Talk:Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Propaganda films[edit]

Why is everyone riding me about this?

I don't have an agenda, as all the right leaning films I've put in the propaganda cat will show. I merely want a full listing of the relevant topics, or else the category would consist of little more than WWII newsreels and 50s exploitation films. Why is it so controversial that latter day American propaganda films. which touch on contrmpory debates, be excluded? It isn't POV, either. The FTA tour, Outfoxed, F9/11 all were films which had a clear policitcal and/or social agenda, why is it so difficult to admit that they are propaganda? (No one has ever raised objection to Stolen Honor, FahrenHYPE 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, btw).

That isn't my only reason for putting them in that cat, they all use selective editing and presentation of the facts, fail to show the other side, and try to be "entertaining" enough to lure in an audience. What other qualifications for propaganda could I possibly give?--Dudeman5685 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Why is it whenever I venture anywhere in Dixie Chicks land (with the possible exception of discography) that I keep finding plagiarized material that I am sure I'd already read somewhere else! Now, here is a tidy piece of someone else's review and I am removing it. See here from the current page: It shows them with their husbands and their children, at home in Texas and in the recording studio in Los Angeles, getting their hair and makeup done before appearances, exchanging ribald remarks with each other, writing song lyrics and working on musical arrangements. NOW SEE: [1] Just amazing at how people do not want to be creative and write text of their own, assuming they have the references to back them up. --leahtwosaints (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. I wrote what's in this article first, with this edit and then modified/added to it with this second edit. That's my writing style, the long sentence with several comma-separated clauses, saying "the Chicks" instead of the full name, the use of "longtime" as an adjective, the use of "vicissitudes". Then sometime later this "" copied what they have from the Wikipedia article. They're allowed to do that, because everything in Wikipedia is freely licensed for anyone to use, but they're supposed to give Wikipedia a credit, which they didn't do. This happens all the time, there are many Wikipedia echo sites, many people cut-and-paste from Wikipedia into discussion boards, and so on. I run into my words about Hillary Clinton and John McCain and various musical artists and songs all over the net. I assure you that I never copy other people's stuff; the whole point of my doing this is to get my expressions and writing and organization out there. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As for some other examples of other sites copying from Wikipedia: a line from the Dixie Chicks article, "no hit song emerged and a commercial breakthrough eluded the Chicks", shows up on three other sites; a line from the lead section of Mariah Carey, "she was dropped by Virgin Records the following year after a highly publicized physical and emotional breakdown", shows up on nine other sites; and a line from Bruce Springsteen, "and Americana sentiments centered around his native New Jersey", show up on 14 different sites. Some will credit the use of Wikipedia text, such as this one for Springsteen, but many won't. That's the way it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry... it is probably 50/50 with some very lazy other sites and wikipedians copying other stuff (the articles on Dixie Chicks and Martie Maguire had plagiarized material almost after being stubs, and with the Dixie Chicks, I waited to be sure I was right on that page, but sadly, yes. ) I found half of Shannon Hoon's page to be plagiarized with the source listed under further reading! However, in just the small addition to Patty Griffin, I found an old version of my writing on her from the intro as a introduction on a You Tube site, so I know what you mean. Please, though, remove the word "ribald"-- most of us people won't have a clue what that word means, (your "ten dollar words,) (laughing) and somehow that bugs me...!

Forgive me? --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed dozens and dozens of copyvio's; music articles are especially prone to copying from All Music Guide. And yes, you will see your own writing start popping up in places.
As for "ribald", that's a perfectly good, normal word. If you or another reader don't know what it means, look it up at an online dictionary, and consider your day to have been educational! The word is used 800,000 times on the web and over 200 times in other articles on Wikipedia, so no it shouldn't be removed from this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Source of film's title[edit]

Three years prior to this film's release, Laura Ingraham wrote a book titled Shut Up & Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN Are Subverting America. Is there any reference anywhere that clearly states the title for this film comes from that? (Side question: and wouldn't that be tantamount to plagiarism?) JayHubie (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article title issue[edit]

The title of the film is "Shut Up & Sing." "And" is not spelled out. This article probably should be moved to "Dixie Chicks: Shut Up & Sing." JayHubie (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)