Talk:One Night with the King

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Christian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.

Target: Good Article

Here's the good article criteria for you Good Article editors:

1. Well written?: Inadequate.

2. Factually accurate?: Needs more footnotes, more meat on the bones.

3. Broad in coverage?: See points 1 & 2.

4. Neutral point of view?: Ok.

5. Stable?: Ok.

6. Images?: Verify graphics rationale.

Kghusker 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed!

Do you think we should add the tagline? It's "Feel the touch of destiny". I found it on IMDB. I saw the movie and I'd love to add some more content to this page. Wikiisawesome 11:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie tone is a mutual love story between Ester and the king. In the bible text the story is of a women taken by state coercion and there is no romance. This is a major change from the bible text. Therefor "The film generally adheres to the main plot of the Biblical version" should be struck down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.37.54 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OneNightWithTheKing.jpg

Image:OneNightWithTheKing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Inaccurate Info?

I noticed the article credits Tenney's wife with co-writing the book. I just finished writing the book, and Mark Andrew Olsen is credited as the co-writer. However, I don't want to change it, because it substantively changes that section. Hopefully someone notices this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Mount (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reviews

I removed the following from the article:

Dr. Andrew David Naselli found the film to be deeply disappointing in both content and form, <ref>[http://andynaselli.com/theology/one-night-with-the-king Review] at Dr. Naselli's site, verified [[2007-08-20]]</ref> as did Philip Gons.<ref>[http://philgons.com/2007/02/one-night-with-the-king/ Review] at Phil Gons's site, verified [[2007-09-07]]</ref>

After examining the reviewers' websites, I discovered that both are relatively unknown bloggers and PhD students, and therefore shouldn't be included in a list of prominent reviews. --Sherlock (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Title and Page Redirect

The title of this film "One Night with the King" has never been changed. "Princess of Persia" is a title adopted by European distributor Revolver Entertainment; this title capitulates on the release of the Disney film "Prince of Persia" that was in theaters around the same time as the European DVD release. "Princess of Persia" is not a title officially recognized by Gener8Xion Entertainment, the producers of the film. Therefore, this article needs to remain in its original "One Night with the King" page and title. If anything, "Princess of Persia" should simply be a small mention under "International Title," if this community truly feels it even merits mention. But, I don't know how to reverse this change that is clearly an act of vandalism. Can somebody please help? Thanks. (See the official website of Gener8Xion Entertainment at http://8x.com and you will see absolutely no mention of this bastardized title.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movielover2001 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the move was done as follows: 18:55, 11 December 2011‎ by user:Philadelphia 2009 (talk)‎ (moved One Night with the King to Princess Of Persia: The film has been renamed http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R50IJWOJGKSYF/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R50IJWOJGKSYF http://www.amazon.co.uk/Princess-Persia-DVD-Tiffany-Dupont/dp/B0039WHKGS/r...).

An anon editor then copied and pasted it back to One Night with the King in March 2012. I have tagged the page for a WP:history merge. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response?

The article currently says "One Night with the King received a generally negative reception from the secular press (but positive reception from the public)." Is there a source for the second claim? Otherwise, how was the conclusion reached that the film had a "positive reception from the public?" It wasn't hugely profitable, and reviews were overwhelmingly negative. 220.253.40.247 (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]