Talk:The Exorcist (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Urban legends and on-set incidents - Blatty

This section states "Blatty, Schrader and von Sydow have all discounted such tales as nonsense". However Blatty is recorded on videotape talking about the on screen activities on the set. This has been edited when I put it on this website, even though it's Blatty's own words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6n0pgaYJVg

[edit] Reponses

The "Reponses" section could be expanded. This film was incredibly controversial in the canada, and the media speculated that it had driven viewers to suicide, etc. Certainly the reaction from some quarters bordered on the hysterical. I don't think the existing section really conveys how taboo the film was while banned. McPhail 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

>> I would also say that the 'mass hysteria' that this film produced is grossly under-rated in this article. It (the audience reaction) was a major news-story locally (was it covered in the national news?). I believe that this is a major gap in the article. The audience reaction was (and remains) a notable/unique cultural-event in and of itself.

[edit] Goofs

The "Goofs" section seems lifted from IMDB, complete with "incorrectly regarded as goofs." 72.147.108.21 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

As well, the "trivia" section is word for word copied from IMDB. Should probably be rewritten. ~~Flora.

[edit] OMG! No pictures?

WOW! This article is pretty long, yet is lacks some good pictures from the film. Anyone want to consider adding some? Kill-bill-93 11:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to consider adding some? Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much prequel information

Epecially considering that both the prequel films have their own articles here (which are linked within this article) there is entirely too much space devoted to the discussion of them here. That entire part of the "Sequels" section needs trimming. 12.22.250.4 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Plato Myth

Dana Plato was never offered the role of Regan. Near the end of her life, Plato claimed she had been offered this role, but this is highly doubtful. She was about 7 years old when casting was taking place (several years younger than Linda Blair), and had no film, or television credits at the time. Until Plato herself made her claims, there was no documentation of her having any involvement with the film. William Peter Blatty himself has said that this was not true, and that he had never heard of her prior to these rumors, rumors perpetuated by herself.

[edit] CLEANUP

The trivia sections (notably the Production and casting details and Reactions ones) needs to be moved out and integrated into new secions or existing section in the article (like Production and Reception). Also, this article needs to be written according to the WP:Films Style guidelines. Cbrown1023 21:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the paragraph about the novel being based on a true story. The novel has its own page; this page is about the film. Feel free to revert it if you disagree, though! I also removed the DVD Release section, as it just repeats the information in the alternate versions section (but at more length). I also removed the track listings, because they are far too long and unnecessary. I rearranged the Academy Awards section into a general Awards section for all of that info to go into. I cleaned up the trivia section a bit as well, and fixed the infobox into the current settings. I tried to make a start on cleaning it up... -Elizabennet 19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who possessed Linda Blair?

The movie never specifically says "who" possessed Linda Blair.

So is there any source that says which specific demon possessed her? Anker99 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course there is a source; the script. The demon possessing Regan was known as "Pazuzu". (In Assyrian and Babylonian mythology, Pazuzu was the king of the demons of the wind, and son of the god Hanbi. Also referred to as "Captain Howdy" by Regan early on.) William Peter Blatty made this name known in both the novel and the script of the film, when the statue of Pazuzu makes a couple of appearances. It was also discussed at length in both of the books that came out shortly after the film. "The Making Of The Exorcist" (which included two versions of the script) and "The Story Behind The Exorcist" which described in great detail the entire production. The demon also is referenced more specifially in the sequels.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


I’m not sure of the source, since I read it many years ago, but the demon possessing young Regan is called "Pazuzu". The description that I read described Pazuzu as a Demon of the “desert wind”. The desert wind is a pernicious thing, if you live in the desert. It dries you out, in a land with sparse water. --John richard leonard 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)John_Richard_Leonard

[edit] Trivia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Exorcist&diff=prev&oldid=51702734

Hi, does the trivia section contain any info added by the edit above? I find some of the bits difficult to believe. (Rome?) --Kjoonlee 04:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

The one-paragraph plot section was simply cut and pasted from the Internet Movie Database. While IMDB has been cited in the references as being the source, wikipedia guidelines clearly state: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." Somebody familiar with the film's narrative needs to rewrite/expand the plot section.-Hal Raglan 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody tried to address this, but the result was a mess. I've cleaned it up some. Minaker 10:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK

The article claims that "following a successful re-release in cinemas in 1998, the film was resubmitted and was passed uncut with an 18 certificate rating in 1999, signifying a relaxation of the censorship rules with relation to home video in the UK. The movie was shown on UK television for the first time in 2001, on Channel 4. This led to Exorcist Bus Trips where enterprising travel companies organized buses to take groups to the nearest town where the film was showing." This is highly unlikely to be true, since Channel 4 is a free-to-air terrestrial channel broadcast throughout England and Scotland. I suppose there may be a few parts of Wales that couldn't see it, due to Channel 4 being replaced there by S4C. However, it would seem more likely that the Exorcist Bus Trips are a reference to the cinema re-release. -86.146.46.45 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Exorcist2000poster.jpg

Image:Exorcist2000poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original inspiration

"Both the film and novel took inspirations from a documented exorcism in 1949, performed on a 12 year old boy." That is an extremely intriguing sentence, but would be better with a fact citation. It would actually considerably enhance the article if more information about this reported exorcism could be included (see for example Jaws (film) and Jersey Shore Shark Attacks of 1916). --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no facts, other than the claims of the bishops, who performed the "exorcism" over the little boy. The movie, "Exorcist", played an unfortunate role in the case of Anneliese Michel, who eventually died as a result of the efforts to exorcise a demon that was not there. Check the wikipedia site for Anneliese Michel. The case of Anneliese Michel was used as inspiration for the movie "Exorcism of Emily Rouse", 2003, claiming that is based on the "true story" of Anneliese Michel. Go figure what is true and what is fake!

[edit] Screamers

Screamers have become a popular part of the internet, and most of the images on them are from the Exorcist. Shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.21.186 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

IMHO Ghostbusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters) refernces The Exorcist - the part where Dana levatates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar24 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SUBLIMINAL

The section referencing "subliminal" images in this article is problematic. I understand that the source you listed refers to the quick, scary flashes of the demon as "subliminal", and even quotes Friedkin himself as calling them "subliminal" edits - but they are not. Subliminal imagery is by definition not visible by the naked eye. The rapid flashes of the demonic face in "The Exorcist" are not "subliminal" at all. Mentioning that the film was "accused" of subliminal editing is a good illustration of the hysteria that surrounded the movie, and perhaps well placed under "reception", but it is misleading to refer to those fast edits as subliminal. If you must include the reference to that controversy/article, can you please make sure that this distinction is kept clear and not deleted again. Regardless of the accusations there was never any actual subliminal imagery in "The Exorcist". ShirleyPartridge (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel so passionate about this issue. However, adding the definition of subliminal imagery into the article and inserting your own personal commentary is strictly Original Research, something that is not permissable in wikipedia. I've reverted your edit. If you can find a reliable source that argues Friedkin's use of terminology is incorrect, feel free to add that detail into the article, making sure to add a citation to your source. (FYI, the Video Watchdog article is hardly frivolous).-Hal Raglan (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hal, the source you listed does not prove the existence of any subliminal images in the movie, only that someone claimed there was. And Friedkin's innapropriate use of the term doesn't prove it either. In my opinion the article is frivolous, because it claims to be proving "subliminal" imagery when the only thing it actually proves is some fast editing. Each of the images in that article are completely visible in the film, thus rendering them not subliminal. The article is tabloid in nature. Looking through the history there have been a number of people who tried to correct this, only to be reverted by you. Also, I don't agree with your assessment about "Original Research" in this case. The edit was based on the misuse of the term within your source. I assumed the definition of "subliminal" was understood, however, given your passion about it, I am happy to give you what you're asking for anyways. Here are some sources explaining what subliminal actually means. I have repaired the text and added citations and sources for information about subliminal images. And though we disagree, I do think the article is relevant as an illustration of the sensationalism that surrounded the movie, and have left your section of the article in tact. (I found the formatting of "reflist2" kind of confusing, so the sources may need to be formatted better.) Thank you Hal! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-reading my original comments above, I believe I did not make myself clear. Information in wikipedia needs to be verifiable, that is, referenced to reliable sources. I did not ask you to provide citations to definitions of "subliminal" or "subliminal advertising". Your new edit indicated that the "accusations were baseless however" and that the flashes in the film were "actually quite visible." Both of these are strictly your opinion, and remain so until you add a citation to a reliable source making these same claims. Otherwise all of your additions are indeed OR. Can you find a review from 1973/74 that actually mentions the use of flashing? If so, provide a ref to that review. That would at least partially prove your claim that "each of the images in that article are completely visible in the film." However, to be honest I don't recall any of the dozens upon dozens of reviews reprinted in The Story Behind ‘The Exorcist’ even briefly referring to the use of flashing imagery. (I believe the recent re-release of the film modified/extended the imagery to the point that all such flashes are indeed easy to spot) Similarly, your claim that "there remains no evidence of any subliminal messages or manipulation ever existing in 'The Exorcist'" also needs to properly sourced.-Hal Raglan (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK Hal, now that sounds pretty silly to me. You have not proven subliminal editing is in the Exorcist, only that there were claims as such. I simply left those claims in tact and clarified that there remains no actual evidence of subliminal editing in the Exorcist. It is not about my opinion nor is it "original research" since you you have not proven the existence of subliminal edits in the first place. The source you listed does not prove any such thing. I did not challenge your source because it does illustrate the kind of sensation that surrounded the film, and is appropriately placed under "Reception". And that is exactly what your paragraph states: The film was "Accused of Manipulation..." Now if you can actually find a source that proves there are subliminal edits in The Exorcist, please by all means submit it. Otherwise kindly honor the compromise, and the fact that I left your portion of that paragraph intact, adding only that there remains no evidence of actual subliminal editing in "the Exorcist". The sources I provided point out very clearly what subliminal editing actually is, and that the word was used inappropriately in your article. I did not remove your source, but pointed out to you its tabloid nature and the sensational quality of the allegations. This is about semantics and the common mis-use of a word. If your source is used to illustrate the hysterical "Reception" by various media, then it meets the criteria for "reliable". If your source is being used to prove there are subliminal edits in "The Exorcist" then it is not. There are countless sources claiming "subliminal editing". That doesnt make it so. If your actually trying to prove that there are subliminal messages in "The Exorcist", then please provide reliable evidence that they exist as subliminal edits. However, if your claim is that allegations were made and Friedkin called the edits "Subliminal", then we have succesfully reached a compromise. In my opinion Hal, you have not and cannot prove there are subliminal edits exist in the Exorcist, because there are none. It makes sense to me to try and write an article with integrity, that is what Wikipedia rules and guidelines are intended for. Meanwhile, kindly honor this compromise. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Your compromise is slightly better than your original edit but I will still tweak it a tad. FYI, I am not the editor who initially claimed the film was "accused" of subliminal editing. I'm not sure this "accusation" was ever made by anybody; I simply provided a citation that indicated a reliable source had discussed the issue of subliminal flashing/imagery/editing in the film. You should do the same with your claim that the film never included any such editing. You claim that the flashes "were actually quite visible" and therefore the edits were not subliminal but you need to provide a reference justifying this claim. If this were indeed true, then at least some of the 73/74 film reviews would have mentioned the flashing. The section still needs a citation to a reliable source discussing the use or nonuse of subliminal imagery in the film. Sorry, thats the way wikipedia works. ShirleyPartridge saying it ain't so doesn't mean squat. Please refer to wikipedia's Verifiability policy for more information.- Hal Raglan (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was one of the folks who edited the section previously and I'd like to add my thoughts (thank you, ShirleyPartridge, for letting me know about this discussion). Hal, it is certainly important and interesting to note that there are people who consider the Exorcist edits to be subliminal, but it's equally important to note that they are not using the word correctly. I think this discussion has been approached from several angles, so I'll continue that trend:
From a NOR perspective, providing a definition of the word from a reliable source is not OR. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and multiple other dictionaries all define "subliminal" in a way that renders Friedkin's use incorrect. It is these dictionaries, not us editors, that disagree with him, and thus it is their research and not ours. As an NPOV thing, it is our job to note this discrepancy in usage. This is all the more important because the disagreement is not about whether there are brief edits (we all agree that there are), but about whether the edits are brief enough to be considered "subliminal". As such, it's more a matter of linguistics or psychology than a matter of film editing, and on that topic, I think the dictionaries and psychology sources are just as appropriate, if not more so, than Friedkin and movie reviewers.
From a word definition perspective, if your argument is that Friedkin's usage of "subliminal" is more accurate than the dictionary ones, that's probably something that should be noted in the subliminal messages article instead (as a matter of NPOV and conflicting definitions).
If you're saying that the DVD and theatrical releases are different (as you mentioned on Mar 25), that is an entirely separate argument. If you have the proper sources to back that up, that should go in the article as a distinct but related issue (the original release might've been subliminal, then, while the DVD one isn't). Without the sources, it would be OR. As for whether there are '73/'74 reviews referring to "flashing", if one can be found, great, but if not, the usage discrepancy still exists. There are many things that movie reviewers do not point out and there are words that they misuse; their opinion on subliminal-ness is just opinion, not fact, and I think it would be appropriate to also include dictionary editors' opinions (i.e. their definitions).
The overarching point here is that there is no reason to misinform Wikipedia readers with half-truth when they can get the full picture if we simply reference the definition discrepancy using dictionaries/psych texts as countering sources. Yes, there are brief edits in The Exorcist that the director considered subliminal; however, his usage was inaccurate and I don't see the problem with pointing that out. What is to be gained from misleading readers with one director's incomplete understanding of a psychological phenomenon? -Clueless (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Clueless, thank you for your polite response. You've raised some good points but I don't think you understand my argument. I have provided a reliable source that discusses the use of alleged subliminal imagery in The Exorcist. I'm not arguing that Tim Lucas and William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty and all the other writers out there who have parrotted the article's conclusions are correct. And I'm not arguing that you and ShirleyPartridge are wrong about the use of incorrect terminology. I'm saying that ShirleyPartridge is not a reliable source. Claiming that the film does not and never had true subliminal imagery, then simply linking to a definition of the word "subliminal" is not good enough. This is a claim being made by ShirleyPartridge. As written, it is OR. Provide a citation to a reliable source that has discussed the issue, and it is no longer OR. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy insists on citations to reliable sources. I will tweak the compromise edit a little & add a fact tag. FYI, alleging that the flashing imagery was "actually quite visible" absolutely screams for a citation; ShirleyPatrick claiming this is the case is not good enough. While its true that a great deal of critics are not particularly astute, the fact that apparently no reviews dating from the film's orginal 1973/74 theatrical run mention the use of flashing imagery does not back up ShirleyPatridge's claim.-Hal Raglan (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hal, thanks clarifying your position. I think our disagreement here is whether a dictionary definition constitutes a reliable source or whether it's just OR... I'm not sure about that, and I'm seeking further opinions on the NOR noticeboard.
In an effort to find more explicit sources, I came across two sites that describe the edits as less than subliminal: [1] and [2], however, they don't seem very scholarly at all. Do you two folks think these should be included in the article, perhaps along with the dictionary definition, or are they not reliable enough? -Clueless (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't find those sources particularly reliable, but I would imagine that more research should bring up some discussion by several respected reviewers or major film sites/magazines (i.e. Film Comment, Variety, Sight & Sound, etc). Thanks for your attempts to further delve into this issue. I'm sure we can all come to a compromise at one point.-Hal Raglan (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In regards to finding better sources, it's been difficult. My guess is that movie reviewers don't take it upon themselves to discuss the technicalities of psychology and the difference between a 0.10-second and a 1.00-second edit might be insignificant. In psychology, on the other hand, it is a matter of definition that those edits are not subliminal since they can be seen in a normal viewing, and so the Exorcist's use of them might not even warrant a statement. In other words, it seems like the average reviewer doesn't care because it's a technicality and people who understand the difference don't care to write about it because it's obvious. I'm guessing that our best chance might be to find something that discusses, like we are doing, the very phenomenon of mislabeling scenes as "subliminal" in the media. I have to go for now but I'll try again later...
In the meantime, somebody on the NOR board explained that citing a definition that does not explicitly define the word in the context of The Exorcist would be synthesis and thus I'll refrain from adding that to the article. -Clueless (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me explain something: Shirley Partridge isn't attempting to be the "source" and has made no such claim. This is not original research and I'm not sure why you keep skipping past points that have already been covered in this discussion. I provided multiple, reliable sources that explain what "subliminal" actually means. That counters the misuse of the word in your so-called "reliable" sources, however popular that misuse may be. It is the dictionaries and other articles about "subliminal messages" that disagree, not (just) Shirley Partridge. In spite of my initial opinion that the entire tabloidish reference should be left out of this Wiki article, I left the content intact, pretty much as it was written. I did this because it is an illustration of the movie's sensational, sometimes hysterical reception. I did contextualize it by noting there is no evidence of actual subliminal editing in the movie. You have not provided any evidence that such subliminal (images that occur below the conscious level, and naked to the invisible eye) exist in the film. You are arguing a technicality for reasons I cannot fathom, except that you seem to want readers to think these edits were in fact "subliminal". However common these type of sources may be on the internet, they are misleading. At this point you can't possibly be unaware of that fact. The paragraph as it is still has no good source to back up its claim. Thus making it unneccessary for me to have to "disprove it" with a source as you have kept insisting. Regardless Clueless has provided such sources and I have provided multiple sources explaining what subliminal means. In my opinion, the word's frequent misuse shouldn't lead to continued misuse in this article. Friedkin did not put any real "subliminal" messages in the film, just quick, subtle editing techniques. However "dreamlike", each of those shot was visible, and thats just not what "subliminal" means, (regardless of any media hype that Friedkin agreed with.) Now that part is Shirley's opinion, and you could call that original research. But that's not what I put in the article. I already compromised with the poorly written, poorly sourced paragraph and just added that there is no known proof of any real subliminal editing, concurring that "accusations of manipulation" were in fact made. Also in regards to your question about the first sentence, are you now saying you have never read the article? ShirleyPartridge (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
ShirleyPartridge, see my comments further down. (You seem to be confused by wikipedia's OR, SYN, and RS policies. I've provided helpful links to those policy articles in my commentary below.) As far your reference to not reading "the article", as I never said anything in that regard, I have no idea why you posed such a strange question.- Hal Raglan (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Clueless, thank you so much for your efforts dear. As far as the distinction between edits being difficult to assess, there is no need to get caught up in any tangential arguments, as there is a pretty simple litmus test: Subliminal images are not detectable by the conscious mind. (Theoretically they were only picked up subconciously, although the effectiveness of subliminal messages has been since challenged.) So if you can see it, it's not subliminal. The source listed shows images that appear in the movie, but calls them subliminal because they're fast. Those images are comprised of multiple frames. ie; Even a one second flash on 35mm film consists of 24 frames per second. There are still no sources listed with this article that provide any actual evidence of edits occurring below the conscious level in this film. I don't believe there are any such sources, because there are no such edits. Also, it's true that the sources you found aren't exactly "scholarly", but neither is the magazine in question. In fact it's misuse of the word "subliminal" pretty much makes it an unreliable source. If the article is written to refer to the words misuse, as part of the surrounding hysterical phenomenon maybe, then perhaps it becomes a reliable source. Most of the articles on the internet discussing the subliminal editing in the Exorcist are a bit simple-minded. So I absolutely think your sources should be added, and perhaps more should be said in the article about the common misuse of the word. It is my feeling that the type of articles sometimes sourced for this movie are tabloid in nature, and have an agenda. I guess for some it's more exciting to say "Friedkin put subliminal scary messages in the film itself" than to say he employed some scary editing techniques. Back in the 70s it was once written that the celluloid was "encoded with evil". Of course Friedkin ran with this, its what helped sell his movie, and he fed into as much of the hype as he could. Also Friedkin is not an editor, and might not have fully understood the distinction. I believe that is what this section of the article is about. Thanks for taking the time with this. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You still seem to be (deliberately?) missing the point. Clueless fully understands my arguments, and the responses on the NOR noticeboard back us up. Unless somebody can provide a reliable source that explicitly discusses the use or non-use of subliminal imagery in The Exorcist, your additions are indeed OR. If you still are confused, perhaps reading wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy will help you out. Clueless also notes above that there is an additional problem with your edit: synthesis.- Hal Raglan (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may chime in for a second: From what I can see, I don't think either of you are really "missing the point"; you're just focusing on different aspects of the same discussion. That may be an important realization. What if you're both right? Hal is pointing out a non-trivial rule, NOR, which seeks to prevent original research from replacing reliable outside sources, and all the problems of biased opinions, etc. Meanwhile, Shirley brings up the also-significant idea that the Friedkin was wrong in his usage of the term.
Can we back up a bit and look at the bigger picture? This isn't just about the rules in isolation, but about the article and Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia is more than just a list of who said X about Y. It's more than a list of references or a search engine of citations, isn't it? It's an encyclopedia whose ultimate mission is to inform readers with notable information -- completely truthfully, whenever possible and whenever the truth is simple and non-controversial; or at least accurately and without bias when the "truth" is divided among opposing perspectives. Does that sound about right?
If so: I don't think anyone here is actually arguing that Friedkin's edit was truly subliminal, but just that there's no reliable source that points out his error. In other words, it seems like a non-controversial fact that Friedkin's edits were less than subliminal. Can we agree on that or am I putting words in your mouths?
If we can agree that Friedkin is indeed wrong, I think we need to weigh our priorities against each other. NOR is important, but as much as I hate to bring them up, the "common sense" rule and "ignore all rules" might also apply here -- if NOR is preventing us from improving Wikipedia, are we absolutely bound to its wording or can we settle for a publicly-useful compromise instead? What would be best for Wikipedia and its readers?
Personally, I am still leaning more towards pointing out the error at a cost of slightly violating NOR -- not because it is a mere technicality, which it is not, but because I think the truth is more important. I think it would be a disservice to the community if people stumbled upon this article and walked away thinking that the Exorcist contained subliminal edits because it does not. That it was accused of having them is certainly notable and interesting, but presenting that accusation as fact due to a lack of countering sources is, at a higher level, counter-productive to the encyclopedia's goals, isn't it? I think we should 1. stick with the current compromise (while continuing to look for better sources) 2. remove the blurbs about subliminal stuff altogether or 3. reword the blurb to state the more-neutral fact that the Exorcist contains brief flashes of images and link to the reviews themselves to let readers draw their own conclusions. -Clueless (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Clueless, I know that wikipedia policies can be frustrating, but they should not be ignored. Wikipedia´s verifiability policy explicitly states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In other words, ShirleyPartridge can relentlessly maintain that everybody is wrong and there are no subliminal edits in The Exorcist, but without a reliable source saying that same thing, ShirleyPartridge´s preferred edit has no place in wikipedia. Its good that you are attempting to work with me on this and come up with a compromise. I believe that removing any mention of the use of subliminal imagery from this article should be not an option, as it would compromise the quality of the article. My vote goes to leave the section more or less as is; if you or SP find reliable sources, add them and everything will be fine. I´ll give you two some considerable time to accomplish this task, but without reliable sources, the claims in the latter part of the paragraph are strictly opinion, not verifiable fact, and should be and will be removed. Thanks again for you willingness to further discuss the issue in a calm, logical manner.-Hal Raglan (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes Clueless, thank you for your suggestions, that pretty much covers the ideas I talked about above: Be happy with the compromise I already made, re-write the whole poorly written paragraph or do away with the paragraph altogether. Bear in mind, my attempts at all of these things were met with reverts and demands for more sources from Hal, which is what led to this rather lengthy discussion in the first place. I have not missed his point at all, I just do not agree, and find his evasive responses increasingly baffling. I do agree with you that Friedkin was wrong about the subliminal issue. I also agree with you about telling the truth, but I don't think there's any need to violate NOR in doing so. As I suggested before I think there is a way to do that using Wikipedia's rules: The misuse of the word "subliminal" and tabloid journalism makes the listed source unreliable as proof of actual subliminal editing. In fact, many of those internet articles use the word inappropriately. So there is no need to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place, and all the talk about synthesis and Original Research in that paragraph is moot. The paragraph can speak frankly about the sensationalism surrounding the film, and even the frequent misuse of the word subliminal. Since the paragraph already exists under "Reception", that should be what the paragraph is about anyways, not trying to prove that subliminal edits exist. As long as the focus of the paragraph is about "accusations of manipulation" and exploitation of the term subliminal in the media, then maybe that article can still be used as a source - as long as it's clear that there is no proof of actual subliminal edits in the Exorcist. Between this issue, and the sources you and I found there is sufficient onus to put this in proper perspective now. My vote is to re-write, perhaps you can have a go at it. And if trying to do that continues to be a problem, there still remains a strong rationale for the paragraphs deletion. I know that we have the same goal in giving the article more integrity, so thank you so much for your constructive support. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
ShirleyPartridge, your continuing unwillingness to read and comprehend wikipedias´s OR, Verifiability, and Synthesis policies is truly baffling; I´ve very helpfully provided you with links to those articles in my previous comments. I´m sorry that you have so far found these straightforward policies, as well as my responses to your complaints, confusing and evasive. Simply put, find a reliable source backing up your claims, or your claims should be and will be removed from the article.- Hal Raglan (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what happened to the formatting of this section -- many of the replies became first-level indents when they should be several levels deep -- but I hope this reply gets through.
Hal, regarding your earlier reply, it doesn't matter whether the rules are frustrating; what matters is whether they are being used help or harm Wikipedia in any particular case. This isn't an emotional thing for me and I'm arguing my position because I believe it helps Wikipedia. I'm arguing that violating the rules, in this case, is more beneficial to the ultimate spirit of Wikipedia than following them. We should not let a blind adherence to the rules cause us to knowingly misinform readers.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, truth should be the goal whenever possible. "Ignore all rules" applies as much as any other "rule" because all of them are to be considered together with the ultimate goal of making Wikipedia a more useful and accurate resource. Where a rule causes misinformation to be knowingly spread to readers, I would say that it is harming the spirit of Wikipedia and thus should not be followed.
My vote remains to either:
1. Stick with the consensus -- EVEN if no better sources can be found that discusses subliminal-ness -- because A. It helps Wikipedia more than following NOR does and B. as Shirley said, the sources pointing out the subliminal edits may not be that reliable to begin with, if they don't even understand the term.
or
2. Delete all mention of subliminal-ness from the article. This would more closely adhere to all the rules, but I think it would unfortunately cause readers to not learn about an interesting aspect/controversy of the film. Nonetheless, leaving them completely ignorant of the scenario would be preferable to leaving them aware but misinformed. If the definitions of subliminal-ness must be removed because you think NOR demands it, I would agree with Shirley and say all mentions of those edits must also be removed because they come from unreliable sources.
On the other hand, yes, if we manage to find more reliable sources that disagree with Friedkin, we could bypass this argument altogether, but that has not been an easy task. Besides, we might as well try to clear up the central principles of this argument in case something similar comes up in the future.
As such, I hope you would be willing to shift this discussion a bit and discuss your thoughts with me on whether rules violations are acceptable if they aid in the greater spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you. -Clueless (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(Further edit) Also, in response to "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth", I again think that the spirit of that rule is more important than the wording. I believe -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the point of that rule is to allow minority and/or controversial viewpoints to be represented when a truth cannot be readily established and all sides deserve a say because they might be true, but in this case, the truth is easily established and Friedkin is incontrovertibly wrong because it's a simple matter of definition. Even though verifiability is the only technical requirement, we should not use it as an excuse to put known-false statements in Wikipedia. -Clueless (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
oK Clueless, thank you. You and I remain in agreement about how this article should be changed. Promoting the false notion that these edits are "subliminal" should be corrected. My feeling is that since Subliminal editing in the Exorcist has still not been proven, there is no need to "bend" or violate any Wikipedia rules about OR. As I've said several times now, I believe the points Hal has made are moot, since the original source used was never reliable. There are no grounds to "demand" sources to disprove something that was never proven in the first place, or to assume more authority over this issue than you or I. Either way, you and I are in agreement about the changes, which I believe makes consensus. This discussion appears to be going in circles, so perhaps you should feel free to go ahead and re-write the paragraph at this point, I support you. I encourage you to continue to use Wikepedia's rules to improve the article. If making this simple contribution continues to be such an enormous problem then we can get some objective help. Thank you Sweetie! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hal, if you do not object to our proposal, I'm going to do as Shirley proposes and remove the offending portion in a day or two. I wanted to give you time to reply before I changed anything, so if you wish to continue this discussion, please let us know soon. Likewise, if you concur that the argument is going nowhere but you still disagree with our positions, please reply so we could move to the next step in the dispute resolution process. Thanks! -Clueless (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I have limited time these days and have been unable to respond until now. I concur that the argument, such as it is, is definitely going nowhere. As a simple Google search indicates the use of subliminal imagery in the film is a much discussed issue (whether or not the term is correctly used), removing any mention of it from the article would hurt rather than benefit the article. If you´d like to move to the next stage as you noted above (Dispute Resolution), please do so but be advised that if a response from me is necessary I won´t be able to reply in a timely manner. Thanks.-Hal Raglan (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Hal, no problem. We all have things to do aside from this article :) Since we are all busy, though, would you be OK with keeping the current compromise with a {{Fact}} tag attached or would you rather we go the dispute resolution route? -Clueless (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My preference is to keep the section as is until somebody can add citations to the unsourced claims. You indicated earlier that it had proven to be difficult so far to locate reliable sources, and I think it only fair to allow you (or anybody else) adequate time to continue the search.-Hal Raglan (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Clueless you have already located 2 sources that are at least as reliable as the one Hal claims proves subliminal editing. As you know I have repeatedly challenged Hal's use and defense of this questionable source Video Watchdog. I would like to hear your thoughts on the reliability of the original source (or any similar articles that misuse the word subliminal) and why it should be used at all. So far I have not heard your thoughts directly about that issue. Do you feel that the misuse of the word subliminal renders the source unreliable? So far it seems that perhaps you accept the idea that "subliminal editing" has already been proven? So if you agree that the original source should be kept, then I will gladly acquiesce in the interest of continued compromise. And in accepting this source as reliable that would mean that the 2 sources you already found should be more than sufficient to complete the paragraph with the changes I already made, and give Hal what he keeps asking for. What do you think? ShirleyPartridge (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Shirley, I agree with you that both sets of sources are, well, less than scholarly. However, this is a horror film we're talking about, not some issue of great significance to humanity, and I don't think it's realistic to expect sources much better than the kinds both sides have already found. The question is whether we should keep the section despite this.
Personally, while I feel that we may indeed be breaking NOR a little, I'd say that keeping the section is ultimately more beneficial than not because those brief edits do exist whether we like it or not. No, they haven't been rigorously analyzed by reliable experts, but they have caused a minor controversy among regular moviegoers, and for an article like this, I think that's sufficient.
It's not that I believe subliminal edits have been proven in the movie, but they have certainly been discussed, and as long as we're able to point out both sides of the issue, I think we're ok. The only edit I'd be against would be if the "not subliminal" side was removed while the "subliminal" side stayed, but we've moved passed that and I think everyone's ok with the current compromise. I think we should go ahead and keep it then, with the two sources added and the {{Fact}} tag left in place so the search for better sources can continue.
I'll go ahead and add those sources and clean up the paragraph in a little bit if nobody else gets to it first (either of you are welcome to if you'd like). -Clueless (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made those changes and also cleaned up the citations. The new version is here or you can look at the differences. -Clueless (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job, Clueless. Do continue your search for reliable sources, and when you´ve found something more notable than the Dark Romance website, please add it. -Hal Raglan (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes Hal, I'm sure Clueless will continue that search, perhaps as enthusiastically as your own dogged quest for something 'more notable' than Video Watchdog. Clueless, thanks so much for your help here, keep up the great work! : ) ShirleyPartridge (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ShirleyPatridge, your seething sarcasm cannot disguise your continuing confusion regarding one of the main topics at hand: Reliable Sourcing. I have provided you with the link to the policy repeatedly above; please read it at least once, as it is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Video Watchdog, despite your bizarre hatred of that publication, is a reliable source. It fits all the requirements noted in the policy. The Dark Romance website does not. Again, please read and attempt to comprehend the RS policy before making any more "amusing" commentary regarding your personal theory as to what constitutes an adequate RS.-Hal Raglan (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Hal, but I'm afraid you're still mistaken. However this conversation is over and I'm not about to explain this again. Thankfully the matter is finally resolved and you won't be reverting that paragraph anymore. Good luck in your endeavors. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Come on, guys, let's be civil... please? Don't forget that we all worked *together* to reach this current solution. We may disagree at times, but we're all working towards the same goal -- improving this little chaotic encyclopedia of ours. So no need to get hostile, yeah? -Clueless (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal 2

Here: http://captainhowdy.com/?page_id=4 Wfgh66 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have never managed to watch this film without falling asleep. I think it's boring. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66, thank you, but is that source a response to our discussion above? If so, I'm not sure how it relates... it is already established that there are sources which list the film's "subliminal" images; what we were looking for were sources that debate the actual subliminal-ness of those images. -Clueless (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, quoting another unreliable source that misuses the word "subliminal" doesn't help much.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I second that. A reliable source that debates the subliminal aspects of the film is needed. Not another quoting from an unreliable one. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you David, please feel free to continue to contribute to this discussion. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember it's "Verifiability, not just truth". Things that aren't true have no place in the 'pedia even if they're verifiable. Which admittedly doesn't add much to the discussion. If anyone's interested, my opinion is that if the nature of the given images is outlined in detail in the sources that call it subliminal, and that description does not match the definition of subliminal as given by a reputable source such as OED which does not make reference to the film, then the images cannot justifiably be called subliminal by the article. That they were called subliminal by someone else is fine, and apparently relevant. Sorry to intrude. Leushenko (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you Leushenko. We came to a compromise, but I do think the original source should never have been used. As you can see, it was an uphill battle. Feel free to continue the discussion if you like, and please make sure the original compromise is honored unless another is reached. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Clueless for the new source and additional text. No subliminal edits in The Exorcist. Hallelujah! This should put the matter to rest once and for all. Thanks dear! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal imagery and the FCC

Regarding subliminal images, I removed the recently-added sentence that said "As far as the FCC is concerned (to prevent subliminal advertising), subliminal images are under 1/24 of a second, which is faster than the eye can perceive, with a framerate of 24 frames per second". The sentence was unsourced and casual research seems to suggest that the FCC "has no rules on what is, or is not, a "subliminal" message" (see [3]).

I could find no authoritative source to counter that. However, if this was a mistake, please feel free to re-add the sentence along with a citation.

Thanks! -Clueless (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)