being the Time issue) but just that the prose, in a few key places, needs to keep the reader clear that what's being presented is an article about that Time cover story, and not an article about that cover story's own subject per se. I will proceed to apply my suggested changes. PL290 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied my suggested changes as above, and in my opinion the article now meets the GA criteria. As I have now contributed to the article I leave it in the hands of the original reviewer to complete the review.PL290 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{fact}} tag to the third paragraph. You need to cite the things you say about the editors politics and career.

I tried to fit something in there.

Y OK, good. — Jake Wartenberg 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some POV issues in the "Possible solutions" section. When you say things like "To focus on the life and teachings of Jesus, rather than on God, seemed like a good option" you need to make it clear who's opinion you are reiterating, and reference it.

All quotes in that section are summaries of the article, and in no way POV. let me know if anything stands out as POV, but it's all attempts at summarising the article.

I know they are summaries, but that is what you need to make clear. It is not obvious that the information is coming from the article. — Jake Wartenberg 14:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make this any clearer, short of citations after every sentence, which seems excessive to me. I follow WP:PLOTS here: "Where the plot is of one single piece of work, it is not necessary to add a citation, for example, if your article is on a stand-alone film, book, comic, television or radio programme, the citation would be the work itself." This seems to me similar to the summary of the plot of a movie, which is normally allowed to go on for several paragraphs without any citations.

That essay is for works of fiction only. — Jake Wartenberg 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y I see this has been fixed. — Jake Wartenberg 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph you need to show how the 2009 Newsweek article is related to this one. As far as I can tell the only thing that relates them is the similar subject matter and the fact that the cover is "reminiscent" of the other. This is not a very good reason to include that information, and that brings into question the validity of the fair use rationale for the Newsweek cover image.

No, there is actually a quote in the USA Today that makes the connection between the 1966 Time cover an the 2009 Newsweek cover:

One week later, in a mournful black-and-red cover reminiscent of Time magazine's 1966 "Is God Dead?" cover, Newsweek proclaimed "The Decline and Fall of Christian America."

Lampman (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I mentioned that in my review. But I am not sure that's enough for a fair use image of the cover. If the other issues are resolved, I would be happy to ask for a third opinion.— Jake Wartenberg 14:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is quite important to prove the enduring cultural significance of the issue. If you disagree I respect your opinion, but then I think we'll have to put it to a third opinion. Lampman (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Resolved per the comments below by Majoreditor. — Jake Wartenberg 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I enjoyed reviewing the article. You've done good work. I have assessed the article for the moment as "C B" class. — Jake Wartenberg 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Passing. — Jake Wartenberg 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

It is appropriate to include the Newsweek piece in this article. The USA Today reference is a good example of how a reliable source noticed the obvious homage. Some editors may question whether the Newsweek cover may be used in this article when it's mentioned just in passing. Perhaps someone experienced with image use can weigh in with an opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV in reaction section[edit]

some clear bias in "Much of the protest directed at Time was launched by people who had not read the article, but simply judged the issue by its cover." Not only does this inject opinion but the source it's from is completely unrelated to the statement. N16pr (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a cite from this would substantiate {http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2008/07/is_god_dead.html} Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it appeared unsupported; this was due to a bizarre mistake. I used named references, where I used the last name of the writer, but I didn't notice that two refs were written by the same guy. That was the second ref became hidden, and mistakenly pointed to the first one. It should be fixed now, and I've also changed it to a quote, to avoid the appearance of bias. Lampman (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial?[edit]

The "Did you know?" link and some comments in the article itself refer to controversy. Also, the Reaction section states that more than a thousand people wrote letters to the editor. But it's not clear from the article whether the letters were positive or negative. If they were negative, then I as a reader would like to know WHY they were negative. Did Christian fundamentalists object to the very notion of their deity being dead? Was it some kind of blasphemy to say the god was dead?

One other question in regard to this last point: was Time referring to the Christian god specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes that should answer your first question ("denounced Time as a haven of godlessness"). As to what the objections were, there were probably as many different opinions as there were letters. They ranged from "Your ugly cover is a blasphemous outrage and, appearing as it does during Passover and Easter week, an affront to every believing Jew and Christian" to a simple "No" (there was also an equally simple "Yes"). Interestingly enough the printed letters can be read online.[1] I should perhaps incorporate a link into the article. Your last question is more tricky. Even though it is not explicitly stated in the article that the discussion is limited to the Christian God, it becomes clear throughout that the focus is primarily on the Christian - or at least the Judeo-Christian - God. Perhaps I could have made this clearer somehow. Lampman (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times' "10 Magazines that shocked the world"[edit]

I'm not sure that this is a very...notable source. It looks like a click-bait slideshow: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-10magazinecovers14-july14-pg,0,5472017.photogallery?index=7 The covers include True Blood, Lady Gaga, Lebron James, the Dixie Chicks, and Twilight. There are only 2 magazine covers listed pre-1990's. Unless someone has complaints, I will remove the reference. Vincent Moon (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are UFO and Aliens Real?[edit]

Yes! UFO and Aliens are real because they are seen on Mars. Many UFOs have also visit our Planet any many have took our pilots like Frederick valentich

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430074307/http://blogs.usatoday.com:80/oped/2009/04/post-christian-not-even-close.html? to http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/04/post-christian-not-even-close.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about CENSORSHIP[edit]

I'm concerned there are pictures, etc of the magazine cover for "Is God Dead?", but there has been widespread suppression of the "Is God Coming Back To Life?" publication of Dec 26 1969, just 3 years after this 1966 article. A picture is here: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19691226,00.html 1.144.96.46 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]