Talk:Is God Dead?

POV in reaction section
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)

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)


 * 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)

Controversial?
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)


 * 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. 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)

LA Times' "10 Magazines that shocked the world"
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)

Are UFO and Aliens Real?
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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Is God Dead?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about CENSORSHIP
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)