Talk:An American Carol

BoxOfficeMojo is now indexed for it's critical reviews?

I will leave the removal of Box Office Mojo's grading of the film to more talented hands and someone with a logged in IP. There are no notable reviewers on Box Office Mojo, it's a bunch of non-notables just pushing buttons; the reference to their grading should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.113.80 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure the reaction of reviews by anyone, notable or anonymous is that important to the article. What I do find notable is that this film is overwhelmingly loved or hated. That is the relevance of the Box Office Mojo information.--CSvBibra (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the case of Box Office Mojo, it does become somewhat stilted when a film is a niche or indie film. In terms of wide release, major pictures, it's probably a fairly accurate representation of opinions. At least that's my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Multilated

Someone needs to fix the subjectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbledygookie (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So...you want more subjectivity? Less? Given how short the article is and that it doesn't have any POV issues, not sure what you are asking for. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks perfectly neutral to me. If you're talking about the subjectivity of the movie, I suggest that you get over it. --Posie (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that its a parody of "Contemporary American culture" which is obviously to Zucker probably going to be a spoof of some Liberal things from a conservative standing, but granted, I don't think I've heard "Spoof of Liberalism from a conservative view" from anything official.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation for the first sentence did not match the sentence. Fixed.--Peterpressure (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... I agree that maybe something should be added about the politics of the film -- most films are politically neutral, whereas mostly everyone who worked on / acted in this one seems to lean to the far right. If something is said about Micheal Moore's movies leaning to the left, maybe there should be a short blurb to the same effect in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.47.155 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Most films of -this- type are politically left, though. I think that's the point of the bit in the first paragraph. That is to say, most films that are political at all are politically left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, note that everyone involved with the movie is affiliated Republican or unaffiliated. Given that that's true of a very small minority of Hollywood, I'd say that at least the mention of it is noteworthy. Voight, for one, was a major presence at the convention, and is not in a lot of stuff nowadays. 71.247.12.19 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reaction from Neoconservatives

Given that Zucker is a Neocon, and that film itself it aimed at Neocons, we should include reactions from Neocon thinktanks like the PNAC, the Heritage Foundation, NCPA, etc. Ericster08 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with "Religulous"

I doubt the veracity of some of the data cited. I know that in my local area, of the 14 theaters in the area, only TWO showed "An American Carol", while TWELVE of them showed "Religilous" - If the first was shown in 3 times as many theaters as cited, the proportions I've seen in my area belie this. (Note that this would ALSO mean that, in a basically RURAL area (Sonoma County, California), fully TWO PERCENT of ALL of the screens Religilous was showing on were located. This seems unlikely. Think about it...ONE county in California has 2% of all the screens? I don't believe that. Redwood Elf (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As this film's diametrically opposite competitor, the Bill Maher film "Religulous" was released on the same day as this film, it is proper to compare how the two films performed in the box office. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how a film attacking Michael Moore and a film attacking religion are diametrically opposed. Your argument fails on its face. W@ntonsoup (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's comparing a film by a liberal filmmaker (Larry Charles) vs. a film by a conservative filmmaker (David Zucker) which were released at around the same time. There are several articles already comparing the two films on line. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So the filmmakers are diametrically opposite. Not the films. Get that straight. The films can't even possibly be diametrically opposite because the subject matter is completely different. 98.168.194.130 (talk)

It might also be a good idea to find some materials comparing the two films' marketing campaigns as well, so people can consider how that affects the box office performance. 72.47.47.37 (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I found this obviously biased commentary comparing the two films at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/maher-mangles-zucker-at-t_b_132064.html with a liberal slant. The other stories I found so far compares other films besides the two films in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of NPOV, if you're going to condemn all the liberal-slanted commentaries, you should condemn all the conservative-slanted commentaries as well. Ericster08 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how exactly it's "diametrically opposite". I know Maher is a liberal, but Religulous is about religion and American Carol is about American politics. So I don't think it naturally belongs in this article. - 68.51.43.195 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Read NPOV link below as "An American Carol" director David Zucker calls his film the opposite of the Bill Maher movie. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the diametrically opposite, though. So just beacuse David Zucker says it is, it automatically is? that's ridiculous, a documentary on religion and a fictional political comedy can NOT even possibly be diametrically opposite, it just doesn't make any sense to put it there. 98.168.194.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

Its only proper to make the comparison if a notable source does the same, otherwise its WP:OR. CENSEI (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Found NPOV comparison at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-carol_1003gl.ART.State.Edition1.2699bd1.html Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are now synthesizing Zuckers comments and the revenue figures to make the horserace comparison. CENSEI (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Variety has an article directly comparing the two films at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993541.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comparison from a Catholic viewpoint: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16170/ Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Only one of those compares revenue figures and that's only as an aside. You really need a better source if you want to compare their revenue figures otherwise it's [{WP:OR]] Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The box office figures links are not sufficient??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read up on policy which has been linked to you multiple times? The box office figures only establish how each film did. If you want to cite the box office figures, you should be comparing An American Carol to every other film Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid to compare the two. One is an ideologically conservative comedy, while the other is a nonreligious documentary on religion. They're incomparable. 98.168.194.130 (talk)

It is NOT stupid. There are already several news stories online comparing the two films if you look at http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22american+carol%22+%2B+religulous&ie=UTF-8 Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's IRRELEVANT information. This is wikipedia, please only keep and put relevant information to the article on. 98.168.194.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

I respectfully disagree as the many news stories in the above URL link prove. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steelbeard1: since, as he documents, people outside of Wikipedia, coming from conservative, liberal, and neutral POVs are comparing the two movies, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to do so. Krakatoa (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. We (one?) source/s comparing the two films from a general standpoint, the Dallas News article. It's fine to mention this comparison has been made. It's quite another thing for us to use this comparison as an excuse to conduct OR in comparing the viewership figures. That would be little different from me trying to comparing the special effects in the two films because people have compared the two films. The Variety article does briefly compare the viewership figures but only as an aside and it also mentions other stuff like Growing Paint. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it still makes sense to mention it (besides maybe a mention that there have been comparisons, although there aren't many by critics or the media - sure there are probably some in the blogosphere, though.) Because they've been [barely] compared by people who've written articles, they're comparable? The fact of the matter is that one is a documentary on religion while the other is a fictional political comedy. They ARENT diametrical opposites, since they're have such different premises to begin with and it's ridiculous to claim they are just because the director said so. It should be removed. 98.168.194.130 (talk)

Nevermind I've found a ref ACTUALLY COMPARING THE VIEWERSHIP FIGURES. It's unfortunate that the Steelbeard kept reverting to keep UNSOURCED information in the article when a reference was so easy to find. Yes I probably should have searched before I remove the information but to be fair I did search last time and I WAITED OVER A WEEK for someone to add sources Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The weekly box office figures speak for themselves. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet that doesn't make them anymore relevant. Isn't that weird?

If you're going to mention box office figures (which obviously doesn't belong in the article in the first place,) and you mention how many theaters An American Carol was released on, why wouldn't you mention how many theaters Religulous was released on, for a better example, if we're comparing the two (which still should not be done in the first place?) 98.168.194.130 (talk)

I think we found the compromise wording to use as there were several news articles which compared the two films. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I separated out box office receipts from the comparison of religulous. Box office takings are valuable information. Can't speak as to second statement though.173.66.41.14 (talk)

That has been reverted pending the outcome of the dispute described in the '09 rehash/POV dispute discussion below. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the outcome of "Religulous" should be mentioned as well due to the fact that the two films are compared with each other, and thus outcomes of both films should be menioned.--Snowman Guy (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'09 rehash/POV dispute

This guy seemingly can't let it go. I'd say a community decision on whether including the point-by-point comparison to Religulous is warranted. I vote no. Section is biased, and should be altered, with less emphasis on how well Religulous performed by contrast. SchutteGod (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely relevant due to the timing of the two films being released almost together to theaters. The comparisons should stay in place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a Third Opinion or Request for comment if you're not able to satisfactorily resolve your differences for this section. Personally, I think that the Variety article clearly establishes a reliable, verifiable basis of comparison for the two films with regards to box office receipts. The "percentage" continuation borders on synthesis, but on a second read I see the box office performance of An American Carol and the Religulous comparisons almost as two separate points, both belonging under the commercial reception heading, so I don't think it truly qualifies as original research, as it's not advancing an unpublished position. Naturally it's not unheard of for an article to compare two similar films released around the same time (provided that the comparison can be verified as legitimate in reliably sourced materials), such as Without Limits and Prefontaine, or Red Planet and Mission to Mars, or Armageddon and Deep Impact. And I would argue that the two films are similar, in as much as one film gives a clear, strong conservative perspective, and the other gives a clear, strong liberal perspective (as was pointed out in the sources), and they were released in the same week. The majority of films are politically neutral (or at least strive for political neutrality), so to have two films released at the same time, with an strong political bias one way or the other is, worth noting. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote to remove any mention of the other film in this article. It's like comparing Gran Torino to Paul Blart: Mall Cop.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, there is no consensus. When there is no consensus, the comparison stands. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So says the partisan hack. Steelbeard1 should refrain from using Wikipedia as a battleground for his own personal agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.144.211 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal agenda, we are just stating the facts backed by supporting citations. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry genius you can't just reuse sentences you've seen elsewhere, it has to make sense. You seem to rethink what Rush Limbaugh says a tittohead I believe you're called. If you're going to compare two movies compare this tripe film to oh lets say any of Michael Moore's movies given that's who is being parodied. You disgusting oaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.85.49 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that adhering to Wikipedia policy or providing citations is a guarantee that the information posted has no point of view. Rather we should ask what including these comparisons is trying to accomplish? If comparisons are made elsewhere, there must be some merit or basis for the comparisons. The two films had similar goals, even if the subjects were slightly different. The problem is the way the comparisons to Religulous are included in this article...as a line by line response, which is an attempt to marginalize every statistic of American Carol's performance at the box office, and nothing else. This is an article about American Carol, not a comparison of box office statistics. A short mention of Religulous's box office performace at the end of the section would be far more appropriate than the line by line responses, and would eliminate most if not all of the perceived bias of the section. Negativity13 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem i have with the section as it stands is it doesn't increase understanding of American Carol or its performance at the box office. The argument that it puts the box office numbers in context would hold more weight if the number one movie for the opening weekend (Beverly Hills Chihuahua) were also mentioned, or the total box office and production budget of religious were mentioned (13 million box office 2.5 million budget). Still, comparing a documentary to a comedy makes no sense. Cmriley (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As consensus in this and all succeeding discussions on this subject (see below) seems to be that the section should not be used for a pissing contest between Religulous and this movie -- by a count of six registered users to about three -- I am removing the offending language. SchutteGod (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the count. Can you list the registered users and the sections above and below? Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the four (now five) users who have posted in this section, plus a couple others who have posted in other sections below this one (including Some kind of scientist and Cube lurker). That's seven users who have agreed with the NPOV reasoning so far. Since the tag was added, it's basically been you arguing with everyone else as to why the Religulous stats must be included. You're outnumbered, and as you well know, Wikipedia edit policy is governed by consensus, not one persistent user who manages to show up every time an edit is made. SchutteGod (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I intend to remove the NPOV tag. Speak up. SchutteGod (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can add mine to the count of registered users that think this addition is really POV pushing and possibly WP:SYNTH. Documented WP:SYNTH, but still synth. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While I am still waiting for a tally of registered users' opinions one way or the other, I can add that there are way too many comparisons that can be Googled which compare the two films. Not counting the blog entries there are journalistic citations, both biased and non-biased that compare the two films and box office performances as can be found at [1]. Including the blog entries, they fill up many pages in Google. A Bing search also yields several comparisons at [2]. Go past the maximum 10 pages at a time in Google and the five pages at a time in Bing to see what I mean. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should review how Google searches work. The search you used just shows the mentions the names. If you add "box office", the number is cut in half right off the bat [3]. First 10 returns? none will pass as WP:RS. Next 10? It looks like one from Huffington Post might, until you look at it and find out the entry is a link to a blog. Finally, the 20th return is a blog entry from a news paper that would qualify as a source. 1 out of 20.......So don't count ghits and pretend there is more significant coverage than there really is. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Following your new parameters, Bing still shows a few examples, albeit with a few links which should not be counted at [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The question here really is not can it be sourced. The question is should it be included in the article? I say it should not be included because it is really a case of WP:SYNTH, even if an author in a reliable source is the one who came up with it. The article is about this movie. Part of the details are how this movie performed at the box office. Very few other movie articles I've seen try to force a detailed comparison with another movie. They report box office and that's it. They don't go into analysis about how many screens etc unless someone is trying to make a point. The author is trying to make a point....and when you insist on including it, it gives the appearence of you trying to make a point too. I feel your use of it is approaching WP:SYNTH. You don't reach a conclusion, but one is implied and left hanging there. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that while both films made the top 10 in the first weekend, American Carol was #9 on many more screen than Religulous which was #10 at far fewer theaters and had a much higher per screen average. If you look at the debates concerning which film was the bigger hit the first week, you can see the dispute among both sides. The dispute was settled on the second weekend when American Carol had a bigger drop than Religulous which finished higher on the second weekend than American Carol. That's where the comparison should end. Adding more to that would be like beating up a dead horse. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • But the question remains, why are we talking about a manufactured battle between #9 and #10. Who debates that except someone trying to make a point? If they were #1 and #2, maybe I could see it. But 9 and 10? Can you show me an example of where else that is done? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Another even bigger point than that they were #9 and #10 is that they both convey POV, albeit at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The numerous journalistic citations already stated mention this quite clearly such as [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing that you can find a source where a reporter decided to make the comparison. My question was, and still is, WHY does it belong here? Yes, the conveyed POV's, as most movies do. Some are subtle, these were not. But while one was about religion, the other one was mainly about conservatism, not religion. Yes, one was liberal and one conservative, but they weren't comparing the same issue. If say "Born on the Fourth of July" and "The Green Berets" came out on the same week and you compared how they portrayed the same war from opposite points of view, that would make sense to me. But American Carol was about conservatism and poking fun at liberal ideas, not about religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that "most movies convey POV". I don't think the rest of the top 10 films in question convey a political opinion the way the two films in question clearly do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but yes, most movies convey a POV. It may be a moral POV, politial POV, a social agenda, whatever. Some may be very subtle about it. Some are open and blatant. For example, a movie like "Commando" conveys a POV that breaking the law is ok as long as your intention is honorable. Of course that isn't the point of the movie, but that POV is still there and presented. Another example would be "American Beauty", where the retired Marine is portrayed as the only one not completely accepting of his gay neighbors living together as a couple. Then he is portrayed later in the movie as having a latent homosexual tendency. This subtley refers to the claim that people who don't approve of homosexuality are secretly either curious about it or are denying their own tendencies. Just two quick examples, but subtle POV's are everywhere in movies and TV. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of Theaters

It would be nice to compare 1,639 theaters and 502 theaters to the everyday "in theater near you" release; because neither one is not showing in our area. -Hamster2.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

That would unnecessarily lengthen the article. The easy thing to do is go to this URL which is from the movie's web site: http://www.movietickets.com/movie_detail.asp?movie_id=66130 and punch in your zip code. You may need to extend the radius to find a town showing this film. The theater list would become obsolete in a few weeks when the film leaves the theaters and becomes available on DVD, most likely sooner rather than later because of the box office figures. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On Moviefone.com, a showtimes website, this film was nowhere to be found in the L.A. region from Route 39 all the way to Simi Valley. That's about 50 miles. Whether it was shown in this region, or merely shown but not advertised would have the same effect. 66.51.204.191 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the comparisons to Religulous before I read the discussion. It's ridiculous on the surface, and the fact that other people have made the comparison doesn't legitimize it. (Specifically, it's an argumenum ad populem fallacy.) If there's a dozen websites comparing Michael Moore to a sweating Arkansas razorback hog, would we include that comparison in his Wikipedia Entry just because other people have made that comparison? Steelbeard1 seems to have an agenda here, which should be left out of any non-biased article. It doesn't add to the article, and the discussion detracts from it. Time to take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdamurphy (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no agenda. It is a statement of fact, backed by citations, that the two films were put in wide release to theaters on exactly the same date (albeit a limited wide release for Religulous at far fewer theaters) which led to the comparisons by media outlets. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Scoreboard

I'm concerned that the box office receipts seem to be being used as a referendum on the "conservative movement". It's probably a lost cause for the next week or two, but in the end what we need is a nice neutral "this film made $X at the box office without editorializing.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no editorializing, it's NPOV and backed by verifiable citations as well as several news articles which themselves compare the two films. I think with the dropoff in the second weekend, that may be the last box office report for this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right it's not bad now. I was following the whole Carrol vs. Religoulus saga and didn't check the current state.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I now reinstate my concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose?

What is the purpose of this passage: "In contrast, Religulous has earned more than $13 million, several times its much smaller budget."

This is simply a piece of partisan garbage. The movies have nothing to do with each other.PokeHomsar (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the above "Comparison with Religulous" section as well as the POV dispute subsection. The two films were released in the same week which led to several news stories which compare the two films. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"partisan garbage" pretty much defines "An American Carol". It's a failed POS movie put out for nothing but to benefit McCain and the other economy destroying murderers in the American version of the Nazi party. Now delete and block away as you punk piss ants in the right always resort to. Silly me half a trillion dollar surplus under Clinton and how many trillions in debt under the GOP crooks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.20.11 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt you saw this movie. Republicans are Nazis? I ask you to please check the positions of Hitler on education, health care, and such and tell me which party (Democrat or Republican) he's the closest to. I think you'll be surprised. PokeHomsar (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with Religulous in Reception

There is a content dispute which has flared up again because some editors, including those whose political viewpoint are clearly shown in their user pages which may affect neutrality, object to the comparison with a rival film Religulous which has numerous journalistic citations which compare the two films for two reasons. One is that they were released in the same week and the other is because the film makers have diametrically opposite viewpoints which show in the films in question. The same comparison is in the Religulous article with no problems among editors in that article. Please review both articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(The more current discussion is lower in the section)

---

Why does the 'Reception' of this article contain an extended section comparing the film's box office performance with Religulous? As far as I can see, this is pure original research - no reliable sources have made such a comparison. I don't think it belongs in the article at all - it also seems pretty POV, as it reads like someone trying to use Wikipedia as a partisan battleground, claiming that there was a contest between these films and 'theirs won'. (It's worth noting that the Religulous article does also make mention of this 'competition', but at least doesn't devote so much attention to it. I don't think it's appropriate in either article.) Robofish (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having read higher up this talk page, it seems that many other people have had this same concern - out of all those who have commented, a clear majority want to see the section removed, and only one user (Steelbeard1) is determined to keep it in against consensus. As such, I will remove it. Robofish (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look further up and note who is signing the messages, there is no consensus. Also, read ColorofSuffering's analysis. I did remove the total box office comparison as that seems to be tantamount to pouring salt in the wound. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough - I can now see that some comparison with Religulous is justified by the sources, but it's the comparison of the box office figures I was mainly objecting to. The current version is an improvement, and now seems acceptable to me. If others agree, then perhaps the 'POV' template can be removed. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowman Guy reverted my revision. He commented further up this page in an earlier section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the Religulous comparison section should be deleted entirely or at least shortened to perhaps one or two sentences. There are several problems with the section. I have seen and read the citations justifying the comparison (14, 15, 16, 17) but all four articles are clearly editorials; it is only the opinion of the author that the movies should be compared. More importantly, they compare the movies' ideologies. Only article 17 makes any reference to their respective commercial success(14 whole words), so these four citations cannot really be used to justify the comparison made in the article. Citation 19 is a dead link. The comparison is also insanely detailed. There's no need for a city-by-city, weekend-by-weekend, per-screen average, number of screens, receipt collection period, overall ranking, percent drop, weekly gross, to-date total gross, and gross vs. production cost analysis of each movie. As it currently stands, this section comprises 20% of the article not counting the plot summary itself. This is excessively long and implies undue importance to the comparison. I could probably find editorials comparing flies and mice as common household pests, but that doesn't mean I'd need to rewrite the wiki entry on mice so that one fifth of the article is a detailed analysis of how many more flies there are in the world. No matter how accurate the data might be it's just not important enough to the subject to justify such a minutely detailed breakdown. I vote for deletion, though heavy editing would also be acceptable.Some kind of scientist (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The point, as has already been mentioned, is that the two competing films in the comparison have political viewpoints, albeit opposite ones, which the media noticed as stated through the linked citations. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

While I understand the openly Neo-Conservative users competing to get this information removed for their own purposes, I'd like to throw in my hat as a third party and state that I do understand the reasoning after reading both discussions, it isn't truly necessary to compare the films, and after reviewing the sources I see no reason for the dispute as it stands with the simple commercial comparison. The nature of this discussion is largely political, as with any political article, and given the nature of Wikipedia it's an extreme uphill battle to include more than this in opposition to many users that are protective of the article for political purposes, thus you really need genuinely solid sources and third party Wikipedians, in my opinion, to reach a consensus. Revrant (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Who are the "openly neo-conservative" editors? I'd really appreciate it if you answer that direct question. Remove politics and just focus on this as a movie (no pun intended). I've asked for another example of where the #9 and #10 (or 7 & 8 etc) movies are compared in the article with a breakdown like this one? Nobody is showing me one. Comparing #1 and #2, yeah, I might buy that. But comparing #9 and #10 looks like it is being done for purely POV reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@Revrant: The way the section appears now is fine. What others were objecting to was using the entire section as a compare/contrast with Religulous' box-office performance. Those portions have been removed, but the remaining once-off nod to that movie by comparison, in my judgment, isn't biased. The tag should probably be removed. Oh yeah, and drop the shit about "neocon editors." It's just tacky. SchutteGod (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd still like someone to show me an article where movies as low ranking as 9 and 10 are compared to each other in a number of screen break down like they are here. If it's not done in other ones, why is it being done here? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Night, I find it ironic that you would ask that given your user boxes, and I don't wish to be involved in either of the current arguments as I feel both are delving into political agenda instead of logic or reason.

Schutte, as I said, as it appears now, a short commercial comparison, appears fine to me, the earlier comparison in the history did seem unnecessary, thus I agree the neutrality tag should be removed from the article in its current state. Revrant (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ah, you won't give the direct anser to the direct question. That's ok, your implication is as clear as your interpretation is wrong. I am not a neo-conservative. I am a conservative. Period. No "neo" to it. However, that isn't really the issue here is it? It's merely a smokescreen thrown up by you and a strong indicator of your own beliefs. It also shows that you are ignoring the actual argument I have made, as well as WP:AGF. Your position that my opinion is based on political beliefes and not a neutral interpretation of the applicable policies is not only wrong, but tantamount to a personal attack. I have continually asked from someone to show me an example of where a similar comparison is made in other articles of movies ranked so far down the list. Nobody is showing me one. That indicates to me someone it pushing something. The lack of precedant isn't my personal belief, it's showing that yours is intruding on the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I did give a direct answer, your userpage is filled with politics of the far right sphere, and after reviewing the arguments you've made, I can understand how good faith is wavering. You're making very stilted assertions, there's nothing inherently wrong with the comparison, but it isn't necessarily worthy of mention beyond its current iteration, if you'd like to consider personal attacks simply because someone points out that the people involved are highly political, then by all means, do so, but I somehow doubt the judges of such an accusation would consider the offense tantamount to treason.

The movie's "ranking" has little to do with anything, there's no policy stating a movie must rank "highly" in order to be compared to a peer or competitor. There's little reason to cry politics at me, I do not involve my politics in Wikipedia articles, I care about the quality and honesty of an article, not whether it shows whatever cult left or right personality and entertainment sect in a positive light. The only way to end this, again, in my opinion, is to seek considerably less bias third parties to reach a sensible consensus outside of political motivation, as I believe both parties will simply continue to argue and it is thus detrimental to the article. Revrant (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are incredible. First, I'm private (you really only know what I want you to know), but I am also not ashamed of my views. I put them out for anyone to see. I don't hide them and then falsely claim to not have them. Second, you're so busy trying to "prove" something that you ignore reality. The "vast right wing conspiracy" user box is tongue in cheek. It doesn't exist. It was a conspiracy manufactured by liberals and conservatives use it to poke fun at people who try to manufacture one and to identify the gullible among us. But that escapes you because your personal feelings override your objectivity, while you pretend they don't. All you are doing is trying to attack me and ignore the argument and hope that nobody notices that you are basing your claim on some made up boxes and not actual actions. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, my friend, you did NOT give a direct answer. Your response was "I find it ironic that you would ask that given your user boxes", which is an INdirect answer. Now, on to your incorrect assumption. As I have clearly stated, I am not a "neo-conservative". You saying I am won't that. You have made an accusation that my opinion is based on my political beliefs (which you know ALL about because of some user boxes), but can't demonstrate that. I'm not "crying politics at" you, it was YOU who brought them up. And your claim that your politics aren't involved....well, I don't buy it. You try your wiki-lawyering about "there is no policy", but I haven't asked about a policy. I have asked where it has been done before in the same context (and you've failed to answer that) and why it is so important to add this comparison (which you have not answered). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, Niteshift36 cannot be objective because his far-right POV is clearly shown in his userpage. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Steelbeard1, because that argument cuts both ways: it can easily be argued that your calling Niteshift36 "far right" marks you as far left. His userboxes present an entirely mainstream viewpoint for the conservative end of the spectrum, not a far-right one. If you're far left, then your POV shows you can't be objective. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll note that calling anyone on the right "neo-conservative" is a leftist trick, used to demonize them and dismiss amy argument they make without bothering to answer it. Neo-conservative has a specific meaning, and not everyone on the right agrees with it. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I try to be objective and my own userpage is pratically blank as I am an intensively private person. Besides, the user in question links his userpage to the Vast right-wing conspiracy which he says he is a proud member of. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck, if I'd known that was there, I'd have done it. Here's a free clue: The "vast right-wing conspiracy" is a canard thrown out by Hillary Clinton to defend her husband. Those of us on the right regard it as a joke, and often refer to ourselves as being part of it as a direct reference to that joke. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was quite clear, you are a user with a political dogma, there are many such users perusing Wikipedia, regardless of what their politics are, they are proud of them and display them, and if you're attempting to insult my intelligence by somehow asserting that I cannot deduce such prideful politics affects the edits you make, then you are mistaken. Your userboxes align with what is currently termed Neoconservative, it was merely my observation given the knowledge you pridefully provided for public consumption on aforementioned userpage, if you prefer simply "Conservative" then that is your preference. it's merely a smokescreen thrown up by you and a strong indicator of your own beliefs., which would be crying politics at me, I did not enter into the political bickering and weasel words that occurred earlier.

I also did not state a political opinion in relation to the article, I pointed out some users are clearly acting on their politics and not the policy of Wikipedia. I realize given you act on your own politics to guide your processes when editing you may find that hard to believe, but you have no idea what my politics are, although you've made insinuations all the same given no evidence on the matter. I apologize if my "Wiki-lawyering" is not appeasing to you, but it is how the site works, this is not a case where precedent is relevant to a consensus, it is a case where policy is relevant to a consensus, and indeed precedent is rarely relevant unless establishing new policy, and that precedent is almost always outside of Wikipedia. Revrant (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• What is clear is that I display my political beliefs. What is clear only to you and your ilk is that you think you know so much about me. I'm not insulting your alleged intelligence. I'm stating a fact: You can't look at some user boxes and put me into some pigeon hole. I probably have some political views that might surprise you, but I'm not here to discuss all of them. Funny how you claim I'm insulting your alleged intelligence, yet you don't hesitate to claim that I can't deduce your politics by looking at your edits and posts. And yes Virginia, there is a difference between Neo-conservative and conservative. Only people of certain types of political persuasions can't comprehend that. In any case, I'm done with this pointless exchange about what you think you know about me. I will address your inability to decipher how this site works. There is no consensus to add this material, so please stop pretending that there is. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

only to you and your ilk, more politics and insulting weasel words, I should have known not to attempt to bring the arguing somewhere constructive when it's clear that will not happen. alleged intelligence, Only people of certain types of political persuasions can't comprehend that, I've tired of this and will be reporting you for personal attacks, I've been exceedingly cordial and you have done nothing but insult me, place yourself above me, and assert your knowledge over mine while ignoring Wikipedia policy. Revrant (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Report me if you want. I didn't say you aren't intelligent, I said you allege that you are. Since I've not seen evidence of it, I can only classify it as an allegation. If you consider what you've posted here as "exceedingly cordial", I submit that you and I have very different definitions of both "exceedingly" and "cordial". I base my definitions on a dictionary. Not sure where yours come from. I can't see where "only to you and your ilk" is insulting. You, and people like you (ie "ilk") can't seem to understand that neo-conservative and conservative are not nterchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between neoconservative and conservative. They're not the same. You're following the current trend of labeling anyone on the rightward end of the political spectrum "neoconservative", when it may or may not be accurate. Since "neoconservatiive" is a four-letter word in today's political discourse, you are thereby using it to demonize someone whether or not they fit the definition, and therefore whether or not such opprobrium is deserved. Please stop. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to refrain from insulting my intelligence, as this is the second time, and having an education in politics helps, thus I would ask you discontinue this attempt to pigeonhole me into an ignorant stereotype, that may be a personal attack if you continue. Revrant (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when have I insulted your intelligence? You appear to be saying that there is no such thing as a conservative, but only a neoconservative. That statement is quite incorrect, but it's a common error among some segments of the political spectrum that wish to discredit all conservatives by smearing them with a word that has become an epithet. If you do not wish to be stereotyped as someone who denies there is a distinction, please stop doing it. I deny attacking you personally, only your actions - and those are fair game on Wikipedia. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One other note: Before you accuse me of acting on my (or your) politics, please note that not once have I expressed an opinion on the subject of the discussion (whether the comparison belongs in the article). If I did, it would probably surprise you greatly. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

By asserting that I am somehow incapable of recognizing the tenets of a political belief and how that might be creating a conflict of interest, that is how. I have said no such thing, common error among some segments of the political spectrum that wish to discredit all conservatives by smearing them with a word that has become an epithet and if you continue the use of such language against me, I will be forced to report this use of language, it is not acceptable behavior. If you do not wish to be stereotyped as someone who denies there is a distinction Please stop, if you feel you cannot refrain from using weasel words against me, I repeat that action may be necessary to remind you of the rules, it is against the rules to dismiss views in that fashion and it is against the rules to lodge attacks of character against other Wikipedians.

would probably surprise you greatly. This is more weasel words, please refrain from forcing beliefs on me simply because I am noting a conflict of interest, I'm attempting to be patient in this content dispute but the aforementioned forcing of beliefs on me and then dismissal of my contributions as a result of the beliefs forced on me is a personal attack. Revrant (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okkay, fine, whatever. What got me started in this discussion was the repeated insistence by some folks, and you specifically, that there is no difference between "conservative" and "neoconservative". You appear to persist in expounding this incorrect belief. I'm arguing against your incorrect statements, not your beliefs. At no time did I say you were "somehow incapable of recognizing the tenets of a political belief". I am not saying anything about your capabilities, only your actions in this thread. I've said my piece, and I'm done. If you feel it necessary to take me to some Wikipedia punitive action, go right ahead; I've already spent more time here than I intended, and would love an excuse to quit entirely. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, I do not, I have never said there is no difference, I have never used them interchangeably, that is simply an accusation that you are using to continue this and it is unsubstantiated, I'm well versed in what separates political ideologies and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continually calling me ignorant. Thankfully this is the first post in which you have not dismissed or insulted me, so there will be no need, please recognize that applying a stereotype to me where it does not exist and using me as a venue to challenge whoever it is that is using the word to "demonize" actual Conservatives is not appropriate, as I, at no time did that, or intended to in the future. Revrant (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You said: "Your userboxes align with what is currently termed Neoconservative, it was merely my observation given the knowledge you pridefully provided for public consumption on aforementioned userpage, if you prefer simply "Conservative" then that is your preference." This dismisses the two terms as being equivalent, and the choice as merely a matter or preference instead of being about clear differences in policy. Those are your exact words, quoted from a comment above. If you do not mean to say that whether someone calls himself "conservative" or "neoconservative" is a mere matter or preference, then what, exactly, did you mean?

As for demonization, it's clear that the word "neoconservative" is widely used in the world today to demonize those on the right. If that's not your intent, then you should choose a different term, especially when the term you use is demonstrably inaccurate. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, it notes that my deduction does not align with their personal opinion and preference, but it is their preference all the same, regardless of what is clear to me. That is entirely your opinion that it is demonstratively incorrect, when I look at the page I see a clearly Neoconservative individual, their beliefs aligning with the tenets from what is shown, those being Neoconservative beliefs. I shudder to think of the day when I can look at a collection of political userboxes and not be able to discern some type of political belief system therein, for that is the day I truly have alleged intelligence. Revrant (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're complaining mightily that I'm putting beliefs in your mouth that you don't hold, yet you're perfectly willing to do that to someone else? If someone tells you he's not a neoconservative, you have no right to tell him that he is. If you hadn't done that, I wouldn't be in this discussion to begin with. There's nothing in Niteshift36's userboxes that speaks one way or the other to whether he's a neoconservative or conservative. Therefore, from what, exactly, are you drawing that conclusion? Be specific. Don't just say "his user page". Say what, exactly, on that page leads you to that conclusion. You can look at his userboxes and conclude he's a conservative, but you cannot conclude he's a neoconservative, especially in the face of repeated statements to the contrary.

• My beliefs aren't public, his are, your comparison is unsound. If someone tells me a cow isn't a cow, I have a right to say "Well, sir, that's your preference and opinion, not mine", I don't need to dismiss their view to do so. There's nothing in Niteshift36's userboxes that speaks one way or the other to whether he's a neoconservative or conservative I really have no response, clearly what you consider Conservative and Neoconservative are extremely different from what I consider them to be if he's neither somehow.

• I'm at a loss for words, first there's nothing in his userboxes that speaks one way or the other, now you can look at his userboxes and conclude he's a Conservative, so which is it? Did you reconsider mid reply after viewing it and not remove your previous argument? I repeat, you can tell me the cow isn't a cow all you like, and we can disagree for however long you'd like, but do not attempt to tell me I have to believe you, because I will take issue with that. I'm not here to debate the politics of someone's userpage and userboxes, and I can tell my views would be dismissed outright as you have shown no signs of relenting on even the most minor of points, so it's over, you have your opinion, I have mine, I base mine solely around my political studies, you base yours on whatever source you use, and that's the end of it. Revrant (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Or are you allowed to put words in others' mouths, even when you complain when others do it to you? Hypocritical much? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Personal attacks again, I will repeat, and although the urge to curse is reaching epic proportions due to your snide insults, my beliefs are not public and plastered all over my userpage, I have no political userboxes, I do not typically involve myself in political articles, his are, stop attempting to equate the two, your logic has no basis in reality, end of discussion, there will be no more patience with personal attacks either, I will report you if you insult me again. Revrant (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• He means me Jay. He went complaining to the WE noticeboard, complaining the he is an innocent victim of my "personal attacks". Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly I did not mean you. Revrant (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• So you're threatening to "report" him too? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's no "threat" involved, when someone continually breaks policy I will give notice to the appropriate policy page. Revrant (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• That makes at least 3 people I've seen you threaten to "report" in the recent past. Maybe you should consider asking yourself why you have had to make that threat 3 times in (less than) two weeks. I haven't had to. Jay hasn't had to. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's no threat happening, when people don't follow the rules they get reported, I give fair warning, you're content to break the rules and allow them to be broken, I am not. Revrant (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The rules"? Is that just counting the ones you don't break yourself? Oh wait, you complain about those ones too, just not when you do it. I guess your outrage is selective. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can see you're in the business of recycling, perhaps I was wrong about your userboxes, regardless I'll be departing from this in hopes that no one else becomes tangled in a web of PA's and politics, and also that mediation occurs in the future. Revrant (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lol, so now you know how I feel about recycling because I'm a conservative? Really...you should move to Vegas and try your hand at bookmaking. And yeah...you said you were going to stop talking to me before. So you really mean it this time, right? As a parting gift, I'll offer you this piece of life advice: People treat you how you treat them. If you don't attack people, they will rarely attack you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that the editor who removed my disputed passage has admitted that there is no consensus, I restored it until its inclusion is decided in arbitration. Please do not start a new edit war and let the arbitration take its course. Steelbeard1 (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • There is no "admission". If we count votes, those opposing it outnumber those who want to include it. If we do it based on argument, there is a question. So there is no consensus. But what makes you think the default position is to leave it in until a consensus is achieved? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a tally of all the editors' positions one way or the other and I do not think there can be a consensus which is why I am asking for arbitration. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • If you define consensus as everyone agreeing, then no, there probably never will be. That is rarely the case in articles. However, if consensus is defined as a majority based on the applicable rules and policies, yes, there can be a consensus. You keep asking for someone to tally the !votes for you. Are you not capable of counting them? If you don't trust my opinion, why would you trust me to count? From what I can see, you and Revrant think it belongs. Who else that has edited here in the past 6 months has said they felt it belongs? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD Sales?

Now that the DVD is out, I'm curious as to whether it did as well on DVD as Zucker was suggesting it would. Unfortunately, I don't know how to get DVD sales information. Does anyone know? superluser_tc 2009 May 09, 18:31 (UTC)

I've been looking at the video rental and sales charts after release, but this movie wasn't listed on the charts. Did anyone else notice this? Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• As for sales: I don't see where American Carol ever ranked in the top 30 for sales in a week. Religulous ranked #9 the week of it's release, dropped to #23 the following week, then #26. After that, it was off the top 30. [6]. Neither film did that great on DVD sales. Religulous did marginally better. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• For rentals, according to IMDB, Religulous went from #19 to 20, to 23, to 29, to 31 (two weeks), to 32, to 37, to 41, to 45, then dropped from the Top 50. I can't find figures for American Carol. When I saw it, I watched it online from Netflix. I wonder how those are counted? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

!Vote count

I will disregard IP editors solely because we don't know if they are also other editors. From what I see on here, in the past 6 months:
For inclusion of the extensive comparison: Steelbeard1, Revrant

For exclusion of the extensive comparison: Niteshift36, Robofish, Some Kind of Scientist, PokeHomsar, Cmriley

For mentioning the comparison, without in-depth comparison: SchutteGod, ColorOfSuffering (although he is ambigious about the specific version), Negativity13

So that looks like 2 for including the extensive comparison (, box office, ranking, number of screens etc), 3 for including a brief comparison (box office and ranking) and 5 for exclusion of the extensive comparison. So where in the world do Revrant or Steelbeard1 feel there is a consensus to include the longer version? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact-checking section

This section seems to be a left-wing attempt to debunk the movie. Is this really NPOV? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• The entire thing was nothing but WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Removed.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am disappointed that this page still looks like this. Is it REALLY that difficult to put "film that spoofs filmmaker Michael Moore" and leave the instances of "Conservative" and "Liberal" out of the INTRODUCTORY paragraph? Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.177.182 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does including those words compromise the article's neutrality? It's widely established that this was a heavily conservative-leaning film that attempts to poke fun at liberal stereotypes. Drawing attention to the fact that the film lacks neutrality does not inherently compromise the neutrality of the article. KrisCraig (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on An American Carol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208004337/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-carol_1003gl.ART.State.Edition1.2699bd1.html? to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-carol_1003gl.ART.State.Edition1.2699bd1.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Censoring of movie

I think a section should be included in the article about mentions of certain politicians and how that material has been removed from some releases. 71.62.43.59 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)