![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Someone needs to fix the subjectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbledygookie ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 August 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 t c 2009 May 09, 18:31 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Someone needs to fix the subjectivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbledygookie ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 August 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 t c 2009 May 09, 18:31 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)