Talk:The Book of Daniel (TV series)/Archive 1

Biased & Unsubstantiated
This piece is full of weasel words and unsubstantiated claims.

The article says, "One of the show's four main writers is allegedly an out gay man." Where is this documented? And how is it relevant? Lots of TV writers are gay. How out of place would it be if the article said, "One of the show's four main characters is allegedly Jewish." As well, it suggests bias, as if a gay person couldn't write about Jesus or Christianity, or that by its very nature, Christianity is some kind of polar opposite of homosexuality.

Moving on, the article says, "There is a large online groundswell of opposition to this show from both Christian blogs and mainstream Christian websites, with more expected when the show debuts." Where is this documented? Who is expecting more controversy when the show debuts? What websites are involved? Is there a statistical count which shows mainstream Christian websites opposed to this program? If this can't be documented, then it should be removed.

Further, the article says, "NBC has been accused by some of being "anti-Christian", some even wondering whether the show was purposely designed to offend." Again, no documentation. Who made these accusations? Where? "Critics look to the pre-premiere commercials to form a basis for their disapproval, noting the personification of Jesus as a somewhat disinterested hippie character." Again, no documentation. 207.69.139.147 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree after the claims made. I have read that one of the writers is homosexual, but it isn't relevant to the series.  If someone wants to know that, they can find out someplace else.Attitude2000 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting the background of the writers aside, the main issue is the show being offensive. This statement by Focus on the Family, a mainstream Christian organization, clearly explains the offensive nature of the show. It is written by Bob Waliszewski who has previewed two shows. (Read the whole thing with an open mind.) --AddBball 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You say, "the main issue is the show being offensive." No, sorry, that's not the main issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a soapbox. The show may be offensive to you. So write about it on your webpage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which documents information. The primary focus of this article should be about the show itself -- the "who, what, why, where, when, and how" stuff. Some of that would include both sides of the controversy, both those who like and those who don't like the show. As well, "Focus on the Family" is not a "mainstream" Christian organization by any stretch of the imagination. 4.232.195.69 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about the whole Wikipedia thing. I must say though that I'm not offended by the show because I simply haven't seen it. I might even watch it. This was simply a source that explains that particular side by someone who has seen a couple of episodes. --AddBball 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe recent changes have cleaned up and documented this article. Ewok 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I put in the bias toggle and will now remove it. 4.232.195.69 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Series creator Jack Kenny describes himself as a "recovering Catholic" whose gay partner is Episcopalian. [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48242 ], there is your evidence sir. And if the venerable Jerry Falwell isn't a good enough source, I also cite this: "Jack Kenny is openly gay," . It is relevant because his sexual orientation has a lot of influence on the show, the network, and ultimately, what people watch. I think people deserve to know what they are watching is not an accurate discription of Christians, but merely the writers, who want to make people believe it is a depiction (an accurate one) of the former. Эйрон Кинни  03:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Christianity really is polar opposite of homosexuality, because both the OT and NT object to it, but I don't think your last comment or my response to it are relevant either, so I wouldn't preach about relevance.) (Comment moved because it was stuck in the middle of someone else's comment.)
 * Um, there are about 2 billion Christians in the world, are you really claiming that your views regarding how to practice your religion is representative of all those 2 billion people? The highly Catholic Spain recently passed a law legalising gay marriage; have they stopped being Christian in your view? Really, who died and made you God? (And while we're at it, I fail to see the venerability of anyone who harbours as many prejudices as he does.) --little Alex 01:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant that one of the shows creators is gay because of the backlash that the show has received and honestly, what does it matter if it stays or not, that's a bit nitpicky if you're going to debate it so much. Why didn't anyone bring up the fact that it is unclear when the article says "anti-Asian prejudices" Is it about Daniel or his parishoners? Oh, and who is this "brother" they mention in the episode where Adam is with his girlfriend in her dorm room and he gets locked out (Daniel says something about wanting a son to go to the school he was building)? [Contributed by unsigned user from 68.194.181.175]
 * I assume it's about the parents of Adam's girlfriend... can't confirm because I didn't see much of the show. Either way, I agree: the sentence is very, very confusingly phrased. --Galaxiaad 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sentence Was Substantiated
User RBPierce removed the following statement from the article: Some Episcopal priests have encouraged congregants to watch the program, stressing their belief that it offers a fresh and candid portrayal of religious leaders and showcases the Episcopal Church as a tolerant denomination.

RBPierce stated "Comment unsupported by referenced site." The referenced Los Angeles Times article substantiates this statement; therefore, it has been returned to the article. BehroozZ 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the LA Times article does support that assertion. I was looking at the site from which the LA Times derived that assertion, which does not support what the story says. That was an error on my part. However, this sentence is directly plagiarized from the LA Times article. I am rewording it. RBPierce 16:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

DVD menus
No telling if this show will survive the savage primetime ratings world, but I think they've already designed the DVD chapter selection menus. I'm talking about those images before commercials showing six stained glass windows portraying scenes from the show. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ratings and Demographics
I don't know about anyone else here, but I didn't watch the show. I WANTED to watch it. But it was up against Sci-Fi Friday! Stargate: SG-1, Stargate: Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica.
 * Any time someone uses the phrase "hip, modern" they should really have to stop and think about it for a few minutes. Doubly so if it's in conjunction with Jesus...

I think it would be interesting to see what demographics were expected to watch that show, and what they ended up watching instead.

Is it possible that Richard Dean Anderson killed Book of Daniel?

I just think Friday night was the wrong slot for this show anyway. Griextl!

NiftyDude 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs updating
Some of the copy in this entry reads like the show is still on the air. It needs to be changed to the past tense.BehroozZ 07:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)