Talk:Indoctrinate U

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Various Links

Here are some links that might be useful in this article. CWC 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Move Over, Michael Moore", Deroy Murdock's syndicated column for September 14, 2007
"Indoctrinate U", Bill Steigerwald interviews Thor Halvorssen, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, September 29, 2007

Here's two more. CWC 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lights, Camera, Reaction: Thor Halvorssen's campaign to make Hollywood safe for non-leftists", by Sonny Bunch, The Weekly Standard, August 13, 2007
"The Right Stuff: Conservatives decide if you can't beat Hollywood, join it", by Sonny Bunch, The Weekly Standard, October 15, 2007

And I improved a link's URL while adding this couple of sentences to the Review section:

Examples of "intellectual thuggery" in the film is nothing more than "the tip of a disgusting iceberg", laments Walter E. Williams, noting that "Several university officials refused to be interviewed for the documentary. They wanted to keep their campus policies under wraps, not only from reporters but parents as well." Asteriks 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section: Criticism

I've just removed the following text, recently copied to the article from an old version of Brainwashing 101 by Smb.

Criticism
The film sparked controversy. Bucknell University professor Geoffrey Schneider, who appeared in the film, wrote a letter<ref name="schneiderletter">Schneider, Geoff (2004-11-03). "To the people attending the screening o the film Brainwashing 101:" (pdf). letter. Wikimedia. Retrieved 2007-05-27.</ref> that was distributed prior to a campus screening of the film. In it, he accused the filmmakers of manipulating him into appearing, selectively editing his statements in misleading ways, and misrepresenting events. In response, recent Bucknell student Charles Mitchell, who was mentioned in Schneider's letter, claims that there are several flaws in Schneider's criticisms of the film.<ref name="mitchellresponds">Mitchell, Charles (2005-02-11). "BUCC's Mitchell Responds to Latest Catalyst". Bucknell Conservatives Club. Retrieved 2007-05-27.</ref> Bucknell's Caucus for Economic Justice notes that Maloney "has been banned from filming on campus, and his work has been condemned by the administration, various student groups, and members of the faculty."<ref name="catalyst">"Evan Coyne Maloney and the Fictional Film "Brainwashing 101"". Bucknell Caucus for Economic Justice. Retrieved 2007-05-27.</ref>

My first reason is a bad one: the first 2 words are confusing. I should have just replaced them ("The film") by (say) "The original film, Brainwashing 101".
My second reason is more substantial: I don't see that an old and entirely predictable constroversy over BW 101 needs to be mentioned in this article. (See also WP:UNDUE, especially re the last sentence.) Does anyone want to argue for including some or all of this text? Cheers, CWC 01:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a "criticism" section must give exposition of actual criticism of the topic of the article. leveraging a "criticism" section for the sole purpose of bringing the topic's debates themselves to wikipedia, to the article about the topic, is reprehensible. i do not expect to see anyone answer your question in the affirmative. 74.104.57.38 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if there were criticism that actually had something to do with the article? I found this exchange between John K. Wilson (of collegefreedom.org) and Evan C. Maloney (director/star of film). In the comment section, John K. Wilson links to a rebuttal.

Indoctrinate U: Was It Fair? , March 4, 2008

I don't know if the source is up to Wikipedia's standards, so I didn't edit the page and decided to just add it to the discussion on criticism here. 97.119.162.158 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]