Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The POV is not at all neutral. In the part that mentions the coup d'état in Chile, it is disputed whether or not Allende was assasinated. Many say it was suicide. Also it is confirmed by the current Chilean government (which is socialist) that 3,500 died not 5,000. Please let's not let wikipedia become another bias platform for personal political agendas.

By the way, the section in the Bowling... page labeled "criticism" is nothing more than a defense of Moore attempting to ridicule and mis-direct the legitimate complaints about the film. The whole page is overtly POV in support of Moore. There are no realistic criticisms on the page, just defences of Moore and attempts to cover up his deceptions. --Libdemplus--

Bowling for Columbine can properly be compared to a much older, but equally fraudulent film called "Birth of a Nation". I highly reccommend any "fan" of "Bowling..." to get a copy of "Birth..." and watch it carefully, then re-evaluate their views about both "Bowling..." and Moore. The authors of each would recognise each other as birds of a feather. --Libdemplus--

I've seen both films. They're both propaganda. Documentary film can be propaganda, as is evident with Triumph of the Will. All you've done is convince me that you really shouldn't be making arguments about documentary film. Koyaanis Qatsi

I never claimed a documentary film could not also be a propaganda film. What I said was that Bowling... was NOT in any sense a documentary film, but it was clearly a propaganda film. And Propaganda need not be negative, nor mis-leading by the way. Moore's film was both, but no documentary. --Libdemplus--

See the comment below. It's apparent you know little about the history of documentary film, in spite of the fact that I agree with you that Moore's film is often misleading, and Moore himself deceptive. Koyaanis Qatsi 01:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For example, Moore conducted an interview at a Lockheed-Martin plant near Columbine, and inquired whether the production of nuclear missiles at that plant might contribute to destructive attitudes in Columbine's children. In actuality, that plant does not produce nuclear missiles at all, but rockets used for launching satellites. Indeed, the plant was also used to take former nuclear missiles out of service, converting decommissioned Titan missiles into satellite launch vehicles.

That's not true. Moore never makes this statement. It could be criticized that he has not in fact pointed out the specific factory in question does not produce nuclear missiles -- but he never actually claimed that this particular factory produced them in the film. That's why the PR man he interviewed did not refute the statement; he did not make it. "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, gee, dad goes off to the factory every day - he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction." That's the only statement Moore makes. He does not refer to the specific factory in question. --Eloquence 04:19 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Which is simply Moore's style of systematic and effective deception. I have spoken to a couple dozen gun-uneducated people who saw "Bowling..." and they all came away with almost exactly the same beliefs about what Moore was saying. They ALL thought that specific plant made "weapons of mass destruction" and that Moore was on to something of a reasonable explaination for the mass killings at Columbine. If their dads made "weapons of mass destruction" for a living, what could be wrong with mass murder? Moore's whole argument was making a paralel between the Columbine killers actions and the "role-model" of their parents and others who worked at the ->nearby<- "weapons of mass destruction" plant. His intentions were clear, he wants people to excuse the Columbine killers actions because they were just copying what "dad" does, making "weapons of mass destruction" for a living. The CONTEXT of the discussion was about that specific plant and those specific killers. To refute Moore's overt intentions by splitting symantic hairs is simply dishonest denial. --Libdemplus--

Actually, no, Moore's intention was not to say that the fathers of the Columbine kids were making weapons, it was that many of the fathers of "our kids", as he explicitly says, were working for weapons makers. Lockheed Martin is the world's largest weapons maker and this is the fact that Moore's critics conveniently ignore. The factory in Littleton was explored as representative for Lockheed Martin's weapons production, even if that particular factory is no longer involved in weapons making (it certainly was during the Cold War).—Eloquence

Actually, Moore's intention was to trick the ignorant and lazy public who saw his film into believing many false things, and that's exactly what he managed to do. Few people who saw the film will ever bother to do even a little factual research to learn how badly they were decived by Moore's film. Again, the people who I know who are gun-uneducated and uneducated about Moore actually believed, 100% of them, that the parts of the NRA conventions were actually filmed at the Colorado convention. Moore tricked people into believing that the NRA rushed to the locations of media-popular killings and set up defiant pro-gun rallies. Moore tricked people into believing that selected bits of lines Moore edited together from various speeches given years apart and a thousand miles apart were actually given at the same time and in the same sequence Moore shows in his film. I can't recall anyone who saw the film who spotted the mis-leading editing that invented speeches that were never given and at times and places that never happened as he showed. Moore tricked people into believing that the NRA rushed to the site of the 6-year-old killer's crime to put up a pro-gun rally. In fact, no such thing happened, the event Moore steals from was simply a "get out the vote" rally with many celebrities that took place about 9 months later and in a different city. That same day Moore himself was at another political rally not far away. Moore lies by clever editing to trick the ignorant and lazy public into believing many false things. This is by deliberate design and effort on Moore's part. --Libdemplus--

Idiotic distinction. He interviews people at a Lockheed Martin plant which doesn't make missiles, and then asks whether these kids are saying, "gee, dad...builds missiles", but he isn't trying to suggest that people are making missiles at THAT plant? Nobody in Columbine makes missiles at ANY plant, because there aren't any plants making WMDs near Columbine. --Len

Please, it is not easy to have a discussion without turning it into a flamewar when one side uses phrases like "idiotic". The truth is that the claim repeated by many critics -- that Moore openly lied in the movie -- is wrong. Perhaps he believed the factory to produce missiles, and perhaps the company representative should have pointed out that it does not. However, since his statement was reasonably generic, it was, at most, misleading. In particular, he uses the phrase "our kids", not "your kids". Why do you think he does that?--Eloquence 21:48 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Then please don't distort facts. Evan McCollum (the Lockheed Martin employee he interviewed) did indeed dispute Moore's statement. He said, "The word 'missiles' implies a weapon. Although other units of Lockheed Martin Corporation elsewhere in the country produce weapons ... we make no weapons at the Littleton-area facility Moore visited." He also said, "I provided specific information to Moore about the space launch vehicles we build to launch spacecraft for NASA, NOAA, the Dept. of Defense and commercial customers, including DirecTV and EchoStar." You are engaging in the same misleading behavior as Moore when you blather about McCollum "not disputing" Moore's statement. --Len

McCollum did not respond in this fashion in the interview, where he replied: "I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles are designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us." In the interview, McCollum did not understand Moore as implying that he was talking about the specific factory near Columbine. Obviously it was beneficial for him and Lockheed-Martin to jump on the bandwagon of criticism later, but if he really thought Moore's statement was misleading, he should have said so during the interview. --Eloquence 01:02 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Geee, maybe if Moore didn't systematically manipulate and cleverly edit the many interviews for his film and had just honestly provided us with the raw footage or at least the factual full transcripts on his website, including the lies Moore told various people he was about to interview regarding the purpose of the interview, then maybe we would know what the people he talked to really did say and in what order and in answer to what question Moore actually asked them at the time. However, as has been pointed out by many critics of Moore's and by the people he tricked into talking with him on camera, (most had never heard of him nor did they know anything about his history of deceptive film making) Moore has not provided factual un-edited footage or full transcripts of any of the interviews in the film. Let alone what he told them the film was about to get their cooperation. What Moore spliced together for his film was clever propaganda, but not remotly a "documentary".

--Libdemplus--

All documentary film deceives, period, as any documentary film-maker will tell you--from Moore to Kopple to Maysles to Morris to Pennebaker. It's in the nature of editing, e.g. eliminating some things, keeping others, and juxtaposing footage that wasn't recorded back to back. It's quite unaviodable, even when your intentions are good. Better would be to discuss specific deceptions and leave off with the broad, ahistorical, and generally ill-informed opinions about what is and what is not documentary (a subject even documentary film-makers do not agree on). Koyaanis Qatsi 00:56, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Again with the symantical splitting of hairs! A legitimate ->documentary<- need not be 100% raw-footage to faithfully convey the true nature of the items being documented and to factually educate the public, however, Moore's film intentionally bears no resemblance to the true nature of reality in large portions of his film and worse yet, his editing was NOT for the purpose of clarity, or probative value or time restrictions, no, his edits are overtly to a design. His design is to mis-inform and mis-lead the public and to make people more ignorant not more educated. I will say this however, one tiny portion of Moore's film (and his theory) regarding the irresponsible behavior of the mass media, is indeed not only true, but something worthy of a true documentary. The sad part is that while Moore did have a valid point about how the media exploitation and generation of fear through massive over-reporting of violent crimes, especially gun-crimes, and massive mis-reporting of dangers of all sorts in our society needs to be explored and exposed to the public, this one valid point was swamped-out by Moore's own fear, hate and deceptions. --Libdemplus--

Sorry, but I can't find any facts in your rhetoric. Please come back if you have any about how he "cleverly edited" and "tricked people" into being interviewed by the virtually unknown director of the highest grossing non-music documentary of the time, Roger & Me.—Eloquence 02:21, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

Then you are either being intentionally dishonest or in deep denial about what Moore does. The links on the Bowling... page have some of the detailed explainations of how Moore decieved the public by editing together lines from different speeches out of context to invent speeches that never happened. Not to mention fooling the public into thinking that these non-existant speeches took place at times and in places that they did not. Newspaper and TV reviews of the film provide a great example of how Moore effectively decieved even professional journalists into thinking many utterly false things, exactly as Moore wanted. And most don't bother with how Moore lies by ommission. Like how Moore ignores the FACT that the NRA was founded by anti-slavery advocates (abolitionists) and how the NRA members risked their lives going into the south to teach blacks firearms skills for self-defense. Moore never mentions how thw NRA ended up on the "enemies list" of the KKK as a result of NRA activities helping blacks protect themselves. No, Moore just tricked the public into thinking the NRA was just the KKK re-labeled. Many of the people Moore USED in his propaganda film have come forwards, after they saw the film, or their part in it at least, and complained how Moore lied to them about the film's purpose and about how their part in it would be portrayed. Moore also clearly did NOT even bother to be truthful in the portions of various interviews he conducted as far as what he really asked people and their actual answers. Libdemplus

The criticism concerning the speeches is silly, as I've pointed out in my rebuttal here. I'm not very familiar with the history of the NRA, so if you can point me to any unbiased background material on that subject, I'd be interested.—Eloquence 00:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for revealing your POV! I'm SO glad I stopped worrying about this article! Before, I didn't even realize that it was being bulldogged by a partisan determined to protect it from all comers. What more can be said? You're determined to lie, and protect your lie, and anyone who doesn't want an edit war will just have to tolerate that. --Len

Please show where or when I lied or engaged in an edit war on this article to protect my "POV", or stop defaming me.—Eloquence 14:14, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

"Moore did not lie." --Eloquence. Given that reasonable viewers who don't already know better consistently draw the same wrong inferences from Moore's "documentary", one of two things must be true: either people are getting the message Moore intended, or they're getting a message Moore didn't intend. IF the latter, then Moore is an incompetent film-maker. If the former, then Moore is a liar. Your defense of Moore is that his statement, understood in light of the actual facts, is not actually false--IOW, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. IF that's your definition of "honesty", then it happens to coincide with my definition of "dishonesty". If you feel that's an indictment of your character, then I can't help it. I certainly consider it thus. --Len.

Which "wrong inferences" are you referring to? The only one I can think of is that several viewers got the impression Charlton Heston held a rally in Flint 48 hours after the Rolland case. This is indeed due to a bit of incompetent editing during that specific sequence. Moore never makes this statement nor does the way the sequence is set up support the interpretation that he intentionally deceives (see my article). I therefore consider it much more an indictment of someone's character to accuse Moore of deliberately lying and deceiving, a very severe accusation, without being able to back it up.—Eloquence 04:27, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, It would be rather simple for myself or anyone to use your own statements spliced together to make it seem you said just about anything about anything, even in direct opposition to your true beliefs on any given subject. Any rational person can easily understand how taking small sections of speeches from different years and places and events and splicing them together to invent a speech that was never given can be used, as Moore has, to trick the public into believing pretty much anything. Your continual denial of this fact simply proves how dishonest you are being in your advocacy for Moore. Your side-stepping of the fact that Moore achieved exactly the effect he wanted, which was to fool the ignorant lazy public into believing falsehoods, again proves your dishonesty. Libdemplus

Eloquence, as for the well-documented history of the NRA as a Civil Rights group, I suggest you also look up the history of Charlton Heston and his works in the 60's Civil Rights movement, including marching along side of Martin Luther King. You might also be educated by looking up the list of early NRA presidents, including former President Grant, the 9th NRA president. Grant was the USA president who enacted the federal laws that declared the KKK to be an illegal terrorist group. The NRA was founded by anti-slavery activists who risked their lives to free the slaves and to protect the liberties of the former slaves after the Civil War. Not that I think you will bother to seek the truth, but you can begin with the NRA website to get a thumb-nail sketch of NRA history. Don't just look to HCI and other gun ban groups or the TV news media for the facts, you wont find any there, nor will you find any from Moore. The truth is that the NRA is the nations oldest Civil Rights group. This is a fact ignored by the media. Libdemplus

Arguing with you is rather tiresome since what you produce is mostly empty rhetoric without facts. I presume you need this kind of rhetoric to validate your own righteousness, but it is completely worthless from a logical standpoint. It is possible to splice fragments of speeches to alter their meaning, but Moore never did so. I am familiar with Heston's involvement in the civil rights movement, and Moore never claimed that the modern day NRA, or Heston himself, had any ties to racism. I was referring to the NRA's alleged activities against white-only gun laws, and I would prefer a non "gun rights" source on the matter as it should be obvious that the organization has an interest to present itself in the best possible light.—Eloquence 19:49, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

You systematically ignore facts, just like Moore does. You provide no facts, onlyhair-splittting symantics excuses for Moore's deceptions. The Hardy paper is a good example of facts that you have chosen to ignore. Your so-called "rebuttle" side-steps the actual points of Moore's deceptions and the effect on the ignorant viewers. As I said, the reviewers of the film universlly fell victim to Moore's deceoptions and wrote may falsehoods in their reviews of the film. Just as Moore intended. You ignore and/or excuse Moore's intentions and effects. You also ignored the fact that had the firearms-related scenes actually occured as Moore claimed then Moore and several others would be guilty of violating several serious Federal and state felony laws. For example, Moore could not have legally obtained a gun from that bank, regardless of where he actually picked it up, because he is a legal resident of New York. The bank spokeserson has complained about being lied to by Moore and that the scene was staged and even partly scripted by Moore and did NOT fairly refelect the practices of the bank. According to items I have read from Canada, Moore also could not legally have purchased ammo in Canada. The store spokesperson said that no transaction actually took place, nor would they have agreed to the staged scene if they had known how it was to be used. You consistantly ignore and/or excuse Moore's lies and distortions.Libdemplus

As for NRA history, as I said, start with the details available at the NRA website and you will get the relevant names and events to search on for further searches. As long as you insist on getting all your firearms info or NRA info from gun ban groups or the biased TV news media, then why not just admit you don't care about the truth? The TV news were the ones who spread the lies about the Glock handgun which were invented by the Washington Post. Gun ban groups routinely invent wild fabrications which the TV news are all only too happy to spread around with no effort to verify anything. Either admit your intentional bias or do the research and learn something factual for a change! It's risky though, learning facts endagers dogmas. Libdemplus

More rhetoric, and no sources. Where is the evidence that Moore's purchase would have violated firearms laws? Moore says that he is still in possession of the gun. The bank employee never said that the scene was "staged" (whatever that means), this quote is from a WSJ editorial. There are serious contradictions in the various accounts of the purchase which I have detailed here. As for the Canadian purchase, who said that a transaction did not take place? That information is not from Hardy's analysis. Canadian officials merely complained that Moore did not make it clear that he had to show an ID upon purchase. What are these "various items" you speak of? Because you're too lazy to do your homework, you only come up with rhetoric and ask me to back up your claims. Sorry, that's not how it works. This talk page is about improving the article. If you have any improvments you want to make, you'll need more than just "I read somewhere that .." type claims.—Eloquence 21:46, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

Again: documentary film-makers do not agree on a definition for documentary film. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the film seems deceptive, but so are Grey Gardens, On the Ropes, American Dream, The Panama Deception, and every other documentary film ever made. What's the point in arguing that this one is not a documentary? What makes you so much more qualified than a film-maker like Barbara Kopple, Albert Maysles, or D.A. Pennebaker, who've spent decades making documentaries, or Erik Barnouw, who (unlike this random pundit with an axe to grind) has studied the genre and written canonical books about the subject? Koyaanis Qatsi 01:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Qatsi, the failure of "film-makers" (whom have an inherant and obvious conflict of interest in making any agreements on definitions) to come to any sort of agreement on any catagory of films has NOTHING to do with the issue. First, the Academy Awards has a documented definition of what is required of a "documentary film" and by any reasonable read of that definition, Bowling... utterly fails to fit that catagory because of it's inherant and systematic deceptions. Second, the commonplace public understanding of the term "documentary" is far more relevant than what some self-important film-makers can or can't agree on. Ask typical memebers of the public what they expect of a film when they hear it's a "documentary". By the general expectations of the public for a "documentary", Bowling... fails utterly. The problem is that the public is genrally too ignorant and lazy to learn how badly they have been fooled by Moore's tactics. The worst thing is that the news media is so heavily biased that they wont help inform the public about the deceptions in the film. When it comes to anything related to firearms, the news media only supports the gun ban agenda and is perfectly happy to propagate any lies in that effort. Which is why the news media wont expose Moore for the liar he is. Libdemplus

Ok, if those "experts" have written about the intentional decpetions in Moore's film, ALL of them, and they openly ADMIT that the film was intentionally mis-leading for the purposes of propaganda and mis-informing the public anbd they still wish to catagorise such a film as a "documentary", then fine, let them state that they know what Moore did and they accept that sort of thing as legitimate and I will then have to find a new word for a truthful educational faithful documentary. Since "documentary" seems to include outright fabrications and scripted scenes and things that never happened. I guess I had higher standards for the term. --Libdemplus--

With respect to both of you, I think this discussion is missing Moore's point, which is that the world's superpower -- a country that spends a good deal of its resources making weapons to use against others, and a good deal of time making war against others, also has a very high level of internal violence. That is the point.

If that's Moore's point, then he obviously is no student of history. The UK, aka British Empire, spent most of it's existance, untill rather recently, roaming around the world raining death and destruction on native people's with all the modern weapons it had available, and yet, back at home it was still fairly peaceful and safe from crime. Oh, and that's always been true even when the subjects of the crown were still allowed to own firearms for self-defense and other proper purposes. Violent crimes in the UK only have become a serious problem since the subject of the crown have been ordered to give up their lawfully owned firearms. Self-defense, by any means, even resistance of any sort to any violent attack, has become a highly discouraged concept in the UK in recent years by systematic efforts of their rulers. No scientifically valid comparisons can ever be made between different places on a subject as complex as violent crime. Only long-term trends within a given place can be evaluated to gain some insight. --Libdemplus--

He is not arguing that the Columbine shootings occurred "because" there is a Lockheed-Martin plant nearby. He is arguing that the Columbine shootings are one more example of violence in America. And he is arguing that there is some relationship between how violent Americans are as individuals with how violent we are as a country. That we are a violent country (I mean, we have a state that is committed to violence) is evidenced by the sequence in the film about US military intervention abroad, and by coverage of the "industrial-military" complex ... exemplified by Lockheed-Martin.

Film works through juxtaposition through editing. That Moore uses this technique to communicate his point is unsurprising and unremarkable. Slrubenstein

And dishonest. It isn't necessary to lie in order to make one's point. Specifically, in doing so he loses any claim to have written a "documentary". --Len.

And, in Grey Gardens, universally considered a documentary by both documentary makers and film critics, the "pink room" argument which appears near the very end of the film is one of the very first things the Maysles shot. They put it at the end to heighten emotional effect, and viewers watching this observational, cinema verite piece will universally think that it happened at the end of the Maysles' stay, because that's where it appears in the film. Distortion is inherent in documentary just as much as it is in photography itself, and if you think that in viewing anything you are viewing the "absolute truth" then you are setting yourself up for serious and protracted disappointment. Koyaanis Qatsi

Moore did not lie. --Eloquence 01:02 23 May 2003 (UTC)

If that's your idea of honesty, it speaks volumes about your character. McCollum disputed Moore's version of the interview. You're conclusion, "...which is why McCollum didn't balk", is idiotic. Moore edited the film. --Len.

I am getting tired of your personal attacks, which you have been making since your first comment in this discussion. I note from your talk page that I am not the first person to complain about this behavior. Our policy states: "No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period. No calling people trolls, no calling people Stupid White Men, no accusations of any kind relating to the character of another person, nor their race, creed, sex, national origin, etc. The only thing that matters is the articles, not the people who write them." You have called my arguments "idiotic" and have defamed my character. Please keep in mind that violations of Wikiquette are a bannable offense on Wikipedia.

On topic: Where did Moore edit the film to mislead his viewers? McCollum's clarifications were made after the film, in the interview he directly responded to Moore's question saying that he did not see a connection because the missiles were used against aggressors. This very response implies that McCollum understood Moore exactly in the way I interpreted his statement. --Eloquence 14:10 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Viewers watch the movie and conclude that nuclear missiles are made at the LMAO plant near Columbine. This must come as a total surprise to Moore. Your reply: "Well, that's their fault. Moore certainly never meant them to draw this conclusion." Fine; include fiction in the Wikipedia if it pleases you. I wash my hands of this article. --Len.

I'm not one for "death of the author" arguments (personally I think they overstate the case quite a bit), but it's worth keeping in mind that unless there's a narrator, you can't really what a film-maker intended the audience to come away with. It's quite possible to put two pieces of footage together intending to transition from point A to point B, but cause the audience to think there's an additional relationship or even a completely different one--e.g. that it's a chronological progression, or causation, or an explanation of a previous action. Unless you're spelling out what you want the audience to think, the audience can think nearly anything. I'm not excusing Moore--maybe he did intend to deceive the audience--but you really can't know. Koyaanis Qatsi 01:01, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The point you are missing is, of course, that Lockheed Martin is the nation's largest military contractor. Since Moore never claims that the particular factory in question produces WMD, his implied argument stands unanswered: It is bizarre for a society to openly embrace the production of destructive weapons, but on the other hand see no connection of this to everyday violence -- children learn by imitating adults. Yes, Moore makes this point through slight exaggeration by moving with the camera through the LM plant -- but he makes no incorrect statement. It is typical for his critics to jump on what is at most a slightly misleading implication, but in doing so, they themselves have, unlike Moore, made many incorrect claims, as you did above. --Eloquence 16:29 23 May 2003 (UTC)

A word of advice: Eloquence writes above Please keep in mind that violations of Wikiquette are a bannable offense on Wikipedia. - Although "wikiquette" is merely a set of guidelines, there are some good tips there. One of particular interest in this case is "Try to say something positive for each complaint you make." In other words, instead of saying "your logic is idiotic", one should say "you properly used the rules of capitalization, and your logic is idiotic". -BuddhaInside

I actually see this article as having a conservative bias to a certain degree. The "criticisms" are very one-sided, quote the US government as an unbiased source, and the External Links is simply absurd with only Moore's webpage as one of support. --AWF

Kmart segment

In the summer of 2003 Mark Taylor (Columbine), survivor of the Columbine High School massacre told the "Canyon Courier" [1]"I am completely against against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide. "He completely used us to make a buck." Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Michigan. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety. Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said. "I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves." Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets, and the film burned bridges between him and the National Rifle Association, whose philosophies he supports.

This lacks a direct citation (the link points to the main page of the newspaper), and it also lokos like a copy & paste job (note the botched quote in the first para). I'm perfectly willing to move this back once we have a real citation and an original summary. (Note that anyone who believes that Taylor wasn't paid to say this is a complete fool, especially given the NRA reference in the last para, which seems to come straight from the pen of a PR writer.) —Eloquence 00:49, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

It's from an interview in the Canyon Courier in June 2003, widely reported on in a number of (mostly pro-gun) sources, including the NRA-owned America's First Freedom, among others. It's not currently available on the internet, but if you'd like to check the Canyon Courier's archives feel free. I don't appreciate your selective censorship of articles based on false pretences of "no citation", when you've presented no evidence that these quotes are fabricated. There is no doubt this interview appeared, and it's widely reported on. It was even on the news last summer here. Again, feel free to pay for a Courier subscription or find a library with their archives if you wish to verify; the intarweb does not contain all knowledge. --Delirium 09:04, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Evidence that the quote was fabricated"? You can't prove a negative. It is the duty of those who claim that a person said something to back that claim up with citations when asked to do so.—Eloquence

As for being paid to say that, I'd say anyone who believe Moore isn't saying what he's saying to make a buck is complete fool. He's a stereotypical demagogue: the Rush Limbaugh of the left (perhaps even worse). I'm sickened such a personality is "on my side". --Delirium 09:20, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Moore and the other teenager have openly criticized the boy. He showed up at K-Mart with the others and removed all bullets from the store, yet didn't get the point? I think he knew what he was doing, was ostracized for it, and then copped out of responsibility. Regardless, if you're going to include such opposite claims, proof is required (despite Delirium's paranoia that demand of proof or evidence is a liberal conspiracy - I guess science really can't be trusted [rolleyes]). The same will apply for the Moore quote if I can find it. --AWF

Bullets segments

Something I've seen mentioned on and off, but haven't heard a good defense of from Moore or his supporters: what's with the contradictory bullets segments? Moore easily buys bullets at a Wal-Mart in Canada, and comments on how this is fine and Canada still has low gun crime. Then he not too long afterwards stages the whole Kmart scene in which he pressures Kmart to take the bullets off its shelves. Why did he do this, after having just concluded that easy access to bullets is not part of the problem? The cynical answer is that the Columbine-kids scene made for some nice "please think of the children!" demagoguery, but perhaps there's another reason? --Delirium 09:22, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Moore's message is that a fear-prone culture should not have easy access to guns and ammunition. He has two main messages: 1) America is a culture of fear, 2) In a culture of fear, easy access to guns is a bad thing. Moore is a strong advocate of gun control in the US.—Eloquence 09:28, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

On the numbered list: which ones do we claim are known to be false? All of them look pretty plausible to me. For my part here are the ones which are uncontrovertibly true. 4,6,8,10,13.

DJ Clayworth 20:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VerilyVerily's edit was not in compliance with our NPOV guidelines. I have therefore reverted it.—Eloquence

Thanks. I should probably not make comments on controversial articles without looking at the history a little more. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Number 16 is very misleading. The $245 million was used to pay for aid (food, medicine, etc.) which was distributed through the UN and other aid organizations to the people of Afghanistan. Moore's list is supposed to be about BAD foreign policy decisions, so this item shouldn't even be listed. But, he throws in the word Taliban and leaves out the details and the obvious conclusion people will make is that the US gave money to the Taliban. --Werbwerb 10:18, March 12, 2004 (UTC)

Removed

Anon user 4.159... removed this below section. I agree it needs trimming - the essence is that Moore's signature feature is his attempts to get interviews and recourse, which are turned down. For some this tends to imply guilt on the part of the targets, while others may understand the tendency to flee from prying documentarians... Stevertigo 01:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are three parts in the movie when Michael Moore goes up to a person to take an interview but they walk away. The first person was a cop in Los Angeles (who when asked about the pollution didn't say anything), the second was Dick Clark (who was in a car leaving when Michael Moore came up to him and asked him about welfare problems. Dick Clark told others to shut the door and then the car drove away.) The third person was Charlton Heston, the head of the NRA, who let Michael Moore take an interview with him because Michael Moore at first sounded like an NRA fan (he told Heston that he was a life member, which is true), but when the interview started and Moore started asking about Columbine-related events, Heston got up and walked away.

"Almost all" documentary scenes staged?

I removed the following line from the article.

However this is hardly new; almost all 'spontaneous' scenes from documentaries are staged.

This claim is unbelievable. Are even many scenes in documentaries staged? A good many consist largely of file footage, commentary, and interviews. And how many claim to be spontaneous but aren't? Only a severely watered-down version of this would be credible. V V[[]] 06:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gross

Looking through IMDB, I've attempted to verify the information about gross, particularly the assertion that BfC was the highest-grossing documentary until Fahrenheit 9/11 came along. Here's the results:

Business Data for Bowling for Columbine - Shows a budget of $4M, and a gross of "$21,244,913 (USA) (11 May 2003)".

Business Data for Everest - No budget listed, but a gross of "$76,447,420 (USA) (30 July 2000)".

Business Data for Jackass - Shows a budget of $5M, and a gross of "$64,267,897 (USA) (12 January 2003)".

Unless I'm missing something here, it would appear that BfC does not in fact hold this distinction of highest-grossing documentary. I'm removing this content: "Until it was eclipsed by Moore's own Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, Bowling for Columbine was the highest grossing non-music documentary feature of all time."

This change can be reverted if someone finds a mistake. 192.52.57.34

The New York Times ran an article on July 5 about the growing commercial impact of documentaries. (All you can still get for free is the first 50 words: "The record-breaking success of Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' may mark a turning point in the acceptance of documentaries by audiences as mass entertainment and by movie distributors as potential profit ... This anti-Bush documentary is merely the latest and most successful of many feature-length documentaries that have hit it big.") The article had a pre-Fahrenheit 9/11 chart that listed Bowling for Columbine at the top. The Times heading used the word "feature" -- Everest was only 44 minutes long, so it wasn't a feature-length film. As for Jackass, I don't think it was even mentioned in the article. You're correct that IMDb classifies it as a documentary. The Times evidently didn't, and I wouldn't either. Just because it's not fiction doesn't make it a documentary. A documentary can present its subject from a definite point of view, like Moore's films and like Triumph of the Will, but it must at least have a subject. Finally, the sentence that was in the article also specified "non-music" because Woodstock, for example, grossed more. The sentence was modified through edits by several people, and I think it should be restored. JamesMLane 00:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the other "records" should at least be mentioned, to put Bowling for Columbine's accomplishment in perspective. It seems to be by a rather narrow definition that BfC was the highest-grossing documentary. Fahrenheit 9/11 will probably break all the records anyway, so there's no loss of prestige in telling the truth here. I'm not sure how one classifies a documentary officially, but these other films are classified as "documentary" in IMDB, and there is no "feature-length" caveat in the article as it stands now. 192.52.57.34 20:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I inserted an appropriately qualified statement a couple weeks ago, but someone else took it out. The current version gives BfC #1 status in certain countries, which might be true. Perhaps the polite and civilized British are less fond of Jackass than we vulgar Americans are. As for a narrow definition, I think it's legitimate to compare BfC with other "serious" documentaries. Jackass is solely entertainment, not information, and although a movie like Woodstock is factual, people don't go see it to be enlightened. I don't know the story on Everest -- it has a high gross but it was only 44 minutes long, so was it perhaps shown in conjunction with another movie? If so, that would complicate the calculation. I'm just left with a strong feeling that Bowling for Columbine did better than any previous film of its type. We ought to find a way to convey that fact. JamesMLane 20:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda

Buster has categorized 'Bowling' as propaganda in a minor edit, with no discussion. This is a pejorative label that needs to be justified and discussed. In particular, it needs to be justified that 'Bowling' has some defining propaganda attributes that garden-variety persuasive films do not. Otherwise, we're going to end up categorizing just about every editorial writer or piece as propaganda. Reverting categorization until a consensus is reached that 'Bowling' is indeed propaganda.Wolfman 22:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there a policy as to where the burden of proof is for a categorization? Should we be including all films which are considered propaganda by many (my choice)? Should we only include films which are indisputably propaganda? Should we just throw out any notion of NPOV and vote on each issue? Or perhaps we should just remove categories for which there is no objective criteria for inclusion (probably my first choice)? anthony (see warning) 22:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not possible to have a Category:Propaganda that is not POV. That category should be reserved for articles that have propaganda as their subject, not for categorising particular works. Banno 23:02, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a very distracting and relatively useless category, at least as applied to recent works. I can see how some would categorize Moore's works as propaganda, but the same is true for virtually any political writer/artist. Why get into wars over whether Safire, Krugman, Limbaugh, Kristof, Coulter,.... ad nauseum are propaganda? My view is the category should just be dropped because it is difficult to objectively and neutrally distinguish propaganda from other forms of persuasive speech.Wolfman 23:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It not just difficult, it is impossible. Propaganda is not something that is observable in a work, but part of one’s reaction to that work. Banno 23:49, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think the category should be retained but severely limited. I've posted a specific suggestion on Category talk:Propaganda, which seems to be the logical place to have this discussion. JamesMLane 00:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's impossible to distinguish propaganda from other forms of persuasive speech because persuasive speech is by definition propaganda. The problem is there is a connotation (not necessarily pejorative) which goes beyond the dictionary definition, and whether or not that connotation fits a particular subject is not readily agreed upon. I like the idea of solving the problem with a specific definition, if one can be agreed upon, but I don't think the definition you give is objective enough. anthony (see warning) 14:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda is persuasive speach; by that definition, nearly all movies, books, and broadcast material could be considered propaganda. As such, propaganda is overly broad, and should not be a category. In the pejorative form, propaganda does not merely persuade, but contains no non-persuasive content, and is aimed at a specific group by a specific group. As such, it is quite POV, and should not be a category. Now, if you want to talk about What is propaganda? or techniques of propaganda I can definately see that going in a category. --ssd 21:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That definition is pretty much the only dictionary definition you're going to see: "Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda." I wouldn't say that fits nearly all or even most movies, books, or broadcast material though. As for the connotations, I don't think it's about containing no non-persuasive content. It's really about whether or not the material is presented in a way which is equal to both sides or if it's presented in a way to try to convince people of a particular viewpoint. I don't think that's necessarily pejorative. As for whether or not it's POV, we agree it is. We also agree that it shouldn't be a category. anthony (see warning) 00:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Staging of 'spontaneous' scenes

I removed the following passage because it's vague and unspecific, and I don't think it should be in the article without some kind of evidence, or links to websites that make such a claim.

In addition some have claimed that scenes that appear spontaneous in the documentary are in fact carefully staged. The same was said about his earlier documentary, Roger & Me.

The Singing Badger 14:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Confused

What does this line mean?...

"While few argue that the gunshot homicide rate is higher in the US than in other countries,"

Does it mean few argue for Moore's views, or does it mean few argue against them? It seems ambiguous to me, though there is a definate leaning towards the interpretation that it is dificult to agree with Moore. I don't know if this is what the author of this sentence was getting at, because then it shouldn't have started with "while." GWC Autumn 59 2004 18.05 EST

"Charlton Heston, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and was allegedly interviewed under false pretenses;" - what false pretenses? How can you be interviewed under false pretenses? I'm confused on this issue, could someone clear it up?

Okay, here's a thing I remember about this film: it draws up the idea of a mysterious black male being the suspect for many crimes and then suggests that this archetype is just a scapegoat of "the culture of fear". Correct me if I'm wrong on this. The problem I have with this, and I don't see it in file though I haven't read all the discussion, is that blacks represent 50% of gun crimes whilst are only 13% of the US population. These statistics are from memory but I can find the newspaper article that stated them. If you factor that in then the US isn't doing nearly so badly in gun crime. This is apparently what Heston is referring to when he makes some comment about cultures or diversity what-have-you during the interview. Moore uses his typical interview style of asking leading questions and jumping people's answers. It makes for entertainment but you'll notice he only does it with the people he's already not on the side of.

I'm not a member of the NRA, I'm British and believe in gun control. However, I'm also concerned that statistics such as these often get suppressed by governments (the EU for example) when they present upsetting conclusions. We have a developing gun-culture on this side of the Atlantic and it is predominantly associated with young urban black males. Whatever one can argue of the background causes (e.g. deprivation, alienation), the demographics are neatly avoided in this film. I don't see how a problem can be solved when one refuses to acknowledge it. --82.38.227.149 18:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone actually added NRA related comments in what I wrote earlier (edited them out now) but I guess it shows how far some people will go to cloud the issues --82.38.224.70 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph in pro-gun criticism

I removed the paragraph in the pro-gun criticism section about the cartoon. This cartoon is obviously meant as satire and not to be taken seriously. Therefore it can contain some factual inaccuracies, such as a white family shooting each other when a firecracker goes off. This cartoon is not meant to be taken as fact, it is pointed satire and exaggeration. Can't some people take a joke?

A viewer would see the cartoon as satire, but would also assume that it is meant to satirize some real event and would be led to a false conclusion about what this event was. Ken Arromdee 8 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

you really think people are that stupid?, to not recognize satire from truth?... hmm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.186 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If he won't answer that, I will. Yes, I think Moore's target audience, IE the choir he's preaching to, is exactly that stupid. -RannXXV 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1991 - Bush reinstates the dictator of Kuwait

I simply want to say that the above statement is false. Kuwait is not a dictatoship, it is one of the few countries in the Arabian/Persian Gulf that is ruled by a constitutional monarchy. In fact, the parliament can veto the Amir. The difference may seem trivial but I believe that it is quite important. If Moore wants people to take him seriously then he should get his facts straight; it only takes one minute on the internet to find out what kind of government Kuwait is. I am mainly annoyed because the Middle East doesn't need anymore bad reputations; he made it sound as if George Bush Sr. made Kuwait into a mini-Iraq (which had the most prominent 'dictator' in the Middle East). A word may not seem like much, but then again that is how propaganda and misinformation starts. - Layal.

Look closer. Kuwait is a nominal constutional monarchy - that is, it calls itself one, but doesn't behave like one (e.g. the head of parliament is the monarch's son, there is no freedom of the press, no political parties, women cannot vote, etc.).

To be fair, as of 2005, this is no longer true, and the situation has dramatically improved - but these changes are very recent, and took place after both the Gulf War and the release of Bowling for Columbine. So Moore's point - that the US has double standards - has some validity, surely? The Singing Badger 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the thing is, Kuwait is not a dictatorship in any shape or form. People can vote and there is a constitution that gives every citizen certain rights. As for political parties, you are right, they are banned, however there is something else that is quite similar. Quoted from Wikipedia from that very link: "Political parties are banned under Kuwaiti law. However, there exist several major political groupings that function like parties. Although the Amir maintains the final word on most government policies, the National Assembly plays a real role in decision making, with powers to initiate legislation, question government ministers, and express lack of confidence in individual ministers." (also note the article says 'most', not all.) So no. You can say it's closer to a monarchy since there is a 'King', true, but even then there are two Al-Sabah family lines that interchange. One gets the throne, while the second becomes prime-minister. Once the Amir dies, the PM from the other family takes the throne and someone from the original Amir's family becomes PM, etc. - Layal.

If what you say is true, then Cuba is no dictatorship either, cos they have elections too and several other dictatorships that hold democratical elections to deny that they are a dictatorship (the list is long, and it even includes North Korea to past dictatorships such as the one of Augusto Pinochet).

1953 - Shah Installed as Dictator of Iran

This statement is totally lacking in basis. The fact is, the PM had illegally taken control of the military, and deposed the Shah, Iran's rightful Head of State. The office of Shah had been a part of Iran for the past four centuries. -- Captain Spock

The part of the title regarding "Bowling" regards with the work done by Political Scientist Robert Putnam regarding political culture through civil society - organizations such as bowling - and the eroding of such civil society which thus harms governance in a state, such as in his book Making Democracy Work.

Bowling Metaphor

I removed the following sentence from the article: In essence, Moore seeks to knock down the quick and easy excuses ("pins") like video games or Marilyn Manson and break past all that to expose the truth behind it all.

This paragraph was self-contradictory; first, it says the bowling metaphor represents the build up of frustration leading to a destructive event, and then, this sentence says Moore is knocking down our illusions about the causes of violence in America like bowling pins. Pick a metaphor and stick with it. The second one's a bit of a stretch. In essence, I just scattered the contradictions in that paragraph like bowling pins being knocked down by a bowling ball.

this article is pretty much just a lot of criticisms. dont get me wrong im not saying any of the criticisms are unfair but looking at this page all i really see is "critisism from.., criticisms from.., more criticisms.... im not sure if its biased in favor of a conservative view but its just not a very in depth look at the movie its justabout the controversy

Criticise is about all you can do. The movie didn't have any depth.24.10.102.46 06:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The movie was intended to be controversial. Controversial works tend to draw a lot of criticism. This article documents that criticism. By the way, this discussion shouldn't be in the Bowling Metaphor section.

canada

the line about moore deceiving the viewers by saying "he sees more black people in canada therefore its true", i do not think is correct. i think moore was just explaining that he sees more black people either because there are more black people in canada or most likely that black people from the usa have come to canada where they will be treated more fairly. thats the assumption that i had while watching. if anyone disagrees than i will not remove the point in the article, but of course if people agree - than i will The Vince-alator 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I live in Maine, two hours from the Canadian border, and I see a lot more black people on their side than on our side. It may not mean anything, or may be based on economic or other factors, but there it is. ~BobBQ

Sorry, two anonymous eyewitnesses on Wikipedia who are in all likelihood just trying to defend Moore are not exactly a verifiable source. Try harder. -RannXXV 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the southern Ontario parts of Canada where Moore visits have a much higher number of black people than the Canadian average, in Toronto it's better than 8% - so merely looking around, of course Moore says he sees a good number of black people - had he gone to Medicine Hat or Moose factory, he might have concluded that Canada has no black people at all. WilyD 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On Canada Issues

Moore states that 13% of Canada is non-white, to that line the defense is that America has over 30% of non-white population. HOWEVER, in the CIA factbook page, it shows that america has a 81% white population. Does that mean that america is the only country with a 110% population in the globe??. In the same page, the percents for black population is 13.9% and for asians is 4.2%. The page considers that hispanics are either black/white/asian/indian, according to what they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.186 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the haters will be glad to know Moore's wrong there too - 13.5% of Canadians are visible minorities, and Indians/Inuits/Metis are not visible minorities, though they're certainly not white. Overall, that means about 18% of Canadians are not white. WilyD 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an oddity of USA censuses. They have two "race" categories. One is the normal caucasian, black, etc, while the other is either Hispanic Yes/No. This is because many who are white (or more correctly, consider themselves white) are also Hispanic, but not all Hispanics are necessarily caucasian. When Moore counts the Canadian Hispanics as "non-white" then the US Hispanics are also "non-white" by that standard.--GunnarRene 21:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I loved the Bowling for Columbine film but as someone who once lived in Canada I was bemused by the point in the film about the similar populations of ethnic minorities in the US and Canada. The Canadian Black minority is 2-3% of the overall population. I don't know the figure for the US but it's much higher, I think around 10% or more. I presume Moore, by pointing to Canada with "similar" ethnicity to the US but much less violent crime, was trying to counter the argument that there are ethnic reasons for the large amount of gun crime in the US. I don't like those racial arguments either, but I'd have to say that Moore's point didn't do much to undermine them.81.108.30.88 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am cutting the paragraph critisizing Moore's use of Canadian and US news footage. It characterizes his contrast as unfair, pitting a US sensationalist news show vs the National, on CBC. If that were true, it would be unfair except for several things: 1) He also shows a local canadian show, with a segment about new speed bumps 2) CBC News is representative of Canadian news since the CBC is Canada's main news channel and news programming. Relatively few Americans watch PBS. So the implication that CBC is some fringe of responsible journalism vs the american common sensationalist perspective is not correct. Going further, Canada has no Fox News equivalent. Even CNN out sensationalizes CTV or Global in relative terms.

I wouldn't be opposed to a section quoting anyone reputable making similar claims with some form of statistics backing it. Demonstrate that, say, Canadian news spends roughly equivalent times focusing on crime stories or something. Otherwise the section is POV and not encyclopedic (and innaccurate in relaying the contents of the film too). --FNV 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Valid points. However, one can't just remove criticism just because it's "wrong". One CAN remove criticism that is unsourced, and the part that you removed WAS unsourced, so I agree with what you did though not for the reason you did it. :-) --GunnarRene 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the CIA factbook.

DATE CORRECT??

Is the 1991 date quoted in the Wonderful life section - 15 -1991 (date of the film) correct? If it's not talking of another film it should surely be 2001 or 2002? I don't know enugh about this to change it but feel that ti must be an error? Does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brideshead (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Critics claim

It has been over a week since I added the unreferenced tag to the Criticism section. One week from today I'm going to start going through and start filtering everything out that is not cited. Would all the anti-Moore editors who watch this page like hawks, please cite some references before then. If you are not clear on the policy here, please consult WP:VERIFY. Thanks. AlistairMcMillan 03:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added some references, but there's work left to do. It doesn't help that one of the web-sites in question is under re-construction. Even NRA, Michael Moore and newspaper websites have undergone some changes. Archive.org is an invaluable tool in this respect. I don't know any "anti-Moore" editors (is there a userbox for that?), but I know where I can rally some to your citation cause. Should I do that? --GunnarRene 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Heyo, just wanted to say that this (By contrast, gun deaths in the U.S. are generally related to handguns in inner cities. It is easier to legally purchase a handgun in the United States than in any other industrialized nation.) is a hell of an inflamatory statement if it isn't backed up with some statistics. It indirectly insinuates that inner-city people (possibly construed as minorities or, more specifically, African-americans) are the cause of violent deaths. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Um, I'm watching the movie right now and they clearly say that he had to take a background check ... so somebody should probably fix the article. I would, but people always revert my edits. 69.218.230.181 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What version of the film are you watching? --GunnarRene 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I watched the film last night. The lady assisting Moore does mention that there is a background check, however she mentions that it is performed at the bank because they are a licensed firearms dealer (she does not say how long the background check will take). So, yet again, the film is misleading, but doesn't contain explicitly false statements. P.S. the previous post (69.218.230.181) was not made by me. --User:dthx1138

Ah, OK. So if this was unchanged from the cinema version, then the main points are that the waiting time was omitted and that the bank doesn't keep the guns there (except for the fake display versions that hang on the wall). --GunnarRene 10:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More on Lockheed

I'm bothered by the Lockheed interview on both sides. On the one hand, Moore may be guilty of misleading the viewer to think that the rockets in the background are actually Nuclear ICBMs. It is true that the plant next to Columbine produced Titan and Atlas launch vehicles for satellite launches (though these rockets have in fact been used for ICBMs in the past). The main statement I dislike is where he says the "missiles" were transported during the night while the children of Columbine slept, which makes it seem like they're transporting actual warheads when the payloads are actually satellites. However, the article makes it sound like Moore's point of view is totally invalid because Lockheed does not produce missiles, which it of course has done (along with many other types of weaponry), and still does. Just because these weapons aren't produced at that particular plant doesn't mean his criticisms must be disregarded. Additionally, the rockets at the Littleton plant are indeed used by the Air Force for military payloads which Moore states in the film (the rocket in the background clearly has U.S. Air Force painted on it). Many of these payloads are classified, and though their nature is usually assumed to be of a communications or surveillance nature (which themselves may be considered a form of weapon), they may be actual weapons systems as well.

Thus I'm making a change. User:dthx1138 11:58 06/21/06

You're making good points, but your edit didn't really add much substance beside speculation about what Moore understood or did not understand about the launch vehicles. If you have a source that lists GPS as a weapons system, please add it as a reference or footnote. P.S: Please log in when editing. --GunnarRene 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My source about GPS being a weapons system was a U.S. Air Force officer I spoke to on a tour of a Northrop Grumman facility in El Segundo, Ca. I was unable to find a linkable source with a google search. I'm not sure of what else to add other than the fact (which I pointed out) that Titan launch vehicles have been used for both nuclear weapons and satellite payloads, so it doesn't make much sense to say this Lockheed facility is making actual nuclear weapons nor that they're innocent of weapons manufacture. --dthx1138 2:25 6/22/06

Well, they made weapons in Littleton in the past, but at this time they were converting weapons into launch vehicles. The potential military use of satellites should be noted. But just because navigation, communication and surveilance can be used in war, doesn't turn these rockets into "missiles of mass destruction". Of course everything can be weapons in a figurative sense ("The internet is a weapon for freedom" for example), Moore's question about WMD only makes sense if the stuff they're launching are orbital WMDs like secret space lasers that devastate large areas or kill large groups of people, (Secret space lasers that just measure distance or are point-to-point communications devices don't count), or if McCollum is speaking for the entire Lockheed company, which is making WMDs in other places. --GunnarRene 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this criticism of Moore is seeming ever-increasingly weak. Has he even claimed that the Columbine kids dad's were engineers making WMDs for Lockheed, and that's why they shot up their school? No. It definitely seems like a general statement about kids in America being influenced by their parents' jobs, which at many Lockheed (and other) facilities, is weapons manufacture. It also seems like a statement that's intended to get McCollum to defend weapons making, which works. The Littleton facility could be making Chocolate eggs, and it would still make no sense for McCollum to proclaim that they don't make weapons there, unless he believed that the rest of Lockheed is a bad influence for doing so (which would get him quickly fired). --User:dthx1138

Much better edit this time, but still no source for "GPS = weapons system" and that still doesn't support "Satellites = WMD". --GunnarRene 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at a bit of Air Force literature now, and they call GPS a "space" system. We need a source for the "GPS = weapons system" claim. --GunnarRene 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added a modified version of my earlier text on Lockheed while properly logged in, so I hope it does not again get removed. Also, I move for a new source to be referenced for Moore's after-statements about satellites being legitimately thought of as weapons, since the link ("wackattacko") looks like an anti-Moore blog of sorts, and not very impartial. --User:dthx1138

Will do. --GunnarRene 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon Sequence

The cartoon sequence in the movie, that purported to represent the history of the United States, was remarkably inaccurate in terms of describing socio-economic factors. It was not solely slavery that made the US "the richest country in the world"; in actual fact, it was the industrial growth of the non-slave Northern states that created the US's original economic growth in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is not a right-wing POV criticism of Moore. It is a simple fact of history that the sequence was inaccurate. If no one raises any objections, I will go ahead and add this to the Criticisms section in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you can provide sources that show that this is a conclusion supported by more than a tiny minority of economists. (I think it may be correct because without manufacturing, the US would be a 3rd world country). However this point is rather minor, so it doesn't warrant more than a sentence, in my view. --GunnarRene 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You've hit upon the precise problem there. I don't have a source to hand that quotes this interpretation. It's my own interpretation of the flaws in the sequence, based on established facts of economic history. I won't add the information until I can dig up some relevant sources. Walton monarchist89 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese MIG

Firstly the citation doesn't back up the claim that Moore has been criticised for this. Secondly, the paragraph is written in a POV manner. Thirdly, wouldn't the Vietnamese MIG have been piloted by a Vietnamese pilot? AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the first criticism, and I don't see what's POV about the paragraph (it's mostly just quotes), but about the third criticism: it's like describing an attack on Nazi Germany as "a war against people of a different ethnic background". To say that a pilot is being praised for killing Vietnamese implies (especially in the context of the World Trade Center attack) that he is being praised for killing Vietnamese civilians or Vietnamese in general, rather than a narrower subgroup of Vietnamese. Ken Arromdee 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "actually" inserts POV by implying that what Moore says is wrong. You took that out in your edit yesterday, but have restored it today.

And I don't understand what you are saying about the plaque content. Is the problem that Moore says "people" instead of "a Vietnamese person"?

The problem is that in this context "killed Vietnamese people" implies "killed people for no reason more specific than just being Vietnamese". Ken Arromdee 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What??? Seriously. You think Moore is implying that some Americans were just randomly flying around somewhere, saw some Vietnamese and decided to bomb a them? You seriously think that is what Moore is implying? And also, that the American military establishment decided to recognise this random bizzare murder with a great big plane on a pedestal with a plaque outside their military academy? Seriously??? AlistairMcMillan 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moore is not trying to imply a random bizarre murder instigated by a pilot on his own, but a random bizarre murder (or rather, a random bizarre war crime) committed with the approval of the US military. Saying that the pilot "killed Vietnamese" without being more specific suggests bombing a village or similar. Ken Arromdee 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are really reaching. Saying "killed Vietnamese" suggests "Vietnamese were killed", if you want to read something else into it be my guest. But if you want that to stay in the article you'll need to find a source from someone else who thinks that, because Kopel isn't saying that. Otherwise that is coming out. AlistairMcMillan 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the whole Kopel article, that isn't even the problem that Kopel is writing about, he only mentions it in passing. His main point in bringing up the B-52 is exactly what I've written, that he thinks Moore is drawing parallels between the B-52 pilots and the 9/11 terrorists. AlistairMcMillan 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've taken the word "actually" out again. Ken Arromdee 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Murder/Homicide

The gun-rights lobby believes that Moore unfairly portrayed lawful gun-owners in the USA as a violence-prone group. While few dispute that the gunshot homicide rate is higher in the US than in other countries, Richard Bushnell claims his statistics as presented in the montage of other countries sequence are ambiguous [8] on two counts: first, they maintain Moore's statistics are not adjusted for smaller population of other countries; second, Bushnell claims that most of the other countries' numbers do not include accidental deaths and shootings performed in self-defense, while the US figure does include these.

The problem here is that the is a legal distinction between murder and homicide. The former is the unlawful killing of another person, where is the latter is any killing of another person, lawful or no. Legally, justifiable or excusable homicide (e.g., self-defense) is still homicide. Note that Hardy's page cites US murder statistics to disproves Moore's claim, rather than US homicide statistics. Since Moore is citing homicide statistics to begin with, his numbers would be accurate. The references to how Moore's statistics include "accidental deaths" is non-sensical, since neither Bushnell nor Hardy even claim this, much less support it.

I would recomend adding a line that removes references to accidental death, and adding a line saying that they are confusing homicide statistics with murder statistics, and explaining the distinction. I would also either remove the claim "other countries' numbers do not include," unles a disclaimor is added saying that this might be part of their original confusion. I don't consider this original research, because this can be verified on their own pages, and neither of these sources are really authorative in themselves. Schrodinger82 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section is vastly too long

About two thirds of this article is composed of lists of criticisms of the movie. That would be appropriate for a website attacking Moore, or attacking the movie, but is not at all encyclopedic. By its very presentation, it renders the entire article POV. I believe that the criticisms section should be reduced to a few short paragraphs, and link to outide sources for additional details. Uucp 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I would also stick with criticism that can either be substantiated, or comes from a notable source. For instance, "David Hardy argues that all homicides and violent crime should have been included in the comparison" may technically be a true statement, but it doesn't deserve to be on this page. Do we mention each and every nitpick that GWB has ever recieved on the GWB page? I don't think so. -Schrodinger82 05:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GWB is a person, not a movie, and certainly not a documentary. You can criticize a movie's content, you can't criticize a person's content in the same way. You could criticize his opinions, but they are not part of the person in the same way misstatements are part of the movie.

At any rate, the article has a lot of criticism because there are a lot of things in the movie that have been criticized. We do need to fairly represent controversies, but if the controversy is imbalanced, then our article must be "imbalanced" too. Ken Arromdee 16:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that most of the criticism comes from the same people, Hardy, Kopel , Bushnell, etc. The criticism should probably be thinned out and re-organised as "Hardy wrote a book where he criticised BfC for...", "Kopel wrote a book where he..." and "Bushnell created a website where..." AlistairMcMillan 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And would you have us add a paragraph or two about every publication or media figure who had something nice to say about the movie? This article would run to about a hundred pages long. Uucp 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken, I'm struggling to see your point. "GWB is a person, not a movie, and certainly not a documentary"? So what? that's a completely arbitrary standard, and you know it. I can just as easily reply, "BFC is a movie, not a politician, and certainly not the president," and it woud sound just as good. Secondly, who cares if it's a movie? Do people on the "Batman & Robin" entry detail each and every nitpick that any critic has expressed towards "Batman & Robin"? No, and believe me, it's not for lack of material. Your comment of "certainly not a documentary" is likewise meaningless, since none of the critics listed have any authority to criticize it on its merits as being a documentary. Sure, they have an opinion that a documentary should be completely unbiased and objecitve and whatever, but what are they basing this on? Moreover, why should we believe them? Are any of them film professors who have written a thesis on the history of documentary film making, or are they simply partisan bloggers? It's already been established that Hardy, who claims to be a lawyer, either doesn't know the legal distinction between homicide and murder in his critique, or he does know the distinction, and is simply being dishonest about it for the sake of attacking Moore. If guys like Hardy can't even be trusted in their knowledge of the law, then why should they be trusted in their knowledge of documentary filmmaking? Moreover, why should they be trusted in their criticisms of bias? Verifiably, this film won an award for best documentary. It was nominated by other peers within the industry, e.g., other documentary filmmakers. Meaning that the documentary community apparently approves of BFC's status as such. What exactly have Hardy, Kopel, and Bushnell done to qualify themselves as equal or better experts on documentary film making than the people who actually make them? Because if you can't answer that question, then your "certainly not a documentary" comment is completely worthless, meaning that the criticism section should follow the same standards as any other movie.

"At any rate, the article has a lot of criticism because there are a lot of things in the movie that have been criticized" doesn't fly, because most of the criticism isn't noteworthy in the first place. For instance, do we go to all the movies listed at http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ and start adding entries saying, "This movie has been criticized for having really bad physics, for all of the following reasons"? I doubt it. And I trust these guys on the issue of physics a lot more than I trust Hardy and Bushnell on their ability to criticize a documentary. The criticism should stick to factual concerns, not matters of personal opinion or taste. I'm sorry, but NPOV doesn't mean you include every nut case off the internet who says, "Well, if I had been directing the same scene, my spin would have been different." Here's one example:

Richard Bushnell also accuses Moore of omitting facts about Kayla Rolland's shooter when he says that "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl". Bushnell points to reports in the Dayton Daily News and Deseret News that suggest that the boy had already been suspended once for stabbing a student with a pencil, that his father was in jail, and that his uncle (from whose house he got the gun) was a drug dealer and the gun had been stolen and exchanged for drugs. [20]

Now, did we really need to dedicate an entire paragraph for that? First off, that's an artistic decision, not a factual critique. Secondly, it doesn't even answer the question of why the boy shot a little girl. It's a complete non-sequitor! Now, if Bushnell's criticism was, "there were reports saying that the girl had stolen money from the boy, and he shot her to get it back," then you might have something. But how does the fact that the Uncle stole the gun from someone else explain anything? The criticism is completely irrelevant to the actual movie, except for the sake of providing filler. Just because a criticism exists, doesn't make it noteworthy. Particularily when most of these "criticisms" are extremely flimsy to begin with. Here's another:

Critics of Moore such as National Review's Dave Kopel claim it is deceptive to call this film purely a "documentary;" they say it is more accurate to describe it as selective documentary, or as Moore has at times called another of his films, an "op-ed" piece [3] that displays his own views.

Again, why is that notable? Kopel doesn't have any credentials to critique it as a documentary, and his entire complaint is that Moore's description of his own film is shockingly accurate. Not worth mention. Ken, your assertion that " but if the controversy is imbalanced, then our article must be "imbalanced" too" is also way off. For instance, there's a lot of controversy saying that the moon landing was staged, and not so much "controversy" saying that it was legit, simply because the idea that the moon landing was legit isn't considered "controversial." Does that mean that the article on the moon landing should be dominated by people who claim that it was a hoax? Further, how exactly are you measuring controversy in the first place? You essentially have no way to validate your claim that the "controversy" is unbalanced, and therefore, you have no justification for saying that the article should be unbalanced as well. -Schrodinger82 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I wrote instead of going on tangents for dozens of lines. I didn't say that Bowling for Columbine isn't a documentary, I said that George W. Bush isn't a documentary. Ken Arromdee 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The implication to of your statement was that BFC should be held to a higher standard because its a documentary, where as GWB is note. Of course, you fail to explain a) WHY it should be held to a higher standard, and b) how it fails to meet said standard. Ergo, the criticism is meaningless. We dont nitpick each and every point about each and every movie just to support a partisan agenda. -Schrodinger82 05:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I implied that the *types of things which should go in the article* about BFC are different from those that should go in the Bush article. Ken Arromdee 16:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

a) WP:BLP b) huh? "We dont nitpick each and every point about each and every movie just to support a partisan agenda" No. We don't. But notable critics have, and Michael Moore himself has commented on it. And the nature of the film makes it more criticized than, for example a documentary like Grey Gardens. An article on a more criticized film will contain more criticism--GunnarRene 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? And what makes these critics notable? And how exactly do we measure the amount of criticism this movie has garnered relative to the praise? Can you answer any of this? Just out of curiousity, if the 9/11 commission officially addressed claims that the 9/11 attacks were actually a conspiracy, would that justify dedicating two thirds of the 9/11 entry to the subject? I don't think so. It might be out there, but it's not encyclopedic. Again, I have pointed to specific examples where the criticism is non-notable, non-authorative, and doesn't even really say anything relavant to the material other than adding filler. The entire criticism section is written like that. To which all you can do is parrot, "Well, but there's still a lot of criticism out there, so it's our duty to include all of it!" Uh.... no, it's not. Look at what Wikipedia has to say of "Self-published sources," and "Partisan, religious and extremist websites," and that's where Bushnell, Hardy, and Kopel fall. Most of the criticism on this page should be removed on the basis of a) non-experts talking outside their feild, b) criticism irrelevant to the actual content of the movie, c) criticism that are based on artistic decisions and "what I would do differently if I were him," which are completely subjective and don't belong here. Can any of you come up with good arguments to the contrary, by presenting actual examples? Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that the answer is no.

Rather than simply parroting self-published "Partisan, religious and extremist websites" point by point, this entire section needs to be reduced by 80-90% down to what can be independently verified. From there, you can decide what does and does not deserve to be placed back in, point by point. Which is exactly the way it should be for an encyclopedia. -Schrodinger82 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardy is a published author in a legitimate press writing about the same subjects as in his web page. As such, his page falls under the exception "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." Likewise, Kopel has been professionally published, and his best known Moore article is also published in National Review Online, not a self-published source.

Also, WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, something which people forget. If a website really is a widely known source of criticism, it makes no sense not to use it, self-published or not.

Most of the criticism on this page should be removed on the basis of a) non-experts talking outside their feild,

There is no need for an "expert" when the criticism is of a basic factual error or of a misleading statement. If the film stated the Earth was cube-shaped, for instance, criticism could be quoted from people who have not professionally studied the shape of the Earth in any way.

b) criticism irrelevant to the actual content of the movie,

Do you have particular criticisms in mind?

c) criticism that are based on artistic decisions and "what I would do differently if I were him," which are completely subjective and don't belong here.

Do you have particular criticisms in mind? Some of the criticism "based on artistic decision" is actually criticism that the artistic decision misleads the viewer as to the facts. Ken Arromdee 15:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The current length of the criticism section is ridiculous. While we can remove some of the artistic criticisms the easiest route would be simply to reduce the detail. We don't need to know every precise little allegation made against the movie; if we think we do then we should also repeat every single allegation made in the movie. Cut,cut,cut. DJ Clayworth 15:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken, your comments don't fly. "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise" doesn't work, because documentary film making isn't his field of expertise. "Well-known professional journalist" doesn't work, because he's not a well known journalist. Period. The fact that's he's published may be worth a line or two according to the above person's suggestion of "David Hardy wrote a book," but his actual claims leave much to be desired. His criticisms are completely subjective and based on artistic decisions rather than facts. The fact that Hardy would cite murder statistics to discredit homicide statistics tells me that he can't even be taken very seriously in the field where he IS an expert, that is, the law. You can argue that Kopel is a known journalist for the National Review, but I already explained why many of his actual comments are superfluous.

You claim that "There is no need for an "expert" when the criticism is of a basic factual error or of a misleading statement." Fine. Most of the criticism I removed has nothing to do with factual errors or misleaading statements. For instance, "Finally, David Hardy argues that all homicides and violent crime should have been included in the comparison" is not a factual error.

Factual errors and misleading statements are not the only cases where there's no need for an "expert". Not if an "expert" means someone who deals with documentary film making. Arguing that a comparison is comparing the wrong things and that the film should have included something else to make a fair comparison is a criticism of the film based on its political content, not one based on an "artistic decision". Ken Arromdee 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the film, Moore berates the American media for creating a culture of fear in the American public. Dave Kopel and David Hardy argue that his own movie is geared towards creating fear of guns and gun owners, and accuse him of hypocrisy on those grounds" is not a factual error. And statements like "In a segment that followed" are not only not a factual error, but its also completely wrong, because that segment didn't follow. The comment ""somewhat reminiscent of South Park" is likewise incredibly subjective. If I showed a frame of that animation to someone who knew South Park, I doubt their response would be, "Oh, did Matt and Trey do that?"

Ken, I already presented examples of the "criticisms I have in mind," and explained why they should be removed as being artistic decisions or irrelevant. To which you've said nothing. It's not my fault if you don't listen. Unless you can give legitimate reasons why each and every point was enyclopedic other than just "we should include it because it's out there," I'm reverting it to where it was before. For instance, if you think that the artistic decisions "mislead" the audience, then you need to present more than just "well, people COULD be mislead if they read it a certain way, hypothetically." Provide actual statistics of the number of people who left the movie believing in X, when X was untrue. Otherwise, the claim is completely unverifyable, and therefore, unworthy of being included. I can claim that Hardy uses his credentials as a lawyer to "mislead people" into believing that he knows what the heck he's talking about when he can't even understand the difference between murder and homicide, but I'm not, because it's hard to prove. Instead of commenting on the his attempt to "mislead" people, I let the facts speak for themselves. WHy don't you try doing the same? Your comments that I am "gutting" the article is meaningless, because most of this information is irrelevant, and the article DESERVES to be gutted. -Schrodinger82 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested above, if the criticisms section is not cut to an appropriate length, I will take a few hours and pull hundreds of compliments from print and web reviewers and will add them to the article. I will apply the same standards of relevance that the editors defending the criticisms have used. The result should be less POV than the article is now. Uucp 00:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

While there's a lot of criticism, there is, or at least should be, only one criticism of each point. If you wanted to do something similar for compliments, you'd have to have only one of each compliment. Unless you have people complimenting the movie for hundreds of different things, you wouldn't be able to include hundreds of compliments. Ken Arromdee 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Have't you heard? It's only NPOV when you talk about what's wrong with a highly rated and successful movie. I mean, on one hand, you have the documentary filmmakers of America and the majority of professional movie critics who state that, yes, this is a great documentary. On the other hand, you have some random lawyer off the internet who isn't even known in the film industry who insists that, no, it isn't. Who has more weight? Well, obviously, the latter, for some unknown reason. -Schrodinger82 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous in implying that the criticisms are film critic-type criticisms (which are best made by film critics) rather than criticisms about the movie's political content and accuracy (which are not). It's not as if those criticisms are complaints about the cinematography and lighting.

There's also another point which people are missing. These guys aren't the only people making the criticism; they're just the ones we can conveniently quote. The reason we include a criticism section is that a lot of people are making the criticism; the fact that Wikipedia requires we attribute the criticism to a handful of people doesn't mean that only a handful of people criticise the movie. Ken Arromdee 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken, I'm going to make this blunt. You're wrong. You have included a single argument on why the examples deserve to be encyclopedic, other than the fact that they're out there, and and therefore we should include it. And the fact that something is out there is not a reason in itself. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be an archive of each and every criticism and comment made on the entire internet. All of your defenses have already been addressed in the Wikipedia guidelines, to which you can only reply, "Oh, but those are guidelines, not policies!" Well, great, but you're still not giving us a reason why we shouldn't follow them anyway. Basically, what you're saying is that the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability shouldn't have to apply to you, because in this case, it's something that you believe to be true without saying. Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

You cite the NPOV rule? Fine, let's see what that guideline actually has to say regarding opinions: "The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority)." Here's the problem, Ken. The opinions listed in this article may have a name attached, but they do not come from a recognized authority on the subject. For instance, Kopel believes that BFC isn't a documentary, but what makes him an authority? Well, absolutely nothing. Especially when you consider the industry that actually makes documentaries for a living, e.g., an identifyable and quantifiable population, do agree that it's a documentary and show that by nominating BFC in the first palce. You state that claim X is misleading. If you want to make that claim, cite a non-partisan group that specializes in this sort of thing, like factcheck.org. But right now, all you're doing is citing a partisan hack who insist that the movie is biased or misleading. Well, I'm sorry, but partisan hacks are not a good source for whether or not something is biased or misleading.

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" Okay, point two. The keyword here is reliable. The sources cited have failed to meet that standard. You have lawyers who can't even distinguish between homicide and murder, much less critique a film. Here's what else they say: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Here's another: In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." You have no objective way of quantifying that your viewpoint is in the majority, particularily an award winning movie with good reviews. According to rottentomatoes.com, this movie has a 96% positive review. That puts the critics in the minority. They might be a very vocal minority, but they're still a minority, with no real authority or credentials on the subject. Hence, as long as the criticism section meets at least 4% of the article content, then it meets the NPOV standard.

Because of the political nature of Bowling for Columbine, reviews of the movie are going to be influenced by the political beliefs of the movie critics and it is inappropriate to just count movie critic reviews. Do 96% of *political commentators* who mention the movie do so positively? I doubt that. Ken Arromdee 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken, explain what you mean by a "political commentator?" Basically, you're relying on circular here, by saying that partisan hacks who hate more should be included because they're so darn good at being partisan hacks who hate Moore. If you want to add a line saying "many conservatives disagree with Moore's politicals" in the header, then fine, but there's no reason to include each and every unsubstanstantiated and irrelevant claim. Now, if you had non-partisan think tanks and studies, then it might be worth including. For instance, when people insist that FOX news is misleading, it's because there are actual studies have shown that viewers of FOX news have a completely distorted view of reality. It's not my fault that the evidence to support your claims is incredible lacking. It's amazing how you seem insistent on defending these claims as a broad category, rather than on inherent merit or notability. That tells me that the claims in question probably don't have any merit or notabiliity to begin with. -Schrodinger82 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

With that said, I'm editing the article again, on the basis of being non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Do not attempt to revert unless you are willing to engage in actual discussion, and justify that the omitted excerpts are encylopedic point-by-point. Simply pointing out that the criticism is "out there" is not enough. Nor is any claim that I am "gutting the article," unless you can show that the stuff I'm removing deserves to be here.

Right now, we have a disagreement on NPOV. Here are the Wikiepdia guidelines on how to resolve such a matter:"Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source." So there you go. If you think I'm gutting the article, then all you have to do is cite reputable sources on factual information. Here's the other point: "Let the facts speak for themselves." Keyword, "facts." If you think Moore is misleading, then present facts showing so. Also, avoid your use of excessive "weasel words," like " a lot of things in the movie that have been criticized." Criticized about what? By who? With what credentials? -Schrodinger82 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article as currently written would give any reader the impression that the film is intellectually dishonest and exploits the ignorance of the audience to push a partisan agenda, has been widely derided as such, and that any intelligent person would dismiss it today as no better than agitprop. This can be corrected by (1) reducing the criticisms section to a couple of short paragraphs, or (2) matching it with a few hundred complimentary citations. I wouldn't want to delete criticisms that you and other seem to view as important, so I'll compile the compliments to balance them. Uucp 14:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find hundreds of compliments complimenting the movie for *different things*, then fine. Likewise, if you can find two criticisms in the article criticising the movie for the same thing, then feel free to take one out. Ken Arromdee 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I readded the NRA rally content, they are all well sourced, and are blatent examples of the attempt to mislead viewers in the movie. None of the comments are making opinions of the movie, they are simply pointing out how the film was edited, compared to what actually happened. PPGMD 21:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also re-added the Kopel comment on the bank sence, your edit make it sound like he had no reason why he believed the sence was incorrect. And finally I tweaked the murder vs homicide section, and readded the reference. PPGMD 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because the NRA comment is "sourced" does not mean that it is notable. This is an opinion statement, and as stated above, opinions either need to be quantifiable and identifiable (e.g., "A survey reported that 40% of people left the movie with the impression that Heston blah blah blah"), or it has to come from a notable authority in the field. Neither of which is true. Further, making observations of "how the film was edited, compared to what actually happened" is not notable in itself, unless you want to do this for ever movie ever created. For instance, "In 'Triumph of the Nerds,' we frequently cut between interviews of different people, which misleads people into believing that these interviews are taking place simultaneously. In reality, these interviews were films at different times and locations, and then spliced together in post-production." Now, if I made a website of my own called the "The Truth about Nerds" and then sourced it, would that make it notable? Of course not, because it's still a non-expert opinion.

If you made a website of your own *and* your web site was widely known as a source of criticism of the movie, and you even used much of the same material as your web site in a published book, then it would absolutely be notable.

Maybe the existence of the book and the webpage itself might be notable, but not each and every individual claim. -Schrodinger82

Moreover, in Bowling for Columbine the misleading interviews are only worthy of criticism because misleading the audience about the timing of the interviews also misleads them about other points. For Triumph of the Nerds to do that would require some strange hypothetical situation--suppose the movie spliced together two interviews, one where he says the phrase "I'm serious", and another where he jokes that he eats babies, but the reference to joking is cut out. It would be fine to criticize that on the grounds that it misleads the audience into thinking Gates eats babies. Ken Arromdee 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only your opinion that these two examples are analogous. I already presented a counter example with Mel Gibson that's much closer to what we actually saw. Unfortunately, neither you nor Hardy have any credentials on this particular subject. -Schrodinger82 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want to claim that the ediing is biased and misleading, which is an opinion and not a fact, then you need more to back it up then the word of a partisan hack. Moore's editing would not be considered misleading in the context of filmmaking, where people recognize the technique as a technique, and not a literal truth. For instance, during the recent Mel Gibson incident, news shows frequently spliced in clips from Mel's films into their segments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St947aAAQIs). Would anyone argue these shows "mislead" viewers into believing that events happened on the night of his reference? I doubt it. Again, opinion, not fact.

If nobody criticizes the news shows in that way, that is probably because those specific news shows are presenting the clips in a non-misleading way--not because misleading editing is some absurd, impossible, idea. Ken Arromdee 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to have something more than the word of David Hardy to show that what Moore is doing is any different. -Schrodinger82 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The re-added reference to the murder vs. homicide issue also doesn't really apply, since the entire point is that Hardy doesn't make the distinction. Part of Koppel addition is fine, but the paragraph needs to be trimmed somewhere in general. The comment "without going through the usual legal process of obtaining a firearm" is opinion, and needs to be removed, since Moore never discusses, implies, or addresses the legality of the situation. The comments on "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl" should be removed, for the reasons listed above, and the complete lack of any reason why they should be included whatsoever. -Schrodinger82 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinion is expected in a criticism section. Criticisms are opinions. Ken Arromdee 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you should be able to meet the NPOV standards for including opinion statements listed above. Pretty simple. -Schrodinger82 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Schrodinger82. There is a danger here that everyone who disagrees with Moore and puts up a website gets quoted here. DJ Clayworth 19:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hardylaw website is nearly as old as the film, well sourced, and is well referenced by others. Anyways I readded the NRA section again, it's both well sourced, and notable because it points out how Moore carefully edited the film to make the NRA seem callous for coming to a city so soon after tragic events. Which was the point that Moore was trying to make with that section of the movie. PPGMD 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys ever going to come up with an actual defense for why these comments qualify as enclopedic, other than "it's out there, so I'm including it"? There's a big difference between being "sourced" and being encyclopedic. Once again, here is what Wikipedia guidelines have to on the subject: Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, higher education textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. Guys, stop assuming that the guidelines don't apply to you, and that your political beliefs alone somehow give you immunity from having to verify your sources. All of these issues and defenses have already been addressed in the guidelines. Being "well sourced" is not enough ("Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable"). Particularily when dealing with non-factual information. You are citing Hardy's comments on film editing as fact. Hardy is not an expert in the field of film editing. He does not have a post-graduate degree. He is not affiliated with an academic film institution. He has not written any textbooks on the subject. In short, he does not fit the pass the standard for verifiability.

For the third time in a row, you attempted to sneak in the "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl," despite being asked numerous times on its relevance, with absolutely no attempt at discussion. At this point, I consider this spam. Stop including things that aren't noteworthy and aren't encyclopedic, just because some partisan hack who you happen to agree with made the statement. Stick to the fact, or stick to the experts. -Schrodinger82 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't give PhD's in political documentaries, Hardylaw and other sites linked in that section provide their sources, and are well regarded for their accuracy. We aren't talking about a hard science we are talking about a political documentary. It also doesn't take an advanced degree to show what was put on film and what was originally spoken, Hardy law even goes as far as providing side by side transcripts. PPGMD 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but they DO give Ph. D's in film. Furthermore, there are entire documentary institutions that apparently not only didn't mind Moore's use of editing, but went ahead and praised it. For instance, "The International Documentary Association (IDA)" awarded the movie for "Best Documentary of All Time." I would think that the "The International Documentary Association" would be a tad more authorative on the subject of film than David Hardy, wouldn't you? Is there any indication that they retract their decision? And saying that these guys are "well regarded for their accuracy" is laughable. By who? Other partisan hacks? Please. Give us some actual credentials, other than the fact that you believe them. Please. Again, they can't even recognize the legal distinction between murder and homicide, and are basically criticizing Moore because his definition of homicide happens to be the accurate one. "We aren't talking about a hard science we are talking about a political documentary," well that's great. Literature isn't a hard science either. So if I made my own webpage called "The Truth About Shakespeare," does that mean that I could spam 3/4ths of the article with my own comments and critiques about why Shakespeare was a bad writer? Or would we stick to critics with actual credentials on the subject? I'm guessing the latter. The fact that something "isn't a hard science" doesn't magically give you the right to spew whatever crap you want. That's why Wikipedia has guidelines that you have to meet for opinion statements.

"It also doesn't take an advanced degree to show what was put on film and what was originally spoken, Hardy law even goes as far as providing side by side transcripts. " Oh, so now your criticism is, "Moore edits his film." Because I'm sure that Michael Moore is really the first film maker of all time to ever edit something down, right? See, THAT'S why you stick to the experts. Because if you told the experts something like, "OMG, this film maker is awful, he EDITS!", they would just look at you like you were the dumbest person in the world. EVERY filmmaker edits. In fact, the editing is where most of the artistry of documentary filmmaking actually comes from. However, that is not a valid critique in itself, unless we have an actual authority commenting on it. The people who insist that Moore doesn't meet the standard of a documentary because he edits are like the people who insist that evolution should be banned from science because it's a theory.

It's like talking to a broken record. "This comment doesn't meet the standards for Wikipedia." "But it's sourced, so I'm re-including them!" "Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it meet the standards for wikipedia. Here's are the exact guidelines on the matter. The types of sources you've included have already been addressed, and are not sufficient on this matter." "But it's sourced, so I'm re-including them!" Please, please, please, come up with more than just "some guy said it, I believe him, that makes it true, so I'm including it."

And this is the forth time that the "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl" comment has been sneaked back in with absolutley no explaination on its relavance. At this point, you're officially spamming the article.-Schrodinger82 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not spam it follows the guideline under [[2]] PPGMD 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And it doesn't. "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. You might not need a peer review, but you still need to meet the standards listed above for statements of opinion. And yes, the examples provided are still statements of opinion, regardless of whether or not you personally believe them. Again, this movie has won high acclaim within the documentary film community. Give us a legitimate reason why Hardy's views should be given credence over theres.

And I don't want to get into an edit war. It's not my burden of proof to show that these statements aren't encyclopedic (Impossible to prove a negative.). It's YOUR burden of proof to show that they are. Don't put them back in until you do. If they really do have merit, then that shouldn't be that hard. But stop compaining to me just because you don't have any RELIABLE sources to back you up on this.

And this is now the fifth time you included the "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl" with no explaination. -Schrodinger82 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also fail to understand why this Richard Bushnell is being quoted at such extreme length. He seems to be just a guy with a website. If we quoted everyone with a website then we'd be here writing criticisms for ever. DJ Clayworth 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection Bushnell's website should not be quoted at all. All of it is clearly just his opinion, and some of it at least is demonstrably wrong.DJ Clayworth 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada

As a start on getting the size down I removed the 'Canada' section because the points are unsourced (and also specious). DJ Clayworth 19:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Increasing the description length

Part of the unbalance could be corrected by writing a much longer summary of the movie and its main points. There would not then be the need to reduce the criticisms section so much. This issue is so extreme that many of Moore's points are only brought up in the Criticisms section.

I have started to write some more summary sections, but I'm handicappted by not having seen the movie for a number of years, so feel free to correct and expand on what I write. DJ Clayworth 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Uucp was talking about doing this. I think he should, still. -Schrodinger82 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody added an 'unbalanced' tag with the comment that "with the removal of 90% of the criticism section this article is now unbalanced". Well, that removal meant that the 'criticism' section now occupies only 50% of the article, which is a very strange definition of 'unbalanced'. I've removed the tag. DJ Clayworth 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

B-52 Display

The following seems especially inane:

Critics have accused Moore of misrepresenting the contents of a plaque on the B-52 bomber's display at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and of trying to equate "fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians"^[1] by showing the Vietnam War era B-52 Bomber immediately after showing footage of airplanes hitting the World Trade Center.^[2] Moore states that "...the plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972..." According to the Colorado-Mall website the plaque reads:

"Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26 year history in the command. Aircraft 55,003, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52's credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam conflict. Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972." ^[3]

Linebacker II was the heaviest bomber strike against North Vietnam during the war.

As if the purpose of Operation Linebacker was to shoot down Migs with B-52s! Suggest it just be removed. Banno

The purpose of the quote is to show that Moore is misrepresenting the contents of the plaque, what he claims is on it vs what's actually written are two totally different things. PPGMD 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the claim that the plaque does not say that plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972? What was it doing during Operation Linebacker, then? Or is it that the plaque does not express pride in the achievements of Strategic Air Command? Do you really want such a feeble argument presented here? Banno 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SAC had no involvement in Linebacker II, that was a TAC Operation. PPGMD 13:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the plaque is wrong? Banno

And part of it is that the description is misleading rather than outright wrong. Most people would understand "proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people" to mean that the writer thinks that killing Vietnamese people in general is good. Being proud to kill enemy Vietnamese pilots isn't the same thing as being proud to "kill Vietnamese people", even though enemy pilots are people. If you shot and killed a criminal, you wouldn't say "I was proud to kill an American" even if the criminal was an American. Ken Arromdee 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The point, to spell it out, is that shooting down a MiG was not the only thing the plaque says that the plane did on that day. It also bombed North Vietnam. This would presumably have involved some North Vietnamese dieing. The strongest criticism that could be leveled against Moore is that he paraphrased the writing in an inflammatory way. Not a particular strong criticism in a political film. But if there is no intent to re-insert the section, the point is moot. Banno 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But the plaque doesn't proudly proclaim that the pilot bombed North Vietnam. The plaque proudly proclaims that the pilot shot down an enemy pilot (i.e. a combatant). The bombing of North Vietnam is *mentioned*, but only to state when the enemy pilot was shot down, not as something to praise anyone for. Ken Arromdee 03:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bushnell

Bushnell's website is not a credible source. I've removed as many references to it as I can find. DJ Clayworth 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked Bushnell's site web traffic. It doesn't even show up in the rankings. I've seen vanity sites with more traffic than this. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is unclear about why Bushnell's site is not reliable:

It's basicly just some guy's website. He gets to write whatever he wants and nobody checks it. He is not affiliated with any organisation that would form any kind of review;
His web traffic is very low. See above;
What is written there reads like a rant. He only attacks Moore, never concedes a point or provides balance;
Some of the things he writes are demonstrably false, even according to his own premises.

This is not what we mean by a reliable source. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There was previously an article on Bushnell on the Wiki: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bushnell, but it was deleted as non-notable. Banno 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember once looking at Bushnell's website for Al Franken, where it basically said, "Al Franken claims the following about Bill O Reilly, and cites a Washington Post article. The problem is that the Washington Post article never actually says any of those things! Here's a link, see for yourself!" Then you click on the Washington Post article, and sure enough, every single claim that Al Franken made was clearly supported by the article. Bushnell knows that most of his readers are too much of sheep to actually check, so he doesn't even bother. In fact, when I showed some neocons this as an example's of Bushnell's credbility, they STILL went on to insist that Bushnell was legit, even when I had direct excerpts from the text showing otherwise. -Schrodinger82 20:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and WP:RS

Last night I talked to Cakeprophet, a mediator, on IRC about the issue with WP:RS. He said that criticism have a slightly larger leeway of not requiring peer review or an advanced degree. WP:RS was written for sources that are being cited as a fact (for example citing how many theaters the movie was shown in). As long as the critic sources have their own verifiable sources they are allowed to stand as critics, as long as they are presented as critics and in a neutral manner. I showed him some of the previous content and he had no problem with the way that they were presented.

Now if you still have an issue with this we can wait until the formal informal mediation process starts, but Cakeprophet is the main organizer of the Mediation Cabal.PPGMD 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PPGMD: If you think that there is material that was removed that should be put back it is your job to ensure that material validly added after that time is kept. You revert several changes I made that are perfectly valid, and I'll thank you not to do it again. DJ Clayworth 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually yourself and other misused WP:RS to remove 75% of the aritcles contents, a reversion to before WP:RS was misused is in order, very little of the content is invalid based on the mediators reading of WP:RS. PPGMD 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PPGMD, stop trying to defend the inclusions "on principle." e.g., "The mediators say that something doesn't have to fit peer review in order to be included, and since this doesn't fit peer review, clearly it should be included!" Try defending the relevance of the actual POINTS. If they really are note-worthy, then this should be easy. -Schrodinger82 20:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Included in the things you removed are several sections of content which I added. Do not remove them again without an explanation. As for the things that were removed (in agreement with other contributors) I removed things whose only support was an unreliable website. "slightly larger leeway" does not mean that we can quote any old website we find as though it was a reliable source. There is a section just above this one where I explain why Bushnell is not reliable. Feel free to explain your viewpoint there. (By the way, I count 3 revert of yours this 24hrs) DJ Clayworth 18:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Then remove those quote that you feel are inapprioate, there is still a lot of content that was removed inapprioately. Moving back to the version that was edited before yourself, and another editor started gutting content is the only way to fix this article. PPGMD 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PPGMD, that's your fourth revert in 24hrs. Do you want to revert yourself, in which case we will say no more about it? DJ Clayworth 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First that is at best count 3 reverts, second that is the last version of the article before yourself and another editor used a mistaken belief of what WP:RS stands for to gut the article. It would take more work adding content, then it would for you to do your edits to this version. The amount of content you added is quite small compared to the content removed using WP:RS. PPGMD 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The first so called revert was aditions of content that was removed incorrectly, and then 3 reverts based on the mediators interpetation of WP:RS. PPGMD 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PPGMD, you just reverted this page back several days and hoards, including things that have been shown to be bulky, irrelevant, and unsubstantiated. Yes, there is slightly more leeway in regard to peer review, we've already established that. But what we've also established is this: "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. Meaning that standard RS guidelines still apply. Again, just because this isn't a hard science doesn't mean you can quote whatever crap you would like so long as it can be "sourced" on a website, something that the RS guidelines SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS. "As long as the critic sources have their own verifiable sources", well in this case, they don't. Most of what you have is statements of opinion. And sources, themselves, do not make a statement reliable (Again, this is specifically stated in RS guidelines). For instance:

This comment is sourced, yes. But none of the "sources" actually address the comment in question. None of them actually explain why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl, unless Bushnell's claim is that everyone who has access to a stolen gun will automatically be driven to murder (which I doubt.). Now, if Bushnell has a quote saying, "But the police report said that the boy wanted to shoot her because of blah blah blah," then it might be a valid criticism. But he didn't. Right now, it's a complete non-sequitor. The "sources" being cited have absolutely nothing to do with the comments of the movie. The fact that Bushnell believes that these two things are related is irrelevant. He is not an expert on criminal behavior, and his opinion is completely worthless on this matter.

Saying that he isn't an expert on criminal behavior is about as relevant as saying he isn't a professional movie critic. Ken Arromdee 03:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in both cases, he's non-notable source of no authority. Point? -Schrodinger82 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked on numerous times for you to justify it's inclusion, and you haven't once even BOTHERED to respond. Like I said, I know of at least 6 times that I've been re-added since I've brought this up, and judging by the number of revisions since then, I'm guessing that you probably re-added dozens of other times to boot, and I'm STILL waiting for an explaination. There is absolutley NO REASON to include that passage, yet you keep trying to sneak it in anyway. With that in mind, why in the world should I trust your interpretation on the RS guidelines? Other than the B-52 passage (which shouldbe trimmed down), the vast majority of things you keep bringing up should be cut from the article. If you disagree with that, then go over the issues point by point, and explain to us how the points meet the non-peer review standards of RS. Keep in mind that not once has ANYONE criticized your additions because they failed peer review, so this "Well it doesn't have to fit peer review in order to be included!" defense doesn't fly either. We're criticizing your addition because the opinions come from non-expert opinions from outside their field, which DO still have to be met according to RS guidelines. Key point here is OPINION, not fact. Any statement that claims that Moore misleads his audience towards a certan belief is an OPINION. -Schrodinger82 20:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the exact working of WP:RS applys a mediator is saying that it doesn't apply, that's something quite different. He said that in regards to criticism there is more leeway because they are opinions, and I asked him to take a look at several of the removals and sources, and he said that he had no issues with those sources, and long as we can verify the sources that he can use. A mediator is a third party that gets invovled in these kinds of disputes and brings a level head into it. PPGMD 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at CakeProphet's history on mediating the conservatism page, which had a dispute on how to handle the criticisms section. Funny thing -- that page now has now criticism section at all. No links to outside articles on criticisms on conservatism, not real major criticisms within the individual sections themselves, etc. Apparently, BFC has more notable critics than the entire conservative philosophy does in general! I'm shocked. Aren't you?

Yes, there is more leeway for opinions. But that's why the Wikipedia has specific policies how you can have opinions that still meet the standards for reliable sources. Which, you know... you haven't. If you want to cite the B-52 passage, fine (I didn't add it back, because I'm not good on code), because that takes two direct statements and compares them. But everything else boils down to "Moore edits his movies misleadingly," which is a subjective opinion on his editing skills, and which therefore requires some sort of expert. Particularily when we ALREADY have experts in the documentary film industry who have watched the movie and thought that it was fine. Again, NO ONE is complaining because your points don't meet peer review, making your entire defense a complete non-sequitor. We're complaining because it still doesn't meet the standards of being "backed up by reliable sources like all other articles," in which "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." Period. Those are the guidelines that you yourself cited, and which haven't been met. Again, focus on the INDIVIDUAL points, and then find sources who back them up. If Bushnell and others cite credible external sources that back up the claim, then fine, cite those external sources, and leave Bushnell out of it, since it's a personal webpage being used as a secondary source, and therefore shouldn't be used.

I'm also curious as to what passages you showed CakeProphet, and under what context. For instance, the bank entry wasn't removed, but simply bulked down to the basic facts. Did you show him both versions of the bank entry? Or did you show him the version you wanted to see? I'm guessing the latter. Did you show the "no one knew" entry? And if so, did you show any of the criticism on why it shouldn't be included? I doubt, it I really do. -Schrodinger82 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, User:PPGMD has been blocked for 24hrs for 3RR. Schrodiger, you might want to revert his most recent (fifth) revert of the article. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:PPGMD: Anothe thing you seem to be doing is moving the paragraph starting "Critics such as Kopel..." (which is about criticisms) out of the Criticism section into the section describing the movie itself. Please don't do this. If you think it belongs there please explain why. DJ Clayworth 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a few edits that need to be made in mind, mainly for brevity and redundancy. However, Now that we have some time for sanity, perhaps PPGMD can answer some questions for us. If he doesn't answer these questions, directly, in accordance with the RS guidelines, then I assume that he has no defense. And no, simply stating that the mediators said you don't need a peer review is not much of a defense.

"Critics such as Kopel claim that the sence is edited in such a way that it makes it look like the legally required waiting period and bypassed" is a statement of opinion. Again, explain why this one man's opinion is noteworthy. If your argument is that "Well, obviously, that's the only possible conclusion that anyone could gotten from watching the movie," then why not just describe the scenes from the movie, and let the reader come to the conclusion on his or her own? All we see is Michael Moore walking in to start an account, and walking out with a gun soon after. If that's all it takes to make audiences start questioning the legality of the situation, then that's all we should include, period. Everything else is "leading the witness." They're not being mislead by Moore at all in this case, they're being mislead by Kopel. "Hey man, what did you think of that opening just there? "I don't know, it was funny, I guess. Why? "Well, when you watch this movie, doesn't it make you wonder whether or not the bank is doing something illegal by doing away with the standard bankground checks? Doesn't it make you wonder if the bank is doing something wrong by not making him wait 5 days" "Gee whiz, it does! Michael Moore is such a bastard, for making me think that."
Cross apply that to the Heston example, but let's add the issue of notability. Does Moore edit Heston's speech? Sure. But what makes that All movies edit, period. All movies mix and match from and match from different scenes and events, and all movies compress events down for time and effect. With this mind, at what point does editing for effect become noteworthy and encyclopedic? Why do we care about this particular example?

Editing becomes noteworthy when the editing is criticized. Ken Arromdee 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Circular argument. Basically, you're saying, "Editing becomes noteworthy, when someone makes a note of it." I'm sorry, but that's not enough according to RS and NPOV standards. In order to be notable, you would not only need to not only show that there are critics, but you must also prove that the critics themselves are reliable about the subject matter. -Schrodinger82 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You might claim that we include it because it's misleading. How does one objectively determine whether or not this film is misleading? How are you going to measure that?

You don't "objectively determine whether the film is misleading". You find a widely quoted source who has called the film misleading, and you quote the source. Ken Arromdee 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So then you're admitting it's a statement of opinion, which means that it should therefore fall under the guidelines for opinion established in NPOV and RS. -Schrodinger82 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

For instance, if I say that FOX news is more misleading than other networks, it's because they've done studies looking at what people who watch FOX news believe, comparing that to what people who watch other news networks believe, and then comparing that to the facts. Do we have anything like that for BFC? For some reason, I doubt it.

Since we cannot determine that BFC is objectively misleading, then it's a matter of opinion. Politics aside, please list the type of sources that we should include, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please cite exact passages showing that whatever sources you wish to include are acceptable. If you can't do this, than I am going to assume that the sources you wish to include do not meet Wikipedia standards.
Please explain why the "no one knew" entry is notable, or relevant to the movie, since you've brought it back repeatedly with absoluely no explaination. If you can't do this, then I'm just going to use this as further evidence of your complete refusal to use the discussion or guidelines, in favor of simply pushing a partisan agenda.

"If you can't do this, then" in a list of a large number of questions is not a legitimate tactic. It relies on asking so many questions that it would be impossible for one person to answer them all in detail. Ken Arromdee 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't whine to me just because you can't back up your points. All I did in this case was ask for him to explain the relevance of a specific passage, after being asked time and time again why he keeps re-adding it. How in the world is it that not legitimate? Don't complain to me becuase you want to include something, but can't explain why. The fact that you would shows me just how desperate and flimsy your arguments really are. -Schrodinger82 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us how you're quantifying the controversy on the subject, to see who has the majority view, and therefore the majority representation. Sorry, but personal web pages and blogs don't cut it.
Please explain to us why Bushnell, Kopel, or Hardy are reliable enough to override the guidelines on self-published sources. What makes them experts on the subjects that they're trying to criticize? Just because they have a focused vendetta against Moore isn't enough to make them experts.
Please tell us why the opinions of Bushnell, Kopel, and Hardy are equal or more credible than the organizations that have given Michael Moore numerous awards, and the numerous movie critics who have praised his movie?
If your argument is that Bushnell, Kopel, and Hardy are "well sourced" and that they present "factual information," then why not link link to those sources directly, and stick to only the facts? Why do we need their additional commentary on top?

Again, no one is arguing that criticism shouldn't be represented at all, or that it needs to be peer reviewed. That's a complete red herring on your part. What we're saying is that it has to fit the NPOV and RS standards for Wikipedia, which you have yet to do. Even in the passages that you yourself cited, your examples don't fly. -Schrodinger82 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a lot of the sections should be merged (e.g., Lockheed Martin), and I think it's fair to add the KKK/NRA criticism, so long as a verifiable source can be found that these groups were in opposition, since the depiction of the NRA and KKK as friends is a direct observation. -Schrodinger82 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/w/Talk%7EBowling_for_Columbine_Archive_2_37fb.html"

Category: Talk archives