I have literally seen 0 citations for any mentions of Word of God. Most of the time I can't even find any information on it on Google. I think there needs to be some kind of task force to find information on examples of Word of God.
I've seen claims that Word of God said that the Spin Offs and the handheld games in the Sonic The Hedgehog games (except maybe for Sonic Battle) are Canon Discontinuity. This may apply to unidentified, but most statements regarding this were removed due to the lack of proof. Plus, Sonic Generations contradicted that note at least for one game, for Sonic mentions he saved "genies from magic books", which happened in Sonic and the Secret Rings. Maybe this god was just one of many writers for the series, considering there is more than one, but this is assuming this was ever said, and again, there is no proof, and not even the Wiki (Sonic News Network, for those who don't know) dedicated to this series says anything about that. Besides, putting a bunch of games into Canon Discontinuity just adds more Flame Wars where there is an already massive amout of them without this. I even tried to look for proof this wasn't some fan who got confused with Fanon Discontinuity, and at one point, it just led to This Very Wiki's Canon Discontinuity page prior to the removal. That just smells fishy to me.
I'm sorry for the Wall of Text, so here's the short version for those lacking time:
"Someone claimed that Word of God threw a whole chunk of the Sonic series out of canon, but there's no proof. Could you help see if this has any merit? In the meantime, put this into the unidentified secton."
Edited by SamMax
Shouldn't Word of God, like Invoked, have the function of turning of YMMV tags? After all, Word of God can remove all subjectivity in describing a character as, say, a Complete Monster.
Hide/Show Replies
I don't get what you mean. Are you saying this should be a YMMV trope? Because in my opinion, it shoud stay as trivia, for this is someone in Real Life giving the info on whether or not someone's a Complete Monster.
Or are you saying example only stated by Word of God would fit? If that's what you mean, then say something along the lines of "According to Word of God, this guy's a Complete Monster!"
Edited by SamMax
No, he wants Word of God to turn off the red-bullet just like In-Universe and [[invoked]] does. And Fast Eddie has already said no. And it's a topic for the forums.
That Avatar The Last Airbender Wo G about the airbenders seem suspicious considering that there's no source and Avatar The Legend Of Korra contradicts it. Either source it or pull.
Edited by RhymeBeat Hide/Show Replies
Korra doesn't contradict it. They said the Air Nomads as a people/nation (with the temples, monks, social structure, etc.), not individuals who can airbend.
Would it not be all that unlikely that an edit regarding Word of God on one page could come from said "God" him/herself? Come to think of it, would that even count?
I don't think the disclaimer for this page is entirely accurate. Word of God isn't trivia. It is a trope. Specifically one common to non-fictional media and most particularly in the discussion of works rather than the works themselves.
It's still a narrative technique though, in the sense that Word of God is usually used for clarification of the narrative (or elements thereof) outside the narrative itself. So a meta-trope, but still a trope.
I'd like to suggest an alternate name for this trope, in case any religious-minded person fears that the current name might be taking God's name in vain as per the third commandment. Hmm...how about "Canon Cannon" or "Word of the Maker"?
Hide/Show Replies
Mr Death, there's no call to be obtuse. Just because you disagree with someone's beliefs does not mean their beliefs don't matter or that they can or should be so callously disregarded.
To the original poster, consider that the word "God" in the title doesn't literally refer to the Judeo-Christian God but rather figuratively refers to the author of any creative work. Therefore it could be argued that the title isn't truly taking the Lord's name in vain.
I don't think it's obtuse. I just think it's silly to be worried about something like this offending people. It'd be one thing if Justice Reaper had come on here and said he had been offended by it, but it irritates me a bit when someone suggests a change because they think someone might be offended somewhere.
For the record, I am a Christian, so you're mistaken if you think this is just because I don't believe in God.
To Mr Death, I am a Christian myself, but I'm not so much offended as I am trying to be cautious (especially considering that my suggestion's based on a Christian-written article I read recently about ways we take God's name in vain without even knowing it). It's probably not something we think about readily, but IMHO the commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain is probably one of the most overlooked and undermined of the 10, and we should consider its seriousness a lot more like how we'd treat murder, robbery or lying.
To cbast1, I know that the "God" in the title doesn't refer to the Judeo-Christian God; but the reason for the suggested name-change is that a number of sincere Christian readers (and yes, they are out there) may not see it the same way, but rather may see it as ascribing godhood (after a fashion) to the cited work's author, and thus may interpret it as a violation of Commandments #1 and #3. Just saying.
Mr Death: I never said you weren't a Christian. I just said you shouldn't act like someone else's beliefs don't matter just because you disagree with them. Telling them to just "get over it" is obtuse, and frankly quite rude. If you think they are wrong, explain calmly and rationally why they are wrong. Don't just give them the metaphorical finger by implying their beliefs are automatically unworthy of consideration.
Justice Reaper: Contrary to popular belief, the Bible doesn't actually say that one should never make reference to God. "Taking the Lord's name in vain" actually refers to invoking God in an oath (i.e. "I swear to God") for flippant or irreverent reasons. A flippant or irreverent oath is generally not kept, and attaching God's name to a false oath is a pretty big no-no. And Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that a person's word should be reliable on its own without needing to swear by God to affirm one's truthfulness. Constantly swearing by God cheapens the name of God (which should be used only when you really really mean it) and implies that the speaker is normally dishonest, otherwise there would be no need to invoke God's name to affirm the truth of their statement. However, the Bible does contain several instances in both the Old and the New Testament where the name of God is invoked without it being identified as a sin. The Apostle Paul for one occasionally invokes God in his letters. My point is, this page isn't using the name "God" in the manner of an oath. So I doubt there are any sincere Christians who will be too terribly offended by the use of "God" in this trope title.
cbast1: Point duly noted. To clarify, though: the issue isn't about referencing God, but rather using God's name or the name of Jesus too casually or as part of a swear-word ("God-damn," "Jesus Christ!", "Oh, for God's/Christ's sake!", etc.). As far as the trope's name is concerned, I'm just trying to avert any discomfort about using "Word Of God" to refer to a work's author/creator, especially knowing that that person is NOT God or a god (I may be taking it a bit far, but that's just how I feel personally).
Edited by JusticeReaper
'God' is not the name of 'God' however, (it's simply a word that means 'deity', which English-speaking Christians, Jews and (even many) Muslims use as nomenclature for what they believe to be the only deity to exist, specifically so they don't have to use the guy's name). Therefore it's not 'taking the lord's name in vain' or using 'God's name too lightly'.
It's called 'Word of God' because a writer is essentially the indisputable lord over his creation. The comparison is both apt and intentional, but the 'God' doesn't refer to a 'person', it refers to a role.
Does anyone but me think any use of Word of God should be accompanied by a citation? How do we know any of that stuff is true? I mean, how easy would it be for someone to type "Word of God says..." followed by their own WMG?
Regarding this paragraph (big spoilers ahead) :
A strange example of this trope is Twin Peaks, as creator David Lynch has stated that he does not support the identity of Laura Palmer's killer being her father, as he was a victim to Executive Meddling, and wanted the mystery of the killer to go on for the entire series. He therefore claims that the killer could be anybody.
There's no source and it sounds like complete bullshit to me : David Lynch made a prequel film to Twin Peaks, which explicitly shows Leland Palmer as the killer of his daughter. In fact, it is far more sinister than the TV series, because the latter put the blame on an evil spirit named BOB, while the film made it less clear whether "killer BOB" was a separate entity, or a metaphor for the evil aspect of Leland as seen through Laura's eyes. Also, I read somewhere that David Lynch and Mark Frost decided from beginning who the killer was gonna be.
It is true that David Lynch regretted that the identity of Laura's killer was revealed, but he most likely didn't mean that any character could have done it.