Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme
Source

Wikipedia, "On Wings of Fire"

The crowd sourced encyclopedia's article on the film, read directly for this entry. Its strength is a well referenced summary of production credits, cast, premiere and release history, and a reception section built around the Parsi community's objection to the film's portrayal of Zarathustra as a philosopher rather than a divine being, citing contemporary press and a religious authority journal. Its limit is that it is not independently peer reviewed, so it is cited here for corroborated factual detail rather than for interpretation. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier
3
Wikipedia's article on On Wings of Fire is a crowd sourced tertiary encyclopedic source, hence the lower tier, though useful here for its production record and its reception section citing contemporary press on the Parsi community's objection to the film.
Notes
Read directly during research; cited for director, writer, producer, cast, runtime, production company, premiere date and the Parsi community reception record it draws from India Today and Parsiana.
Citation
Author
Wikipedia contributors
Publisher
Wikipedia
URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Wings_of_Fire
Source Type
reference
Connections

Associated With

Zarathustra, Figures

This source names Zarathustra directly: "objection to the film's portrayal of Zarathustra as a philosopher rather than a divine being, citing contemporary press and a religious authority journal."

Source Wikipedia, "On Wings of Fire"Wikipedia contributors
Claims Backed By This Source (21 claims)

This source backs 21 claims across the atlas. As facts: 15 well-attested. As cited relationships: 3 holds. Plus 3 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

  • Screen Works, 11 claims: 7 well-attested, 2 holds, 2 general references.
  • Sources, 8 claims: 7 well-attested, 1 holds.
  • Articles, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.