The section as it stands right now does give a good overview of the controversy from both points of view, allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Anything not related to the film on this subject should be directed towards the author's own article or the His Dark Materials article. Ditto Pullman's own defence of his books. Bdell555 ( talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC) The reason we have Pullman cited by Donohue, rather than citing Pullman directly, is not because we're trying to undermine the point, but because Donahue was using the remarks (made before the film was even a glint in New Line's eye) in direct relation to the film. Pullman has said many other things that are indisputably not hearsay and the question is why those statement must be kept out in favour of his statement that he has no agenda. The article currently implies that 'undermine Christianity' is a misrepresentation of Pullman's views by suggesting that that quote is mere hearsay (' cited author Pullman as saying.'). The reader should be allowed to draw their own conclusions about that. Bdell555 ( talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Whether Pullman has 'refuted' or 'rebutted' anything is a matter of opinion. re (2) the word that appears in the article is not 'criticism' or 'commentary' but 'agenda', and we shouldn't have to resolve the fine distinctions between these words when readers can draw their own conclusions. Anthony Krupp ( talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) re (1), if Pullman agrees that he harbours 'extreme antipathy to the Church', what could be more relevant to the question of whether he has a 'religious agenda'? As for whether 'Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda' is relevant to this film article, I'm not the one that put that edit in. While awaiting an answer, perhaps we can consider what agenda, criticism or commentary signify. C 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Good questions.

How is that 1) relevant to this film article, and 2) become an agenda, rather than a criticism or commentary on religion? In addition, the article already makes reference to the aim/agenda to 'undermine Christianity' and the later refutation from Pullman serves merely as the man's own rebuttal to that. contribs) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) OK, I have two questions.Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdell555 ( talk Q: But why is there no light and shade? It’s striking that you don’t portray the rebels as particularly good – Lord Asriel is as wicked as Mrs Coulter, I would say – and yet the followers of the Authority are monolithically odious, even though you admit that in real life there are decent people among the servants of God. Wherever you look in history, you find that. Every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him. It comes from the insensate pursuit of innocent and crazy old women, and from the Puritans in America burning and hanging the witches – and it comes not only from the Christian church but also from the Taliban.

It comes from the record of the Inquisition, persecuting heretics and torturing Jews and all that sort of stuff and it comes from the other side, too, from the Protestants burning the Catholics. A: Well, all right, it comes from history. Q: You’re not really giving us any clues to the source of the extreme antipathy to the Church in your books. I suggest it is not consistent with the 'no agenda' claim, and the article should reflect something like this long as the 'no agenda' claim remains featured in this article: Lewis in order to give the reader some more info about Pullman's views so they can judge for themselves as to whether Pullman has an agenda, however, this has been reverted. I attempted to add some of Pullman's remarks about C.S. Pullman's claim here has been disputed by others. 'Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda' If someone can reword that paragraph without ' fantastical' I would appreciate it. There has got to be a better way to explain it. Please remove this joke word from a real article.

38 Total Gross to date 65 Million far less than the 300 Million indicated in this article.

33 IMDB states a different box office revenue for the film.

29 Working toward consensus on plot summary.

27 The film is not 'about' the books the books do not 'explain' the film.

25 'Spirit' is not equivalent to 'soul'.

10 Controversies - Pullman's stances and this article's connotative misinformation.

2 'Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda'.

Is there a golden compass 2 film