Talk:Ted Baehr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complaint[edit]

I'm a new user here, and I don't know how to post a "questionable neutrality" tag on this article, but I think that's needed for this piece. I don't think John (the article author) intentionally wrote a biased piece. In fact, I read through all of his other entries and they are all extremely professional. I just think the last section's focus on "controversy" is overdrawn. I've been familiar with Ted Baehr's work for awhile, and to include a substantial section on a three-month controversy in a brief article on someone's twenty-year career seems excessive and inconsistent with peer articles on Wikipedia. I looked up articles on other major cultural critics (Michael Medved, David Horowitz, etc.) who have drawn severe criticism, and I couldn't find anything about controversy. Inherently, cultural critics are controversial and draw tremendous scrutiny from cultural arbiters. But others who are far more controversial than Baehr seem to have escaped a "controversy" section - the impact of which is to color the whole biographical piece in a way that ultimately ignores perspective.

Further, the author states: "It is evident that the CFTC's mission of advocating for Christian-friendly movies affects the objectivity of its analyses." This is pure editorializing born of bias and predisposition. What may be self-evident to John is not self-evident to me, and may be even less self-evident to others. Inserting this kind of opinion as fact is proof yet again that subtle bias invades this piece. The cutting remark about Fox News reveals the same. I don't see what place these have in an encyclopedic piece.

Finally, several areas of this piece are rife with misspelling. While certainly unrelated to a bias error, these mistakes reinforce the idea that this piece was hastily rendered. That might explain its questionable neutrality.

I'll be placing a questionable neutrality tag on this piece as soon as I figure out how to do that. In the meantime, I would urge John to reorient the piece and hopefully address some of my concerns. He seems a professional Wikipedia user, so I look forward to understanding his reasoning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.161.226 (talk • contribs)

Editor's Response[edit]

  • The controversy was my starting point for researching the article. If there are significant parts of Dr. Baehr's career which have been omitted, then you (or anyone else) is invited to contribute to the article.
  • As for the statement, "It is evident that the CFTC's mission of advocating for Christian-friendly movies affects the objectivity of its analyses." I believe this to be a statement of fact drawn from the almost ludicrous analytical shortcomings of the CFTC's annual "Report". I restrained myself from expounding further on those shortcomings because they did not pertain to a biographical article. I stand by my statement as an objective conclusion, but again, other editors are welcome to edit.
  • Yes, I am biased against Baehr's "research". He is an ideologue trying to pass off the junkiest of junk science. The "analytical" technique of the CFTC report is a much better example of "pure editorializing born of bias and predisposition." than this article. That said, I did endeavor to present factual material with as little POV as I could manage. Again, other editors are welcome to edit.
  • Please correct any spelling errors which I have overlooked. Consider contributing to articles rather than merely complaining about them. And also, it is considered good etiquette to sign your posts on discussion pages. Dystopos 18:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Analysis[edit]

I did some math. I took the 20 films mentioned as in the report as having either "strong moral messages" or "promoting anti-moral agendas" and researched their gross domestic box office receipts and their estimated budgets. For several of the "low budget" films no estimate was available through IMDB.com or Box Office Mojo, so I plugged in an arbitrary amount of $2.5 million (which is probably high). The gross box office for the moral films listed was $1,330,814,365, minus an investment of $651,000,000, yields $679,814,365, or $1.04 return for each dollar invested. Performing the same calculation on the "anti-moral" list gives a gross figure of $365,452,473 and a combined budget of $170,300,000 for a net profit of $195,152,473 or $1.15 per dollar invested. Using only the films highlighted in the report, one could draw the conclusion that Hollywood UNDERINVESTS in anti-moral movies and that the public, given the chance, supports these films at a higher rate of return than films with "strong moral messages"

Of course there are a lot of holes in my methodology. The success of "The Passion of the Christ" made 2004 an exceptional year for Christian-friendly film. The calculation of "moral value" for these films is itself suspect. I am a Christian and I have read the Bible more than once. I see more sound biblical messages in anti-capitalist films like "The Motorcycle Diaries" and "The Corporation" than I see in "National Treasure" or "The Aviator". Moral judgments notwithstanding, the report omits six of the top ten grossing films of 2004 (Shrek 2, Meet the Fockers, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, The Bourne Supremacy, The Polar Express, and Shark Tale) while ferreting out minor films for inclusion on the "anti-moral" list.

Conclusion: The premise that a box-office analysis indicates that Americans prefer movies with "worldviews" that Baehr considers moral is hooey. The CFTC reports are not analysis, they are propaganda to support an avowedly pre-ordained ministerial message. Dystopos 23:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This criticism is very vague. It does not mention the specific "20 films." Also, it uses Box Office Mojo, which does not end its analysis of a year's movie at the end of the calendar, which is what the Movieguide Annual Report does so that it can print the report by the time of its awards. Movieguide has been using the calendar year-end reports of the box office. That said, its annual report also contains a list of the Top 10 movies from the previous year that played in the current year under analysis. It also publishes reports using total box office. For example, a recent report showed that, using figures from The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, IMDB, and other sources, the 11 major movies released in 2009 with very strong "Christian" worldviews such as THE BLIND SIDE, A CHRISTMAS CAROL, NOT EASILY BROKEN, and THE CROSS averaged slightly more than $80 million as of April 5, 2010 while the 73 movies with very strong "Non-Christian" or "Anti-Christian" worldviews such as AVATAR, CREATION, BRUNO, YEAR ONE, LAND OF THE LOST, ANTICHRIST, THE HANGOVER, averaged less than $32.5 million as of April 5. Now, it's obvious that a cinematic phenomenon like AVATAR skews the statistics against Movieguide in one year, a cinematic phenomenon like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST can skew things in Movieguide's favor in another year. The end result, however, is that movies with very strong Christian, redemptive and moral, spiritually uplifting worldviews supporting traditional biblical (or Judeo-Christian) principles and theology tend to do two to five times or so better per movie in North America than those movies with very strong worldviews that are Non-Christian or that violate those principles and theology.

To refute Movieguide's analyses, one has to use the box office numbers that Movieguide is using, which are spelled out for each movie throughout its report and in is Index of the movies reviewed, then look at the content sections of each of those movies and also refute its analysis. Also, one should be familiar with what the Bible and what basic Christian doctrine actually says to start making comments about how Movieguide's definitions and citations of Christian, biblical principles and theology don't actually match what the Bible teaches. For example, the God of the Bible clearly protects the capitalist notion of private property when it says do not steal and do not covet. In addition, Jesus condemns both greed and envy and heavily promotes private charity. These moral commands fit traditional notions of capitalism and charitable acts reflected by such movies as THE BLIND SIDE and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, not the radical socialist dogma of movies like THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES. Again, it would be good if critics would actually read the CONTENT sections and the reviews that Movieguide does of these movies before writing in ignorance about their content. In fact, some of Movieguide's reviews of left-leaning movies notes that, while these movies may have a strong or very strong biblically aberrant worldview, they can also contains some content that does indeed reflect a biblical worldview. Unlike some if not many Marxist critics and film scholars, Movieguide tries to give a comprehensive analysis of the content in a movie that is able to note not only the dominant worldview, but other worldviews elements that may or may not contradict the dominant worldview. One cannot get rid of all subjective opinion in doing such analysis, but that does not mean that Movieguide's reviews and analyses are not as close to 100% objectively accomplished as is humanly possible.

Be that as it may, it has become clear that, like CT's old discredited article, the vast majority, if not all, of Movieguide's critics just haven't done their homework. By the way, here is the CONTENT section and IN BRIEF review of THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES. Read the analysis, see the movie, study the Bible, study history and economics (including EXPOSING THE REAL CHE GUEVARA by Humberto Fontova), and read up on the competing philosophical and political worldviews and ideologies, and judge for yourself:

THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES

CONTENT: (HHH, PCPCPC, CoCoCo, AcapAcapAcap, RHRH, AbAb, C, B, E, LLL, V, SS, N, AA, DD, M) Very strong humanist atheist worldview with very strong politically correct, pro-Communist, anti-capitalist impact and strong revisionist history; strong negative statements made against God and organized religion matched by strong negative portrayal of Roman Catholic nuns; light positive Christian content and moral content, especially regarding helping people with leprosy and befriending the poor but in a humanist, Marxist manner rather than a Christian or biblical way; light pro-environmentalist content to fit in with current political ideas; about 66 mostly strong obscenities and five strong profanities; some fighting, motorcycle spills, and images of leprosy wounds; passionate petting by unmarried couple in car, discussion of sexual immorality, man gambles to have a fling with a prostitute, and adulterous content when lonely married woman and unmarried man seriously flirt in front of mean husband, who gets even meaner, but man escapes by leaving quickly, never to return; upper male nudity; alcohol use and drunkenness; smoking and characters suck what appear to be coca leaves; and, gambling, men lie to get by, oppression rebuked, and stealing.

THE MOTORCYLE DIARIES is a critically acclaimed drama about the early life of Che Guevara, the Communist revolutionary from Argentina. It focuses on a trip Che and his older friend, Antonio Granados, made in 1952 from Argentina to a leper colony on the Peruvian banks of the Amazon River. Antonio is a biochemist and Che was finishing up his own medical degree. While traveling through Peru, these atheist, left-leaning young men discover the terrible plight of the Incas in that country. They befriend many of the poverty-stricken people they meet, including a Communist couple. At the leper colony, Che and Antonio take a stand against the policies of the Roman Catholic nuns working with the doctors. Che becomes a hero to the lepers there, and the movie ends with statements about Che’s subsequent political activities and ultimate death.

Director Walter Salles’s movie is only mildly interesting. Also, the photography is often washed out, and only the man who plays Che’s friend delivers a quality performance. The historical revisionism and political correctness in THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, and its Communist atheist worldview, are, needless to say, abhorrent. In reality, Che was a terrorist thug who spewed hatred and murder (see EXPOSING THE REAL CHE GUEVARA and "Fidel's Executioner" by Humberto Fontova and the movie THE LOST CITY by Andy Garcia).

Tlsnyder42 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Tlsnyder42, Movieguide Editor[reply]

Sigh...don't Movieguide editors have anything better to do than slink around the Internet and argue with random people by copying and pasting from their magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.226.15 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I stand by my analysis insofar is it serves to refute claims made in Movieguide about films released in 2004. I do not offer it as a meaningful analysis of the film industry, which has its own expertise. I claim no authority to judge another person, but, to my mind, at least, the Christian warnings against greed and covetousness either (at best) correct the natural evil of capitalist economic systems (as Adam Smith would have it in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments") or would reveal capitalism as a systematic evil in that its primary motive force shares the same root.. the love of money. --Dystopos (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.[edit]

Thank you for so openly admitting your biases. They certainly seem strong in a number of arenas, and I will definately take up your offer to edit and elaborate on the piece.

I will change any remaining spelling errors. There's no reason to get touchy about this. I think we're all working together to develop a stronger and stronger resource in Wikipedia. I think we're all trying to "contribute."

Forgive me for not signing my tag to my opening comment. Again, I am a new user here, so I hope you'll forgive any oversight of etiquette.

javascript:insertTags('--Highbrowcow 22:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)',,);[reply]

Biography[edit]

Most of the first section of this article was drawn from Baehr's published biography [1]. One paragraph from that biography states:

During his tenure at the University, Baehr worked closely on communications with academia, researching the impact of the media in education. The subject became a primary topic at the Annenberg Conference on Communication at Temple University, where Baehr received national recognition.

In following up on this information (so a citation of the published proceedings could be listed here) I was unable to find any conference by that name. Temple University did sponsor annual "International Conferences on Culture and Communication" since the mid-1970's. I contacted the organizer who told me that selected proceedings from those conferences were published (in house as "Working Papers in Culture and Communication"), but Baehr's research was not among the published work. Furthermore, the conferences at Temple were not supported by the Annenberg School (at neighboring U. Penn) and were national only in the sense that invitations for participation went out nationally. There was no national publication or press covering these events. Therefore I have removed mention of this conference from this article pending verification by others. Dystopos 03:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editing Changes[edit]

I haven't been on Wikipedia in forever and never got a chance to rework the article to minimize your admitted non-neutral perspective. I'm making some changes.

I'm going to expand the article and cut some of the perspective elements: "It's obvious that Baehr's opinion affects the objectivity of his analysis" and the jabs against FOXnews, etc.

javascript:insertTags('--Highbrowcow 9 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)',,);

  • For the record, I have admitted that my personal perspective is not neutral, but I have not admitted that my contributions to this article are non-neutral. Nor are they the last word, as your participation demonstrates. Welcome aboard. Dystopos 01:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Bio[edit]

The following changes were made to the above Biography section by Mretb. The remainder of the section was deleted. I have restored the above section and reproduced the changes here as a record of Mretb's contribution. The original text is in black, and Mretb's edits are in bold red.

During his tenure as President of the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation, Baehr worked closely on communications with academia, researching the impact of the media in education. The subject became a primary topic on his talk on Televison and Realtiy[sic] at the April 9, 1981 Conference on Culture and Communication convened by Dr. Stewart Hoover at Temple University, where Baehr received national recognition.
Baehr's research was published by the Episcopal Radio-TV foundartion[sic].

CT did not issue a retraction[edit]

  • David Neff, editor of Christianity Today has responded specifically to the question of whether a retraction of Allen's article was issued by the magazine:

In its May 2004 issue, CT printed in its “Readers Write” department a letter from Pat Boone defending Ted Baehr against allegations in the March 2004 article that was cited by the Wikipedia editor. In the same issue, we published a one-page response to the article by the editorial staff of Ted Baehr’s Movieguide. In the editor’s note introducing that response, we explained that CT stood by its report and continued to be concerned about the conflict-of-interest issues raised in it.

CT never published any retraction. It did, however, on advice of its attorney, remove from the web the electronic version of the article’s sidebar, which dealt with the conflict of interest questions. Perhaps that is what the source of the Wikipedia article intended by the word “retraction.”

David Neff • editor & vice-president

I have therefore removed reference to a "retraction issued within three months" from this article. --Dystopos 21:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 of the 6[edit]

  • There's a conflation of ideas in this section. To my knowledge, Movieguide has never chosen films based on box office. Movieguide chooses films based on their moral content. Year and year again, moral movies happen to also be good perfomers at the box office (a fact which is not odd considering you can sell 6 tickets to a family for a family film, and only 1 or 2 tickets to a niche group (a teenager, etc.) for a non-family film).

Additionally, this section implies that bad performers alone are calculated into the annual report to the industry. This is equally untrue. All 250-300 films released on the big-screen in a calander year are calculated into the annual report (inluding your group of '5 out of 6') and the numbers still come out in Movieguide's favor.

    • Also, King Kong was not one of the top six performers for 2005. The sixth best performing film in 2005 was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at $206,459,076. King Kong came in at number 13 with $174,559,825.
  • I was using the "2005 Domestic Grosses" from this site, which lists King Kong at number 5 with a gross of $218,080,025. It would be appropriate to use whatever source is used by Movieguide, so if King Kong is 13th by that accounting, that's fine - we would just need to cite the source.
As to the point at hand, I was under the impression that Movieguides calculations only factored in the movies cited. It may be informative to better summarize their method. Is there a way for me to get a copy of the full report without paying the $40 subscription? My local public library does not carry Movieguide.
But truly, It is not our place to criticize or re-analyze CFTVC's methodology here, except as such criticism may be reported by others. If you feel that the entire section should be deleted, or replaced by a much shorter summary, I will consent. --Dystopos 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflated Page[edit]

  • This page seems to be a conflation of two topics: 1) Ted Baehr and 2) the CFTVC. While CFTVC seems to be by far the central participant in this topic, Ted Baehr is still listed as the article's focus. In the interest of clarity and consistency (and integrity?), the article should be renamed or divided in two, no?--70.38.144.49 15:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree. There is, in my opinion, a strong need to accurately and fairly discuss Baehr's work, and substantive criticism of it, in a biography. The details about the report, which initially drew me into the topic, would really only be relevant insofar as they reflect on him personally, which is probably not much. I would therefore support developing a separate article for Movieguide or for the Annual Report. --Dystopos 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Journalism[edit]

  • The phrase you keep deleting about "yellow journalism" is a part of Pat Boone's accusation. Pleasant or not, does it not have as much "right" to page-space as the comment by some unkown ethicist in Tennessee?
    • Both items appeared in-print in CT.
    • In my editorial opinion it is Boone's right to use inflammatory language, but it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to repeat it. --Dystopos 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta[edit]

His views on the movie V for Vendetta are wrong. He isn't Christian. V for Vendetta is a film based on a graphic novel which has a underlying message FOR freedom, which is approved by Christianity. --69.67.234.220 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to adopt a point of view on Baehr's christianity or the degree to which his subjective criticisms correspond with Christian teachings. --Dystopos 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on Warnings?[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and did some editing on this page to fill out, include more career information, and add in accomplishments. I see that page is flagged today, but after reading through the page don't see what "peacock" language is used or where the tone is incorrect. Would whoever posted those warnings please explain where the article should be improved so that the corrections can be made and the flags removed? Otherwise, I'd like to remove them. Thank you.14Truth (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accidently restored the warnings in making stylistic corrections. I went ahead and took them back off, but left a note at User talk:Ironholds suggesting he or she explain the issues that prompted them in the first place. I am certain that issues with this article do need to be addressed, but as most of the editors of this article (myself included) have been accused of conflicts of interest and/or an inability to apply a neutral point of view, having other voices chime in should be helpful. --Dystopos (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COI is fairly obvious - the main article writer was User:Movieguide, a single-purpose account. Forgive me if I don't assume good faith with 14Truth either, since he's a magical new account who turned up immediately after I added the tags and immediately after the other account ceased acting, and who's first edit was to query the validity of those tags. Methinks a checkuser would provide interesting results.
    weasle-words and tone - sentences like "His mission is to redeem the values of the media while educating audiences on how to be media-wise consumers in selecting entertainment" are completely inappropriate. We're an encyclopedia, not his website - we don't care what his self-describe "mission" is, we care about other people say about him. "In addition to the awards, Dr. Baehr presents his highly anticipated annual statistical analysis based on the magazine's reviews. His analysis consistently shows studio executives and filmmakers that family-friendly, spiritually uplifting content can significantly increase the profitability of their movies." is obvious weasling and has significant tone problems. The section title "COI allegations rebuted" and its contents are incredibly weasley and filled with tone problems and peacock terms - we dont' say they're "rebuted", we say "X said he had a COI. Y said he didn't". We're not in a position to make direct judgements. The whole thing is a mass of cruft created by SPAs obviously interested in promoting a person and body they have a conflict of interest on. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editorial concerns: I also feel that the "lectured" section should be rewritten to make it clear that he gave a lecture at say, the University of Oxford - he didn't lecture there in the academic sense of the word. The article describes him as a "doctor" - does he have a doctorate or medical degree? A JD doesn't count. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving constructive feedback. While it's clear my motives have been criticized, the truth of the matter is that I did join on to Wiki after hearing about and reading this Ted Baehr article. As a full time student, I have never had the time to jump in full-force to something like wiki, but wanted to give it a shot. For all the controversy he seems to draw, I respect Baehr's work and felt his article was a less-than-accurate reflection of his life. I am not a Movieguide employee or being compensated by them, as it seems might be alleged. Rather, I am looking to make this article a fair examination of this man's life and work. I truly do want to make this an accurate, solid article and appreciate the help to make it that. Please note and respond to the following: 1)I understand your point about the mission statement, but also think its inclusion helps to show what this man is about and is therefore valuable to the article. I've restated that section with a "Baehr claims that..." and a reference directly to his website. Would you suggest additional changes here? That change seemed to solve the issue in a reasonable manner as it states with neutrality the position the man takes. 2)The allegations rebutted section seemed correct given that this man has been doing his work for over thirty years, had this one article come out, responded (along with many others), and the article was removed. Were the allegations NOT rebutted, it only seems logical that Christianity Today would have kept the article up, and perhaps even brought another point to refute Baehr's rebuttal that the conflict of interest was not viable. So, again, this section seems accurate as it is. The final sentence, with "did not retract" even seems to tip in favor of the Christianity Today position. 3)Your point about "lecturing" is right on. That sentence could be misleading as it was written. I changed it to "has lectured at..." 4)Baehr does hold a doctorate in humanities in addition to the JD. That information is in the second paragraph of the "Education and Career" section. I'll get to editing the section on the analysis and report to improve the tone there, but don't have the time to do so right this moment. Thanks again for constructive feedback. 14Truth (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the point about "rebuttal", Christianity Todays editor specifically stated that "CT stood by its report and continued to be concerned about the conflict-of-interest issues raised in it." despite having removed the sidebar section from its online service. I don't think there's any need to draw a contrary conclusion about their editorial position. (see Talk:Ted Baehr#CT did not issue a retraction above) --Dystopos (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but the heading is inappropriate. It implies that the controversy has been completely rebutted. Instead, the section heading should reflect the controversy itself, since that is what the thing is about primarily, not the rebuttal. Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*How about something like "Conflict of Interest Controversy: Allegations and Rebuttals"?14Truth (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, simply just "Claims of conflict of interest" would work fine. It doesn't say anything either way as to whether said claims are valid or not, which is perfect. The entire section also needs to be referenced - references in a WP:BLP are vital. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the section heading to read "Alleged conflicts of interest" which seems about as neutral as you can get. Also, note that the section makes use of references in the text rather than footnotes. If you prefer footnotes, feel free to apply them. --Dystopos (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to go through the article section-by-section to clean it up. With the correction suggested about the mission statement, it seems the intro paragraph is good to go. Please comment if you think otherwise. 14Truth (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Also went through "Early life" and "Educ/Career" sections. These look good to me now. Again, comments are welcome. 14Truth (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Again, the "MG & CFTVC" and "MG Ratings" sections look good now. Let me know if you think otherwise. I'll continue with more of the article tomorrow, so any specific comments are greatly appreciated.14Truth (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've re-written the section on the Awards and Report. Please check tone, etc. and report any issues.14Truth (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems alright, although you need to use Baehr rather than, for example, Dr. Baehr. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. I'm pulling the warnings down. Please just let me know if there are any concerns and I'll go back to update and change.14Truth (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Righto, I'll give it a look over the weekend. Ironholds (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a Christian himself?[edit]

It seems surprising to me that this article isn't in Category:American Christians or one of its subcategories, but then I noted the article itself doesn't state Baehr is Christian himself, only that he reviews films from a Christian perspective. Can anyone provide a source where he explicitly identifies himself as a Christian? If so, that category should be added to the article. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, he's an evangelical. I've added a couple of references. Anyway, well spotted. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Baehr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On moving "Movieguide"[edit]

Perhaps the section, "Movieguide and CFTVC" should be moved to its separate page? EomereofRohan (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While that section is unreasonably large here, at least as it exists it is underreferenced for having its own article, in terms of meeting notability guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Baehr&oldid=1205226343"