Talk:The Story of Stuff

Criticism

There is not critizism about this stuff? For example the basic flow don't take into account about taxes and what is the gov doing for it?

Isn't this article a bit biased to one end? as if the website manufactured the article, there's no verification/validation (whichever it is) of 'facts', the statistics can be made up in the 'documentary' so i don't think the documentary itself is a valid source, if you watch the documentary, they beat around the bush to a lot of their details (212.118.141.11 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

No, it isn't. And if you want verification.... Watch the video. It's ONLY 50 MB. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I watched it. I found some of the basic ideas sound but self-evident. (i.e. we should produce a lot less waste) Some of the "facts" are disputable as well as the conclusions she reaches about them. In particular, I found the section about obsolescence in the computer industry to contain many factual errors. For example, the CPU (which I assume is the part she is talking about) upgrade itself is trivial if not accompanied with upgrades in RAM and motherboard bus speeds. I agree this Wikipedia article should have a more balanced POV. --Darth Borehd (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I just watched it too. It's a sickening piece of propaganda; it's to the legitimate left what Ayn Rand and Rush Limbaugh are to the legitimate right. It equates consumption with war, it promotes the idea that there's a conspiracy of evil men ruining the world, etc. It's got factual mistakes, and quotes misleading data. But if NPOV principles demand that the Rush Limbaugh article avoid calling him a fascist, then this article cannot call the documentary propaganda. But it would be OK to have a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section, which would require sourced quotes.Vincent (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no conspiracy of evil men, but spontaneous, unconscious conspiracy of greedy men who don't care about environment because there rich children probably won't pay the price? --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

She claims that 50% of spending from the U.S. government is on the military. The IRS says it's 23%. I'm going to go with the IRS. Also, she doesn't seem to understand that trees are a renewable resource, and that most paper and lumber comes from tree farms, not old growth forest. Another thing she doesn't understand is that people create more resources than they use - oil was worthless until someone invented a way to use it, and the trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywhere. We use science and technology to turn worthless stuff into things of value. We create more than we consume. The reason the U.S. consumes one third of the resources is because we create one third of the resources. All poor countries have lots of pollution in the early stages of industrialization - once they become rich, they will be able to afford the government regulation and technology to make the environment better. A great criticique of everything that she says is in Julian Simon's book The Ultimate Resource, but Simon wrote it before she did her video, not as a response to her video. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing valuable insight into Story of Stuff. However, the problem with the IRS-related edit is that it appears to be original research. Remember that the criticism section shouldn't be anything wrong with her argument but what people have actually said. If the IRS says 23%, I wonder where she got the 50% figure from. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't feel this is appropriate information to include in the Criticism section, then please explain what you think is the appropriate way to include properly-sourced factual (that is to say "TRUE") information which contradicts some of the clearly false information that the video contains. It is irresponsible to simply not mention at all that the video (which even the most open-minded person can clearly see is biased in favor of the FAR left) contains many factual "errors" (a nice way of saying "LIES"). -70.251.123.92 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Take a look at WP:SYNTH. The information itself is cited, but the connection to Story of Stuff isn't. The section in question is about criticisms from elsewhere, not criticisms from us. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

50% is true (i think the white house is a reliable source) --89.61.187.88 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of that pdf verifies the 50% figure, but take a look at the article now. I looked at her source, which conveniently explains the difference between the 23% figure and 50% figure. I don't see how adding more claims would augment this area of discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:37, 15 May

2009 (UTC)

I posted a reference to the rebuttal to this video that points out error after error, and shows it's sources, but it was removed, why?

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0A2E95A671030238

Well, firstly, the link was contextualized not as a rebuttal but an attempt at verification of the blanket statement "the video is full of errors and misrepresented facts." This is the thesis of the video, but it is certainly not verifiable, accurate, or neutral enough to be a source for this statement. But the video doesn't seem notable either, so we still can't include it even if reword how we present it. It's just a video on youtube that anyone (including you or me) could have put up there. Take a look at WP:ELNO; items 10, 11, 12 all point to sites that anyone can contribute to no matter their credibility and no matter how far reaching their contributions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

the link posted is just as neutral as "The Story of Stuff" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.236.0.11 (talk • contribs)

The issue isn't neutrality, it's notability. As a third party (Glenn Beck) has now given the video and its author (Lee Doren) some attention, the video is notabile enough to mention, though still not a reliable source for blanket statements of factuality. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly NOT a documentary. I don't care whether you support it or think it's trash. A documentary is an unbiased, balanced presentation of an issue with clearly supported facts and sources. This is a polemic. Let's call it what it is.Coastside (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the agreed upon definitions of documentary that require them to be unbiased. Michael Moore's films are also considered documentaries, as are Morgan Spurlock's.

I'm not sure about linking to polemics. From that article, it seems to fit but I don't think we should refer to the video itself as a polemic. Partly because it's an obscure term and partly because "video" or "documentary" is fine. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No. - the term "video" is neutral and 'fine'. The term "Documentary" is not a reasonable description of this film. I'll grant that documentaries can be opinion pieces, but at least in form they attempt to use evidence to explain reality. Leonard doesn't use evidence to explain anything at all - she's just spouting her opinions. The root of the word is "document". It's supposed to document reality. The Stuff video does not do that. It illustrates a political and polemical argument with cartoons. Try this definition: [1] and really *read* it. Here's the wiktionary definition [2] Again, *read* it. Or look up Wikipedia's own definition Documentary At least Moore's diatribes were in a traditional documentary format. For example, he actually shows real people being interviewed. The Stuff video doesn't even include references to where Leonard's supposed 'facts' come from. You have to go to the web site for that. This is merely one person ranting on a soap box. How is that a documentary? It isn't. To show I'm not alone in this view, let me point to the New York Time article which (unfortunatley) drew attention to this video. [3] They call it a "Cautionary Video" and the article itself used the term 'video' 18 times. Not once in that article do they refer to it as a documentary. Remember to be objective and neutral in your edits, please. That's important for the credibility of Wikipedia. And don't casually make changes to articles or undo other peoples' changes without thinking first.Coastside (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the link to Polemics, that's entirely appropriate. You agree it's not well understood (clearly you don't understand what it means) so why not help people look it up? Next time you're 'not sure' of something - don't go undoing other peoples' changes. To be reasonable I'll include a rererence to Documentary so people can see the difference themselves.Coastside (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

While "video" is accurate, I still don't see how documentary isn't an accurate term. Arguing that it isn't sounds very much like people's arguments against referring to Moore's films as documentaries. That you don't like the video makes your effort seem very much like POV-pushing.

It simply isn't the case that Leondard doesn't use evidence. She gives facts in the video and, rather than cite references in the video, she has an annotated script. Documentaries don't have to cite references to be documentaries (though doing so is better). I'll grant that there are problems in the presentation of facts, but these are the sorts of issues in other biased documentaries.

Regarding definitions, nothing you point to lists a documentary as being unbiased. If you're referring to the definition "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film" (freedict) or "Presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter" (wiktionary), I'd like to point out that these are the definitions of the adjective "documentary" with the separate noun definitions saying nothing about bias or neutrality.

But, you might say, a "documentary film" is a noun modified by such an adjective. I would then point out that there are 2 or 3 possible definitions listed. As long as it fits one of the possible definitions, it's accurate. So you couldn't say that a film isn't a documentary because fits one of the listed definitions but not the other any more than you could say that Esquire isn't a magazine because it isn't an ammunition storehouse.

Regarding "polemic", I still don't agree that it's called for. Yes, we've got an article that explains it (although if I "clearly don't understand it" then it's apparantly not enlightening enough); no, we don't need to appeal to the most base reader unwilling to click on new words; yes, I had to look it up when I first saw it. It's clever, and AFAIK it's accurate. But it doesn't seem right tone-wise.

BTW, let's keep this as a discussion until a consensus is reached. That way we don't have to keep reverting each other. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're demonstrating a clear bias in your edits. You need to step back and think because people like you are ruining the credibility of Wikipedia. You're putting your ego in front of your brain. For example, you reverted my edit where I changed "In the United States, critics consider" to "Critics consider". My change was clearly removing Anti-American bias. It's neutral to refer to critics in general, and reveals anti-American bias to say that only Americans are critical of this video. I made a lot of edits with careful comments explaining my changes. You made sweeping changes to the article reversing my changes with no comment to explain. You are demonstrating that you think you own the article and can make broad changes without clear justification. Regarding 'video' vs. 'documentary' - I don't think anyone would disagree that 'video' is accurate and neutral. The word documentary suggests this cartoon video is more than what it is - you are aggrandizing the video because you are biased in support of it. As further support for my case here, let me point out that aside from the NYT article calling it a "video" throughout (18 times) and never once calling it documentary, the Story of Stuff site web site itself does the same. They use the term 'film'. They never use the term documentary. Even they know what a documentary is. I challenge you to find a single use of the term documentary in the domain storyofstuff.org. If you don't know how to do that, use google and search for "documentary site:storyofstuff.org'. Go ahead, try! Zero hits. A neutral, objective observer would agree that "video" is not biased and "documentary" is a term that helps legitimize the film by making it sound bigger than it is - it aggrandizes and legitimizes an animated film into a genre that suggests it is way more than a mere opinion piece. Your ego is not the priority here. It's the neutrality of wikipedia. Your being 'right' is not as important as maintaining neutrality in the language. Ask some other people which is more neutral here. Ask someone else if they think you are unbiased by asserting that only Americans could be critical of this video. Ask someone else before making these changes. I'm changing 'documentary" to 'film' which is what the producers call it. If you change it back - you need to explain how you think calling it a documentary is clearer and more objective than the term the originators of the film use to refer to - if you step back and put your ego aside, I think you will admit that neutrality in the language here is more appropriate. Coastside (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusations of bad faith editing. I am not attempting to WP:OWN this page. I do not claim to be objective, but if you believe your own subjectivity doesn't keep you from fair unbiased editing then you should give me the same credit. Any further comments about my editing style, my personal stake in the article, or my deeply flawed psychological issues should be directed to my talk page. We should be discussing the article, not each other.

While it's interesting that she doesn't refer to her work as a "documentary", it's clear from google searches that others do. I even looked up documentary site:storyofstuff.com, (not .org) and found comments in the blog section that referred to her video as a "documentary", even one critic who said "“The Story of Stuff” is not a scientific documentary, but a documentary that is attempting to critique the American economy." Given that, and given that it fits one of the accepted definitions of documentary (A work presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner), "documentary" is accurate.

As with "video", "film" is also accurate, but my objection here is taking out "documentary." You've claimed that it's just an opinion piece, but that's clearly false given the facts she presents. You've claimed that it doesn't fit the definition of "documentary" which I've also shown to be false. I don't see any other reason from you other than "I don't like it" that you don't think it's a documentary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to change "documentary" for now because you'll obviously stubbornly reverse it. I'll have to get bigger guns on this. Stay tuned. As for me not giving any other reason than "I don't like it", go back and try reading. I know it can be hard, but try to concentrate. I said that the term documentary aggrandizes the film. I'll put it in simple terms: most people, if they haven't seen the film, when they read that it's a "documentary" would assume that it had photos or video of the real world showing some subject, and maybe it would show interviews, or at least some real people in the real world. Maybe it would be biased, maybe it would try to be objective, but they would at least think it would show them, in some kind of journalistic fashion, something akin to the reality around them. They would certainly not expect to see a cartoon, with one person spouting off their opinions, with no one else shown, no one interviewed, no photos or videos of the real world. Just a CARTOON. I added the word "animated" to the article to at least make that clear. I'll leave 'documentary' because you won't let me change it. I think 'animated film' would be reasonable and unbiased. To me "animated documentary" sounds almost like an oxymoron - which is precisely my point - but you're the one who insists on keeping the word documentary. I wish some other people would weigh in on this - I'm tired of this pissing contest with you.Coastside (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reversing it because I'm trying to come to an agreement here. When you say "aggrandize" it tells me that you don't think very much of the video. Simply calling it informative somehow gives it an honor that you don't think it should have because, well, you don't like it.

While Wikipedia isn't a democracy, I agree that maybe some other people can weigh in on this issue. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I was getting bored seeing whether you or I could piss the furthest, I contacted the Director of the Media Resources Center (initials are GH if you want to verify) at Moffitt Library at the University of California at Berkeley, a very reputable and liberal institution if you don't know. I asked him for help classifying the 'Story of Stuff' film and whether he thought the term 'documentary' was acceptable. He said he thought that although one could argue that the film was a documentary, "[t]he definition 'documentary film' is hotly contested on a number of fronts" -- that's an exact literal quote except he used double quotes around 'documentary film' and he capitalized the "T" in the word "The". So it seems to me if a reputable authority on classifying media says that 'documentary' is a "hotly contested" term, and we have an opportunity to use a more neutral term 'film' then, in the spirit of fairness and objectivity which Wikipedia strives to achieve, it would be appropriate to use the more neutral term 'film'. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you going to continue to insist on keeping your biased wording despite my reference to an qualified authority on this topic? [gratuitous and unabashed pleading and 'taunting' deleted]Coastside (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With that logic, we could reclassify all sorts of films here at Wikipedia. I'll stand by my earlier statement that I'd like other members to weigh in. Give it a few days. In the meantime, you ought to cut back on the taunting. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, applying my 'logic' to all documentaries might be going a bit too far. I doubt anyone would question whether the Ken Burns documentary on the National Parks qualifies as a documentary. Even neofascist anti-environment wingnuts would consider it a documentary I would think. How about if we just agree not to use "documentary" for films that are cartoons and that show only one person talking and that don't show anyone else providing any supporting or contrary opinions at all? That would be a bit more conservative and reasonable, don't you think? I wonder how many entries in Wikipedia we'd have to change??Coastside (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice find re: 'animated documentary'. I am more comfortable with 'animated documentary' than just plain 'documentary'; at least 'animated' sets the reader's expecations more appropriately. I still think it sounds like an oxymoron, but that's just my opinion. The description 'polemical' also clarifies to a degree that it is not attempting to be objective but makes a strong statement against something. We'll have to see how long "polemical animated documentary" survives before someone else changes it again...Coastside (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, 6 months. Not a bad run. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there are two levels on which you have to debate the word "polemical" - one being the word itself, the other the link that is supplied as support. As to the second, I think that the link is not an appropriate support for the choice of the word 'polemical', and that the article would be better with the word polemical, but without the link to the article. First, the phrasing "Given that 'The Story of Stuff' is a polemic" on the NYTimes page is a bit ambiguous - it could both mean: "We (the authours of the NYTimes blog) think/are sure that it's a polemic and hence ask you to do the following task..."; or it could mean: "Assuming that the video meets the criteria for a polemic, do the following task...". Second, the NYTimes blog entry looks at so many different aspects of viewing the movie, that from it you could also equally well derive the adjectives "valuable", "well-received", "much-disputed", "hyperbolic", "instructive", "one-sided" etc., etc. as describing the video. Now as to the word "polemical" itself, how about "arguably one-sided", or "arguably biased"? or "strongly critical of contemporary consumption cycles"? Daspostloch (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, at some point in the article, of pointing out that SoS is polemic(al). Even if the wording were ambiguous in the way that you describe (and I disagree that it is), it still fits the definition of polemic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There should be a criticism section about this 'film.' There clearly are many inaccurate and fudged facts within the 'documentary.' True facts should be clarified for the general public-unidentified user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.174.89 (talk • contribs)

There's already mention of criticism. There's also a bit of fact checking. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Exposure?

Here's a look at some of the scariest figures Leonard cites in her movie that are misleading or just plain wrong. Not a particularly great reference but it is considered reliable under wikipedia policy as far as I know. Can we use this to replace the horribly crafted "liberal bias" plug? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I was wondering where that was. An email she sent out a few days ago mentioned this blog entry from the heritage foundation as well as something from Fox News. The FN story looks credible enough, though I wonder if, rather than isolate it in the end, we shouldn't integrate it into the prose of the narrative in the area that I recently have semi-fact checked. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. For now some of the content should be in the article, but it shouldn't derail the theme to propaganda-literature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could include in this article how hypocritical it is that they are selling their DVDs under e menu link that says "Order Stuff". They don't even find that ironic? It's ok for them to sell stuff, distribute it, encourage people to consume it, all so they can make a profit. I guess capitalism and the free market is ok for them, or maybe just because it's all for a good cause: them.Coastside (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you see that as hypocritical, then you don't see the point of the film. It's not an attack on capitalism, but on unrestrained consumerism.

As wrongheaded as I believe this stance is, I wouldn't be surprised if some reputable source or other hasn't made a similar argument. If so, it has a place in the reaction section. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the film, and I'm nauseated by it. Let me be clear. I am an environmentalist. Having said that I think this movie takes serious issues and makes stupid far-reaching arguments about them. I think they hurt the causes the producers are trying to support by spreading misinformation. For example, she blames the U.S. almost exclusively: greedy, ignorant Americans produce all the trash and dump it on the poor third world. This kind of oversimplistic argument is harmful in many ways, first by being misleading factually, and second by politicizing the issue with the "blame the Americans" plank, which further alienates a lot of people against environmental causes. An example of how it's completely misleading is that it ignores what is likely the biggest threat to the environment in the 21st century: the exponential industrial growth taking place in China. Did you know that all ten of the top ten most polluted cities int he world are in China? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China Do you have any idea what will happen to oil consumption when the Chinese start driving automobiles en masse? Of course, that will be the Americans fault because we forced them to get rich enough to afford cars by actually buying all the goods they produced. By focusing all her venom on the United States she mixes her political bias with environmental issues in a very damaging way. Have you listened to the "Debunking" video? You should - like "Schtuff" it is also clearly biased, but it does a fairly good job exposing and refuting the vacuous arguments Leonard makes. Aside from being an environmentalist, I am also someone with degrees in economics and business. If you don't think this video is anti-capitalist I think you need to watch it again with your economics/politics hat on. Play back the section on buying the radio at Radio Shack. It's almost laughable. She's describing global capitalism and basically saying it doesn't work. We should stop producing stuff and stop buying stuff. That's the point of the video. How can you say that's not anti-capitalist? No producing, no distributing, no buying, no selling. No markets. No capitalism. She keeps bashing "the system". What "system" do you think she's referring to? It's called capitalism. As another example, when she says things like "Kids in the Congo paid with their future", that has nothing at all to do with the environment. It is a political statement, saying Americans oppress foreign kids through a capitalist system that is fundamentally exploitative and flawed. I think any objective, open-minded, thinking individual, whether "green", "red" or "blue" should see this video as first and foremost stupid and inane, secondarily fundamentally anti-American, and third, fundamentally anti-capitalist.Coastside (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have watched SoS numerous times, I've also transcribed it (before I knew about the footnoted script) and pored over some of the citations to edit this article. I've also watched Lee Doren's criticism, again transcribing it (I was considering making my own video response to Doren but decided against it after seeing the petty ways he deals with critics).

I'm not in the business of defending Leonard's work and understand that there are a number of problems with it. However, when Doren and many other critics assume that she's advocating communism just because she's criticizing consumerism, it comes off as a sort of knee-jerk defensiveness. She doesn't seem to be advocating anything, just a rather vague notion of changing the system towards sustainability. She never implies that people shouldn't ever buy things and even makes it clear in the video that the more serious problems of unsustainability are systemic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think given how critical Leonard is and how she attacks just about everything it's quite understandable people are defensive. I think if you were American you might also find yourself a bit defensive, too. I don't think it's knee-jerk at all. I do think a lot of Americans eat this stuff up, though, especially because she blames corporations and the government - fairly easy targets. I'm not against anything pro-environmental or even anything liberal - I have a liberal bias and am supportive of conservation, global warming and other environmental issues. But I am very bothered by this kind of stupid, self-righteous propaganda about important issues. What really upsets me about this video is the idea that teachers would use this in school. It scares me to think teachers don't see how simple-minded it is and pass the garbage along to the kids. Gee, maybe if we got rid of all the corporations and got a "good" government that is cares for all us people the world would be a better place and then all the problems with the environment would be solved! Duhhhhh. As an aside, the line in the article that says the video is taught in "post-graduate economic classes" has to be total bunk. Someone said this and someone else repeated it, and now it's quoted in Wikipedia and has become "true". The only adult courses that should be teaching this are courses on rhetoric. I have an economics background and I guarantee you no post-graduate in economics would learn anything from this video - perhaps if it's shown in an economics class it's shown as an example of how non-economists can say totally stupid things out of complete ignorance. I agree wholeheartedly with you that Leonard is vague and fails to advocate anything substantive. It's easy to bash "everything" and make no positive recommendations. Too bad she's doing so much harm spreading misinformation.Coastside (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you say only courses in rhetoric should use this because that's exactly how I've used it as a teacher. You raise a good point the post-graduate economics classes. I wondered about that myself. The source itself doesn't seem like much of a WP:RS so we can either simply remove the statements it supports or put {{dubious}}. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, agreement! Cooler heads prevail. Who would've thunk? Yes, I think the fact that this video went viral is a testament to its effectiveness as a propaganda piece. It's also probably why it strikes such a nerve. If you aligned with the content, you think it's a wonderful, informative little dittie of a documentary, and if you aren't, then you find it nauseating, self-indulgent crap. I do admit I wonder what it was in this video that people find appealing even though I find it so obviously vapid. I think first, it's the fact that it's a cartoon. This depresses me because it points to the appeal of banality for most viewers. Second, I think anti-coporate, anti-government, and anti-American thinking is appealing to a lot of viewers. They get to believe in simple boogey men and that makes the problems of the world seem less threatening. It's not a complex problem - it's simply THEIR fault and we have to tell THEM to just STOP it. So without having to face the difficult question of how to actually solve problems, they'll just blame the powers-that-be and this will make it all feel better. I also find this depressing. And this is why I hold Leonard in such low self-esteem. I think she has deliberately tapped into this kind of blame game as a way of promoting herself. And now she's writing a book. It will be interesting to see if the book has anything meaningful to suggest about the problems she raises, or if she is just going to continue to blame "THEM". Tell me, as a teacher of rhetoric, why do you think some find this film is appealing and are so willing to accept it as the "truth"?Coastside (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to detour too much away from discussing the article itself, but my impression about these sorts of things is that people at large are discriminating in applying our powers of skepticism. We are more likely to apply scrutiny towards positions or people that we dislike or don't trust than those we like or trust. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agitprop

I watched this video through. It appears to be little more than a diatribe against capitalism produced by watermelons. Now anybody has the right to buy a domain and put together any kind of video they want promoting just about any view imaginable. It seems more than a bit odd to me, however, that the article about this video on Wikipedia appears to be little more than a promotional commercial for the video. Looking at the history page it appears to me that any attempt to confront rather obvious errors in the video are being systematically removed. This shouldn't be happening, imo. Plaasjaapie (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? There's a whole section that looks thoroughly at some of her claims. As it stands right now, there are an equal number of citations for criticism and praise.

I'd ask you how you suggest to improve the article, but the communist-baiting title of this section and your poor understanding of past WP:OR concerns leads me to believe that you don't actually have anything constructive to offer. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no such section "looking thoroughly at some of her claims". The only balance in this article, ironically, is found on this discussion page which, read as a whole, presents the sort of balanced presentation one expects to find in an encyclopedia. It is clear, both from the structure of the article, and the tenor of commentary in defense of it on this page that the primary author of this page is an rather unabashed fanboy (girl?) of the film, which is fine as far as it goes, but a bit of a problem when it comes to a fair presentation....an encyclopedic account ought to be neutral: I want to read a summary of the various and detailed critiques of this film that I've found through a simple google search, but none are to be found in the article: Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.132.32 (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I speak of the "contents" section (take a look). The only detailed critique I've seen is the one by Lee Doren, which is actually mentioned in the reaction section (again, take a look). Perhaps you could tell us what sources you're talking about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance

Responding to this, I made the contested edit and I agree style-wise but I do not agree content-wise. I made the edit hurriedly, without a lot of concern about style. Re the content of the edit, the information which I added and which the edit removed is useful. I am currently at the end of a long day, and I won't revert the edit just now. Generally, I agree that we should not split the reaction section like that; the edit which did the split was hurried by time pressure, and could have been done better. The expunged info added in the edit, though, was useful, The article describes an increasingly controversial matter, and needs WP:BALANCE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What information did I remove? I actually added some clarification. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that edit summary in a big rush as I was headed out the door. I may have misread your edit. You have my apologies if I was mistaken there. I have just made here what is probably the first of a number of edits which I see as adding balance to the article. More such edits will probably follow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you seemed a bit rushed. I'm glad you're giving this article some attention.

Regarding your most recent edit, the creator of the video is actually Lee Doren so I integrated the mention of Schreiber's website where Doren was brought up.

I'm not so sure about mentioning the "it's the government's job to take care of us." We should be fact-checking, not debating Leonard's position and this particular matter is more up to political opinion. On the basis of the general welfare clause, the US government spends a lot of legislative attention on environment, discrimination, healthcare, business, disaster relief, etc. This shows that Madison's opinion on the matter doesn't govern our current understanding of the role of government. In fact, as this Youtube video points out (around the 2:45 mark), in the context of Madison's quote--a 1794 debate regarding aid to Haitian refugees--his question was answered with reference to the general welfare clause and that Congress ended up passing the bill to give aid. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Ok people, I've made the change like 3 times. THE FOOTNOTES IN THIS FILM DEBUNK THE INFORMATION!!! Can this please be added somewhere? This article makes it look like it's another "Glenn Beck Conspiracy" that this film is "Bad." It's not him, the video discredits itself in the footnotes. Wikipedia editors know a great deal about footnotes. Well, if this video were a wikipedia article (with its current footnotes) it would be laughed off this website.

So, how about mentioning the inaccuracy of the footnotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.182.46 (talk • contribs)

We can't simply say "the footnotes debunk the information" because that's vague, unsourced, and as far as I can tell inaccurate. We do, however, have a section where specific claims are examined. I don't see any reason not to make sourced expansion of this section. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the supplementary website to the video plays fast and loose with documenting the video's claims. However, an extended list of perceived inaccuracies in this documentation is not appropriate content for the film's Wikipedia article. That violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:SYNTH. If and only if reliable published sources have performed this kind of analysis for us, we can quote their conclusions, and representative samples of their analysis. But it is not our place to play "forensic scholar." 74.14.69.221 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

While Lee Doren's critique addresses some of the same issues that the itemized list in the "contents" section does, what we have is not a "list of inaccuracies". Rather it's a list of claims she makes with a bit of unanalyzed fact-checking. Most items consist of a quote, a reference to her source, and a quote or paraphrase from the original source.

There are two exceptions to this: the quote regarding the role of government and the bit about original forest land in the US. Both of these were added recently and act more to fisk or debunk her claims than to examine her source, which runs closest to the OR criticism that you and I are against. I haven't removed these last two because they're recent additions, I'm working on other issues with their author, and they might be redeemable.

As it stands, the selection of quotes is seemingly arbitrary but a number of them are common targets by critics and if we can contextualize the selection that way, then the list would be in good standing by our WP:SYNTH policies. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The selection of quotes isn't arbitrary at all. Some bitter nerd libertarian made a "critique" of the video, where he interposes his own harangues with the original. Since Wikipedia is dominated by his fellow bitter nerd libertarians, they have imported his claims wholesale into this "encyclopedia article." That's really all that's happened here. There's no question of "common targets by critics" or "good standing by our policies." It's just bitter nerd libertarians parroting each others' rhetoric (which, come to think of it, is a pretty good definition of debate on the Internet in general.) 69.159.87.182 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of the quote selection as being influenced by Lee Doren's critique is false. This version of the article from 2008 shows most of the quotes had already been selected. Doren's critique was posted May of this year.

If you're advocating outright removal, I disagree. If you're not interested in meaningful discussion about how to fix the section in place, then you've got to make a convincing argument that it's unsalvagable. Bitter nerd libertarians or no, you ought to stick to substance rather than the character of other editors if you're going to get anywhere here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The constitution and reforestation

As I mentioned in the above section, there are two bulletpointed items in the Contents section that differ from the rest and are more recent additions:

• "It's the government's job to watch out for us, take care of us; that's their job." (emphasis in the video). Footnote 5 of the annotated script explains that this interpretation is based on the General welfare clause in the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Lee Doren's critique argues that James Madison, the principal author of the constitution, saw benevolent government action as extraconstitutional^{direct citation of Madison}
• "... in the United States, we have less than four percent of our original forests left". She ignores reforestation. U.S. forest area has remained at about 745 million acres (about 300 million hactares) since 1900.^source In 2005 33.1% of U.S. was forested, with the U.S. having gained an average of 364,600 hectares of forest per year between 1990 and 2000.^source

There are a few problems with these two items.

1. They lobby criticism under the guise of describing the video's footnotes.
2. The citations are, basically, WP:SYNTH; the first combines an out-of-context Madison quote as a citation and the second provides two references discussing reforestation. Neither Madison nor the websites discuss the film.
3. The first one references Lee Doren's Youtube video. I understand that this video has gotten some coverage, but it's only notable enough to mention that Doren has a video critiquing (or "fisking") Story of Stuff. Many of his arguments are pretty crappy and we can't consider him anything but a biased critic.
4. They don't examine the sources she uses, which is the structure of the rest of the section.
5. The first one is, really, more a matter of political opinion than of fact-checking.
6. The second one, I think, covers similar ground to the planet's original forests.

Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reclassification

It would seem that this film would be more accurately classified as advocacy journalism. It is certainly not a documentary in any sense of the word as the level of neutrality is non-existent. Ms. Annie Leonard's credentials and history are clearly in the camp of eco-activist. This work is an extension of her book of the same title, which is clearly an opinion work. There are some interesting media, social and internet attributes to this piece, as it has become something of a pop culture phenomenon, not to dissimilar from Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Jettparmer (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy journalism is an interesting and relevent concept, but journalism is specifically about news (i.e. recent events) which isn't really the case with SoS. Even if it were an accurate label, I would reject a call for a relabeling from your assertion that its eco-activist slant makes it not a documentary "in any sense of the word" as documentaries don't have to be neutral. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think journalism is about news alone. I would posit that any non-fictional account of information falls under the umbrella of journalism. If the author intends to impart information, as a third party, based upon fact, then it would qualify as journalism. That may be admittedly broad - by Ms. Leonard clearly has an objective in this matter. Jettparmer (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you're arguing that it's not a documentary and I disagree with that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The notion that if a film espouses a viewpoint with which you disagree, it is not a 'documentary', is ludicrous to say the least. Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal?

Why do you guys call this film liberal? I just finished seeing it and it is more social-democratic than liberal.

That's not what we're saying, it's what conservatives (who use the term as an insult) call it when criticizing it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

American colloqualism. Liberal = social democrat.87.53.60.176 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say "social democrat" is the colloquialism. But that's approximately correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This Social democracy, or Social Democratic Party? This Modern liberalism in the United States "liberal" or Liberal? Or more Left–right politics oversimplification to the point of learned stupidity? Not a pervasive USA Colloquialism, just ignorance of the others Politics (Politics of the United States, Politics of the European Union, Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of Canada, Politics of Australia, Politics of New Zealand, ... Politics of Sweden, etc... ) Different histories, different languages, same languages with words in context having different means. See Map–territory relation, for Words relation to one's world. 99.155.153.200 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Take care not to believe your own bullshit, see On Bullshit. 99.184.231.227 (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See Truthiness and WP:TRUTH. 99.181.135.85 (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be "leftist". Liberal only means left wing in the US, and the ideology of the film is clearly much farther left than American liberalism in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.85.178 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Where have you been? Liberal in the US doesnt mean european liberal it means european social democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Schreiber spam

I can conceive of absolutely no reason to mention Jeff Schreiber or his website in this article, unless he has written something on the subject that has been published in reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think about Schreiber's website, but what's wrong with mentioning Lee Doren's video? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's published in a reliable source, it would probably be fine. Which is why I have previously said, twice, that if it can be sourced to Glenn Beck's website, which probably meets the criteria of a reliable source as the term is used on Wikipedia, put it in. But the text I removed said it was from Glenn Beck's website, and linked to Jeff Schreiber's. Dlabtot (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine criterion, but it is sourced to Glenn Beck's website, which is why your extra removal confused me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed statement, polemical

Sorry for the drive-by editing, I hadn't read the conversations here before I jumped in. I thought the disputed portion of the sentence marked dubious was the post-graduate economics classes (see this edit), so I did away with the dubious tag and the mention of post-graduate.

I felt that the reference used to support the polemical descriptor was rather flimsy. The word is used once in a series of questions prepared by the New York Times in a lesson plan for students. Since it appears in the lead sentence, it comes across as the defining characteristic of the film. While that may be the case, I thought the reference provided did not support such a strongly worded definition. I would support including polemic/al in the reaction section. Gobonobo ^{T C} 02:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't paying close enough attention. You were right that the dubious tag was about graduate economics classes. Since no one's bothered to verify it for some time, removal was indeed appropriate.

Polemic seems like an accurate descriptor, though perhaps a bit WP:SYNTHy without the citation. Am I not understanding the term accurately? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking polemical to mean controversial or disputatious. I think you're right that the documentary comes across that way at times, but question whether that adjective sums up the film appropriately. There is certainly a viewpoint that is being argued, but polemical has a derogatory character that I feel should be avoided per WP:LABEL. Gobonobo ^{T C} 09:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Well, I don't mind seeing it go away, though you might want to check with the user who added it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Age of Stupid

I'm confused by the recent edit war. Anyone care to explain what exactly is wrong with linking to The Age of Stupid? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what's right with linking to The Age of Stupid? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, like SoS, it's an animated documentary about people's effect on the environment. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds more like an arbitrary category; (1) Animated (2) Documentary about (3b) People's effect on the (3a) environment. In fact, "The Age of Stupid" is not exactly a documentary, or even a docudrama, as it's mostly set in the future. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with linking to it here. Arbitrary category or no, it's obviously related. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see a similarity. The Age of Stupid is "not even wrong", while this film is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do. To argue that two environmentalist animated documentaries are, by virtue of your subjective qualitative assessment, so unrelated as to prompt an edit war is not a convincing argument. In other words, you'll have to try a different tactic at convincing me than that you just don't like Story of Stuff. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should send this to WP:3O, ignoring the multi-headed anon? The general WP:SEEALSO guidelines state "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one." Explain how this would be in a hypothetical perfect article, and I might agree to the inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a really a simple question and your attempts at misdirection tell me that you don't have an answer. You and Ckatz apparently feel strongly enough about it to tag-team revert war an anon and I don't get it. Please clarify. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your justification for inclusion as accurate or an "obvious relationship". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. How are the two unrelated? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. How are the two related? I don't find your argument accurate (Stupid is not exactly a documentary) nor, if it were accurate, convincing as a significant relationship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mocking other editors is not part of civil discourse. It's trolling. If the above is how you care to discuss the issue, then I'd rather do so with someone else. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out your argument lacks substance. If you can provide an argument with substance, please do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You've said that Stupid isn't really a documentary, though its classified as one at our article on it. In addition, SoS is also a challenge to the documentary label, since it's purely animation. As I've said above, both are animated documentaries about the environment. This isn't some arbitrary category, it's central to the core of what either is about. Moreover, we have a link to The Meatrix, which is a short web animation about factory farms. This highlights another commonality between Stupid and SoS, they are eco-activist works. If you still don't see how Stupid and SoS are related enough that linking to the former in the See also section of the latter, then perhaps we should evoke third opinion (or wait for other editors to chime in). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stupid may be categorized as a documentary, but the text of the article doesn't support that categorization. We call it a "drama-documentary-animation hybrid", while Stuff is called an "animated documentary". Meatrix is described as a "flash animation", and not even a documentary. Thank you for bringing it to my attention; it's connection to Stuff would be reasonable if Stuff were to be described as a parody, which I wasn't going to do, although I'm perfectly willing to believe it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I was wondering why you were being inconsistent. Like I said, though, all three are eco-activist animation works. I don't see anything in wp:seealso that would bar their inclusion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the link. So far, Arthur, you haven't convinced me that it shouldn't be there. If you still feel strongly about this, I suggest we get a third opinion to weigh in on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be improved

There are several reliable sources that critiqued this film line by line and should be added with the contents. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)