Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 2

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 [] 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" by showing the Vietnam War era B-52 Bomber immediately after showing footage of airplanes hitting the World Trade Center. 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."

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:


 * 1) 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;
 * 2) His web traffic is very low. See above;
 * 3) What is written there reads like a rant. He only attacks Moore, never concedes a point or provides balance;
 * 4) 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: 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:
 * 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]

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.
 * 1) "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."
 * 2) 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)


 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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)

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)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) 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?

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)

Bushnell
(''This section was copied here from /Archive 2 because it is likely to be relevant to upcoming discussions. DJ Clayworth 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

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:


 * 1) 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;
 * 2) His web traffic is very low. See above;
 * 3) What is written there reads like a rant. He only attacks Moore, never concedes a point or provides balance;
 * 4) 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: 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)

Outside comments
First, I'd like to suggest a formal request for comments on this article to get more opinions. Then I recommend removing footnote 14: Bushnell just doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard of a reliable source. I'm uncertain about Kopel and Hardy. Regarding my own potential biases: I'm a Navy war veteran who laughed out loud many times at this film (and watched it in my ship's gun mount).  Durova  06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardy can be mentioned briefly solely on the fact that an anti-Moore book exists, and the fact that the book exists can be independently verified. However, the claims themselves leaves much to be desired, such as the one where he's a criminal lawyer who apparently can't even disinguish between murder and homicide (The alternative is that he does understand the distinction, but is being dishonest for the sake of calling Moore a liar.).  But most of the comments are completely superfluous to the material, or are based on claims that Moore never actually makes.  -Schrodinger82 09:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization
I don't think criticisms should be mixed in with the summary of the movie. The reader is then prevented from getting a simple summary of what the movie says. Most articles keep keep summaries of the viewpoints of an organisation separate from summaries of peolle who disagree with it. We should do the same. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, one thing we saw is that some things were being repeated (e.g., the Lockheed-Martin case.). The bank example also caused Moore to revise the movie in future edits, so I think it's relevant to the summary.  Perhaps we could just revise the order.  "He later added scenes where blah blah blah.  This may have been in response to a WSJ article, which stated..." -Schrodinger82 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. My concern is that someone will use this as an execuse to put 'criticism' into every section of the summary, thus braking up the flow completely. DJ Clayworth 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple solution is to keep it brief, and make sure that current standards for RS still apply. -Schrodinger82 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now see what happened! People are filling the 'summary' section with criticism, despite the fact that there is a criticism section! It's as though some editors can't bear to see a paragraph without a criticism of Michael Moore in it. I'm going to separate out the two again. DJ Clayworth 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's better! DJ Clayworth 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Coming over per WP:RFC
I saw the RfC and thought I'd drop by ... holy cow, what a mess of edits this thing has had the last day or so! There's been so many reverts I think I should ask what the state of the argument is at this moment. Is this still only about one or two footnotes? --Aaron 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure an RFC is what was needed. Rather, it is simply the case that the items in the criticism section are remarkably feeble. Basically folk have dropped in a comment from their favorite pundit, or a paragraph from their local rag. What is needed is for someone to do some proper research into the criticisms - there must be some - of the film, and to write it up, Banno 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is now up for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05_Bowling_for_Columbine
 * Aaron, to answer your question, basically the dispute is between people who think that the criticism section should be trimmed down according to RS standards, and people who don't think it should be trimmed down at all. Criticism can be included, but it should meet the current standards for including them. -Schrodinger82 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this has been escalated to the Mediation Cabal, I'll just make a few points as an uninvolved third party in the hope that they're of some help, and then leave it to the Cabal. (I'm going to pull the RfC after I post this, since having two separate dispute resolution procedures going at the same time isn't considered a very good idea. (Disclaimer: I've never seen Bowling for Columbine, and have no concern as to how this dispute is finally resolved other than that a readable, WP:V-adhering article is left standing when this is all over with.)
 * 1) I think the Mediation Cabal request needs to be redone. It's written in a form that presumes the mediator has seen the movie and is already intimately familiar with every aspect of this dispute/revert war. In short, it's confusing to anyone coming in to this from outside.
 * 2) Sadly, WP:RS is only a guideline, not a policy. (Believe me, I wish it was policy.) And it's probably the single most-ignored guideline on Wikipedia. So if enough people find a given citation to be okay with them, it's probably going to stay on the article no matter how flagrantly it violates WP:RS. Thus, I would suggest that those who have problems with any given citation argue against the verifiability of what the citation says, not where it's from.
 * 3) Blanking of entire sections of articles out of nowhere is rarely a good idea, unless a very detailed explanation is given on the talk page (and in a case like this, I'm talking about a line-by-line listing of evidence why you think each sentence/paragraph needed to be removed). Regardless of how right or wrong one you may be, you're just going to piss people off and probably cause a revert war.
 * 4) Regarding the Bushnell quote, I agree with Schrodinger82 that it does not adequately address the statement "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl," at least not as presented in this article. As written here, they are only suggestions, hypotheses. Are the examples listed by Bushnell the reasons the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl? Perhaps they are; I would even argue they probably are. But "probably" isn't good enough here. Only a cold hard fact is going to be able to be an adequate response to that original line. (Now, perhaps the original Bushnell column does provide some cold hard facts, and this paragraph is just poorly written. But if so, it's up to someone else to rewrite it. As it stands, it doesn't deserve to be in the article.
 * 5) I consider Schrodinger82's argument regarding movie critics and their judgment of editing to be spurious and, well, kind of odd to be honest. The editing of a movie isn't like a football game where the referee (or movie critic, as it were) looks at every action throughout the game, judges it to be either within or against "the rules", and that's the end of it. Even if there were some official set of "rules" for movie editing (which there isn't), that wouldn't change the fact that a lot of people consider the results of those edits to be far more important than their technical quality; if Moore's edits had the effect of making it look as if a given person said, did, or felt something that they didn't actually say, feel or do, it is absolutely legitimate criticism to point that out, regardless of the source of the criticism. (The source would, of course, still have to have some evidence, but if they do, it doesn't matter if they've never spliced a single inch of film in their lives.) It is also illogical to argue that just because a bunch of movie critics praised the film, that automatically means they believe all the edits were honest. The reality could just as easily be that they were so thrilled by the film's message that they couldn't care less about the (allegedly) moral shortcuts taken to get to the final product.
 * 6) Given (5), The Kopel criticism (specifically, the "selective documentary" one) is legitimate. I have no idea whether he's even stepped foot inside a movie studio, but he is a longtime critic of Moore's who has put a lot of work into his criticisms, and he's a known author who writes for highly notable publications. Put a bit more simply: Bowling for Columbine is as much a piece of political work as it is an artistic one; Kopel has extensive credentials regarding politics; thus Kopel is qualified under WP:RS to question the contents of the movie. Now, if Kopel were to start complaining about how Moore handled his lighting design in the movie, I'd agree that his opinion isn't worth a dime and should be thrown out. But if he sticks to critiquing the political message of the movie and/or its factual allegations, he's quite qualified to do so.
 * 7) I have no opinion on some of the other direct accusations made against specific allegations in the movie, such as what Kopel said about the bank incident, since I'd need to have seen the movie to be able to judge statements that narrow. I will say, though, that all the criticisms of this type need to be very clearly stated, with no WP:WEASEL violations. If anyone's going to say "Moore says X in the movie, but the truth is Y," your cite needs to show direct evidence that Y is true instead of X; "Others disagree" or "So-and-so finds this unlikely" isn't going to cut it. Given that there are entire websites out there devoted to debunking Moore's movies, appropriate citations shouldn't be hard to find.
 * 8) Regardless of anything else, the criticisms of the movie and Moore's editing belong in the "Criticism" section, not within the summary itself in a "he said, she said" fashion. Nothing should be in the "Summary" section of the movie except for a straightforward detailing of what takes place in the movie. (I don't recall if this has actually taken place here; I'm just noting it for the record.)


 * I hope this is of some help. --Aaron 01:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for input.
 * 2) Although stuff that doesn't fit RS standards sometimes gets through, how often does this apply to articles that need mediation? This isn't a matter of, "In the World of Warcraft of South Park, you write that Kenny's character dies, but where's your source on this?"  It's a pointed accusation against actual people.  Further, verifability is a policy, and the guidelines for verifiability state that "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."  So basically we're back where we started. Further, even if the RS standards only are guidelines, Ken and PPGMD need to go further than simply stating, "Those guidelines have been ignored in the past."  They should be able to say why we should continue ignoring them in this particular case.
 * 3) The stuff I removed personally was already given detailed explainations.
 * 5) Basically, what you're saying is that it's unfair to hold these statements to encyclopedic standards, because it isn't encyclopedic to begin with.  If there are no "rules" in the case of movie editing, then how can you say he's doing anything wrong?  You can't have it both ways.  Your comment that "a lot of people consider the results of those edits to be far more important than their technical quality" falls under the standards of "weasal words."  Which people?  How many?  What are their credentials?  The NPOV policy has clear guidelines on formulating 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."   NPOV is policy, not a guideline, and it requires that the sources named be recognized authorities on the subject.  In this case, we are only questioning the editing.  Are any of the sources listed recognized authorities on editing?
 * 6) "Bowling for Columbine is as much a piece of political work as it is an artistic one; Kopel has extensive credentials regarding politics." Even if we acepted that Kopel has extensive credentials regarding politics, that does not crossover to his ability to criticize Moore on artistic merits.  Oedipus Rex dealt with political issues as well.  Would that give Dave Kopel the authority to insist that it wasn't really a Greek Tragedy?
 * -Schrodinger82 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We never said it was ignored, we said that criticism of an editorial political work, often do not find themselves under the exact working of WP:RS, Kopel and Harding are long time Moore critics with websites that are well referenced and both have published books. Harding in particular has an extensive website, that is well sourced to original sources, he in particular compared and contrasts the transcripts of the movie with original transcripts of the speeches showing how the speeches were changed. Also compare the criticism section now with what it was. The Anti-gun section simply says there is criticism, by who? of what? It completely lost it's bite with the exact examples cited by others. Both Kopel and Harding are considered to be the authority when it comes to criticizing Moore's movies, they basically are to Moore's movies to what factcheck.org is to political ads. PPGMD 14:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that Kopell and Hardy are longtime Moore critics is meaningless, unless there's some sort of grandfather clause for NPOV that I am unaware of. Just because you have references doens't make your information reliable or relevant as shown in the Kayla Rolland example, and if your sources are relevant and reliable, then they should be cited directly.  And just because you have a book published doesn't make each and every claim you make true, nor does it make you an expert in that particular field.  Should we start including criticisms form Ann Coulter on the Islam page as true, since she's a published author as well?  What about including criticisms from Bill O Reilly on the San Francisco page?  Again, Hardy may compare transcripts, but that is not notable itself, unless either a) you would like to insist that every case of editing down is inherently misleading, or b) you have someone knowledgable in the field who says that this case was particularily misleading.  AFAIK, Hardy's main complaint is that Moore didn't include the speech in full.  Big whoop.  Moore has to cut things down to keep his movie short.  That's not newsworthy. You remind me of that of the episode of the Simpsons, where Homer proclaims "I accuse the telephone company of making that film on purpose!" and everyone gasps in shock and horror.
 * If you want to remove the anti-gun criticism because you can't find a notable source, that's fine with me, although I don't think it would be that hard. Heston, for example, would probably qualify.  But complaints of how "It completely lost it's bite" have no sway over me.  Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have "bite."  They are not supposed to be used to express partisan agendas.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to present verifiable information from reliable sources in a neutral point of view.  Don't complain to me if the information that you would like to see on this site conflicts with those goals.  If you want this article to have "bite," then please, stick to the facts.  Or are you afraid that the facts alone won't paint the picture that you are trying to achieve?
 * And no, Hardy and Kopel are not to Moore what factcheck.org is to political ads. Not even close.  Factcheck.org is non-partisan and part of an academic institution, in this case, "Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania."  The organization because notable enough to the point where it was brought up in Presidential debates, thus proving that it's a known authority.  In short, they fulfil the standards of RS and NPOV.  OTOH, Hardy and Kopel are partisan sources of no academic authority who are only notable among the unidentifiable and unquantifiable population who dislike Moore to begin with.  You might as well justify citing National Enquirer articles, because "The National Enquirer is to Celebrity gossip what the New York Times is to Current Events!"  No, no it really isn't. -Schrodinger82 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And what is Moore? He's a film maker with no clear educations in history, nor any of the other subjects he has filmed. He is simply a Liberal with a camera shooting a movie that he claims is a documentary. We aren't talking about Islam as established faith, we are talking about a pop culture movie that is unlikely to be studied by anyone of note because it itself is not a academic movie. Thus critics are less likely to be academic themselves.
 * Since both sides lack academic credentials the only way to test to see Hardy and such are notable are others means. hardylaw.net for example passed the google test with 903 non-wikipedia sites that link to it, and his book which went through at least two printings of the mass market paperback in addition to hardcover, along with 753 amazon reviews (the movie itself got 1122 on Amazon). For a site, and book that is simply a critic of a political critic, that is pretty notable.PPGMD 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore's awards and accolades within the film making industry speak for themselves, as well as the fact that he's an established professional in the field. He's also had several shows on TV, thus proving that he is a notable figure. And yes, there are people who study pop culture. Film professors, for instance. Go cite one of them.-Schrodinger82 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the film making industry, he isn't a noted historian (for the NRA/KKK cartoon, or It's a Wonderful World segment), nor a sociologist (for the Weapons of mass destruction interview) among other subjects he "studies" for his documentary. Hardy for example rarely strays in the opinion areas. Everything on his main page has more to do with editing and factual errors. If a editor on Wikipedia cites the source directly though we would get accused of Original Research. Hardy in particular is noted and respected. PPGMD 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "In the film making industry, he isn't a noted historian" would be a valid point if people were citing Moore as an expert of film history. They aren't.  They're only providing a summary of the notable facts of what a notable film includes, by sticking to the facts.  It's not Moore's "opinion" that his movie has a "Wonderful World" sequence.  It's a fact.  Your claim "Hardy for example rarely strays in the opinion areas" is incredibly biased and unsubstantiated.  Your justification for including it was, in your own words, "I readded the NRA rally content, they are all well sourced, and are blatent examples of the attempt to mislead viewers in the movie."  Sorry, but claiming that something is a "blatent examples of the attempt to mislead viewers" is a completely subjective and a statement of opinion, and a very pointed accusation, which you have yet to substantiate according to NPOV standards.  Your claim that "Everything on his main page has more to do with editing and factual errors" again proves my point about how Hardy is speaking outside his area of authority.  You admit that his criticisms are over the editing, which Hardy is not an authority on.  The fact that lots of people bought his book is irrelevant on this matter, unless you can substantiate the idea that they bought his book because of his l33t film editing tips, and not because they happened to agree with Hardy's politics.  Your claim of "factual errors" is equally meaningless, because you didn't list any, except for the murder/homicide example, which is only a "factual error" if you use the incorrect definition of "homicide."  You claim that Hardy in particular is noted and respected.  By whom?  Please name all the non-partisan institutions that have given him credence in this area.  -Schrodinger82 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly this isn't going to go anywhere, I'm going to wait for a 3rd party mediator, until such time I am going to tag it unbalanced until these issues are worked out. You are going to stick to your beliefs, and your opinion of how WP:RS should be applied to this article, and I am going to stick to mine. Until a 3rd party mediator gets invovled we are simply wasting each others bit, and Wikipedia's storage space and bandwidth. PPGMD 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, just because the page doesn't post your unsubstantiated claims that Moore is a liar doesn't make it unbalanced. The "unbalanced" tag links to the NPOV section. Here's what the NPOV section says on this matter:
 * 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. Now an important qualification: 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 (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

In other words, the entire idea of the "unbalanced tag" is meant for the exact opposite of the purpose that you happen to be using it for. The NPOV article then goes on to list such policies as "Good Research," "Fairness of tone," "Characterizing opinions of people's work," "Let the facts speak for themselves," and "Attributing and substantiating biased statements." Your defense not only is unsupported by these policies, but they are also completely contradicted.

As for your complaints that I shouldn't remove these tags once they've been put up -- you shouldn't have bothered putting up these tags without adequate justification. Look at the actual guidelines for the "unbalanced" tag, and tell me where the article fails. Here is another Wiki article on the use of the unbalanced tag, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric_controversy#Unbalanced_citations :
 * I believe that one of the major sources of POV in wikipedia articles is what I call asymmetric controversy.
 * An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it.

Seems like a fair assessment of what you see from the Moore-bashers. An extremely fanatical side that's out to destroy him, and a not-so-fanatical side that just wants to enjoy his movies. Let's see what else this page says:
 * A related problem is unbalanced citations - creating a well-sourced article that only cites sources from one side of the controversy, under the excuse that "it's not my responsibility to write for the enemy". This is technically not against NPOV, though we believe it should be.

Sounds like exactly what you're trying to do, by only citing articles that are out to bash Moore. Note how there are very few people who are going out of their way to find articles that actively praise Moore, even though such articles would be readily available given the extremely high proportion of positive reviews. Your justification for including this tag is completely baseless and unjustified. You haven't cited any examples of genuine "unbalance" at all, your only argument is that you don't think the criticism fits to your arbitrary standards of how long it should be. -Schrodinger82 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While you could find many articles that give general praise of Moore, you can't find many articles that mention the points referred to by critics and praise them for their accuracy, attempt to directly rebut the criticism, or otherwise say that Moore is correct *about the relevant subjects*. A criticism of Moore for a specific inaccuracy can't be balanced by a quote from an article saying "Moore is good", or even by one saying "Moore's movie contains no inaccuracies".
 * So it really isn't a case of unbalanced citations at all. Moore critics criticize many points about which he is inaccurate; Moore supporters do not, however, often claim these points to be accurate.  The citations seem "unbalanced" because the criticism and support is unbalanced, not because the article is not accurately reflecting it.
 * (I'm also not convinced that articles that praise Moore are as common as you think. They are certainly common among film critics, but that doesn't make them common among political commentators.) Ken Arromdee 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Unbalanace is that there is viewpoint that sees the movie as being edited in such a way that borders away from truthfulness. The articles don't "bash" Moore, they mostly compare and contrast what his movie shows, and what was actually said. Have you even read the page. The tag should stay until a mediator comes in and gives us a neutral third opinion. You have made you political beliefs quite clear so I don't think that you are in any position to decide what's NPOV in this article or not. PPGMD 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem:  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Claiming that these sites don't bash Moore is ludicrus considering the obvious slant.  I notice how you don't actually justify the use of the unbalance tag, all you can say is "lets wait until the mediator."  Sorry, but no justification means no tag, period.  As for my political beliefs, where have I made them clear?  Where have I ever defended Moore on the basis that I agree with his opinions?  Answer:  Never.  Your claim that "there is viewpoint that sees the movie as being edited in such a way that borders away from truthfulness" is a statement of opinion, a serious and damaging opinion, with no one of authority to back it.  NPOV already has clear policies on including minority views and opinions, which you have yet to meet.  -Schrodinger82 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already made clear my reasons for the tag, this articles lacks the views points of his critics in particular. Once more and you are in violations of the 3RR rule. You can verify that Harding holds these opinions, you can verify that his opinions hold truth to them. Quoting this only makes my position stronger. About the only thing you can argue is that he isn't a film editor thus he isn't qualified to discuss film edits, that would be true in non-political movies. PPGMD 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how you seem to be aware of the 3rr rule, but you seem to assume that it doesn't apply to you, having broken it repeatedly. CYour complaint that "this articles lacks the views points of his critics in particular" is complete bunk, since criticisms are being included, just not as many as you would like.  You claim that "you can verify that his opinions hold truth to them."  Again, just because you happen to believe something, doesn't make it true.  Your claim that "that would be true in non-political movies" is completely unsubstantiated and worthless, since you present no reason why this would magically give Hardy the authority to be an expert on film editing.  -Schrodinger82 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Attempting to misuse the 3RR to silence me, got news for you I'm not in violation currently, nor are you ATM, we are both on the edge. Expert in film editing, frankly we are going to have to agree to disagree, I don't believe that is a requirment for a political movies, so until a third party gets invovled we are simply wasting each others time. PPGMD 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments that I am "Attempting to misuse the 3RR to silence me" is extremely ironic after you yourself did just that. Just so you know, Wikipedia guidelines don't exempt you, and attempting to abuse tags as you have done constitutes simple vandalism.  -Schrodinger82 01:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeez, you just go on and on. Anyways I already replied on the page, let the administrators make their decisions rather then argue about it until they do. We have both provided our evidence. PPGMD 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because that's so much easier than simply explaining your reasoning. Once again, explain your reason for the unbalance tag per Wikipedia guidelines.  You can't, because there aren't any.  If people included excessive, non-factual, non-notable praise from liberal websites, you might have a point.  But you don't.  -Schrodinger82 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-notable by your standards, and borderline by Wikipedia standards which is why it's my opinion you need to cool your heels until a mediator gets invovled because it's pretty clear that we aren't going to be able to work out of differences by ourselves. Leaving it tagged until a mediator gets invovled is better then getting in an edit war over the content. PPGMD 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm also comming over for the RFC. I have edited this article before, mostly in the capacity of attributing and referencing claims, and rephrasing some sentences, not really adding new claims. The notability of criticism from Richard Bushnell's "BowlingForTruth" site is debatable (I'm not sure about it), but the notability of critisism from Hardy and Kopel is almost unquestionable. Being published political commentators who have commented on this film, they don't need to be hired by Entertainment Weekly to comment on the suitability of the film's genre description, or describe deceptive editing techniques. If they were critisising a wrong choice shutter or film stock then perhaps they would be out of their league. As a tangent that may or may not have been brought up in this discussion: Editing and writing text has some similarities to editing movies, especially documentary ones. I would suggest that editors review WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and Nineteen Eighty-Four, and add back notable critisism, no matter whether they agree with it or not. --GunnarRene 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gunnar, even if Hardy and Kopel were notable in the field of political commentator, which I do actually question on notability, the problem is that they're making comments on the movies editing, e.g., by proclaiming that a standard act of juxtaposion or cutting down is an intentional attempt to mislead. There might be valid examples of political commentary, but this isn't it.  For instance, the "Wonderful World" criticism doesn't focus on Moore's editing, claiming that it's spliced in such a way to subconsciously  lead audiences to such and such conclusion.  The "Wonderful World" criticism focuses on the claim that Moore made, and then it verifies the validity of the statement.  That's political commentary, backed up by notable political commentators such as the 9/11 Commission Report, and not by random bloggers on the internet.  And you'll notice that not one person in this latest discussion has asked for it's removal.  Why?  Because it's a noticeable source, on a subject within their own field, talking about something that is directly stated in the movie.  You claim that "Editing and writing text has some similarities to editing movies."  Well, I guess.  In the same sense that painting fences has similarities to doing Karate blocks.  But that doesn't mean I would add criticisms from the world's best fence painter and cite him as a notable authority on Karate, much less a fifth-rate fence painter like Hardy and Kopel.  Just out of curiousity, when have Kopel and Hardy ever worked as professional pubication editors?  At what point did they become authorities on the subject?  Or are you saying that anyone who works with text (e.g., anyone who types) now qualifies as a notable authority on text editing, and therefore an authority in movie editing as well?  Sorry, but that's a huge stretch.  Even if true, what exactly gives Hardy and Kopel the authority to speak on behalf of all text editors, and therefore all movie editors as well?  Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing.


 * BTW, I did review WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV. In fact, I cited several passages from these very articles while presenting my case.  When do you plan to do the same?  Or are you just going to cite those articles, with no concern on what they actually say?  Your 1984 comment is a complete red herring.  It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with the criticisms, the fact is, they don't meet the established standards.  If you think otherwise, then why don't you present other examples controversial mainstream movies where the criticism section had the same level of citation, where we include non-notable, non-expert minority opinions from people speaking from outside of their field?   -Schrodinger82 12:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've allready done it. And I suggest you do the same. We shouldn't be including non-notable opinions, so I won't be showing you examples of where we have them. Those should be removed, of course. You are also begging the question.
 * "Or are you saying that anyone who works with text (e.g., anyone who types) now qualifies as a notable authority on text editing, and therefore an authority in movie editing as well?" Michael Moore isn't an editor or movie executive either. I would say that anyone who writes nonfiction for peer-reviewed publications or professional publishing houses have a standing to criticize the non-fictionality of films, and the potential deceptiveness of their editing techniques, yes. But I'm not even sure this matter would take an expert of anything, as any otherwise notable person can make a judgement as to whether reality turned out to be different than what they were told. Again, we aren't discussing the optimal setting in the Avid editing station or managing a studio schedule.
 * For example, the editing and splicing of Heston's speeches works even better in text than on film.
 * By the way, since I have a MSc. in Computer Science, and can program in PHP (the language that Mediawiki is written in) shouldn't I be considered to be the authority on Wikipedia matters in this discussion?--GunnarRene 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gunnar, I tried looking for examples where you cited actual passages from the Wiki guidelines. Couldn't find them.  Don't tell me you've already done something unless you've already done it.  how in the world am I begging the question?  Do plan on substantiating any of your points whatsoever, or do you plan to rely entirely on soundbites and talking points? Your claim that "Michael Moore isn't an editor" is outright ridiculous.  If Michael Moore wasn't the editor for this award winning movie, then why are so many people criticizing him on his editing?  Sheesh.


 * So now you're saying that " I would say that anyone who writes nonfiction for peer-reviewed publications or professional publishing houses have a standing to criticize the non-fictionality of films." Great.  So like if a writes a peer reviewewed paper on Migraine medication in "Neuroscience New Delhi," that would be enough to criticize Moore's editing techniques?  Please.  Just out of curiousity, when exactly have Hardy and kopel been peer reviewed?  Was it on the subjects that the're talking about in the movie?  Of course, that doesn't matter anyway, because "the non-fictionality of films" and "the potential deceptiveness of their editing techniques" are two completely separate subjects.  For instance, I can non-fictionally verify, for instance, that the night that Mel Gibson didn't dress in Bravehart attire and scream at the top of the hill while surrounded by his calvary the night he had his DUI incident.  That doesn't give me the authority to argue that the Today Show was being "potentially deceptive" by editing the Bravehart clip into their story.  FYI, there are non-partisan academic institutions out there that specialize in checking the potential deceptiveness of claims.  Hardy and Kopel don't qualify.  The experts on this subject are out there.  Your only excuse for not citing them is the fact that they don't support your claims.  Your Heston example is meaningless, because you have done nothing to show that what Moore did was out of the ordinary by the standards of documentary film making.  And if they aren't out of the ordinary, then why are we making a note of it?  The fact that you happen to think that it's important is irrelevant.  That's nothing more than your opinion, and Wikipedia already has guidelines on including opinion.


 * I can't tell whether or not your last comment is being sarcastic. If it is, then I can't tell who you'd be mocking, other than yourself.  -Schrodinger82 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I can't tell whether or not your last comment is being sarcastic. If it is, then I can't tell who you'd be mocking, other than yourself. " Picture the following scenario: You write a book about your editing here on Wikipedia, and it's so brilliant that it gets picked up by the Oprah Book club and even wins a pulizer. But none of the critisism of Wikipedia in your book would go into Wikipedia because you aren't a PHP programmer. Would that be reasonable?
 * When you wrote "I did review WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV. In fact, I cited several passages from these very articles while presenting my case.  When do you plan to do the same?" I thought "same" pointed back to reviewing policy, not to citing it. I'm sorry I parsed that incorrectly. I thought you were accusing me of not having read and reviewed the policies and guidlines. You could not find examples since I haven't come across people that needed me to quote policy for them in a while.
 * Moore isn't a "professional publication editor", though he used to be one. Since I found out that he used to be an editor at Mother Jones, I guess I should withdraw the statement, since he didn't magically lose that expertise when he quit &mdash; but since misleading though barely factual statements is a topic here, I guess I'll let it stand as a barely factual statement. Moore isn't a professional publication editor. Editing your own movies, articles or letters does not apply here, and is a red herring. There's a vast difference between editing an article or movie that appears with your byline, and that of a professional publication editor who edits other people's works. You are here using "editor" in the same sense that in that we are "editors" of our own emails and letters. In an earlier post of yours you marked this distinction between professional publication editors and those that edit their own work, but now you're saying "If Michael Moore wasn't the editor for this award winning movie, then why are so many people criticizing him on his editing" Sheesh indeed.
 * "So like if a writes a peer reviewewed paper on Migraine medication in "Neuroscience New Delhi," that would be enough to criticize Moore's editing techniques?" If the Moore criticism gets published by a professional publication, sure. If only the opinions of Americans should be included, that would not reflect a worldwide view. And you aren't implying that Indian medical journals are substandard? I could introduce you to a former professional publication editor that would disagree with you if you are.
 * "Just out of curiousity, when exactly have Hardy and kopel been peer reviewed?" I could take the dishonest route and call the debates they have engaged in "a form of peer review", but instead I'll just point out that I wrote "nonfiction for peer-reviewed publications or professional publishing houses". And they have been published by the latter (I haven't looked for any peer-review publications from them). --GunnarRene 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, so Dave Kopel won a pulitzer and was listed on Opera's book club? That changes everything.  What was it for?  Or did you make up a completely irrelevant hypothetical scenario for the sake of proving a completely unsubstantiated point?  And for the record, I never claimed that Moore was a "professional publication editor."  I claimed that Moore was a professional movie editor.  Which he is.  As for your claim that " If the Moore criticism gets published by a professional publication, sure," I would like you to cite anywhere in Wikipedia policy that agrees. -Schrodinger82 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "a standard act of juxtaposion or cutting down is an intentional attempt to mislead. There might be valid examples of political commentary, but this isn't it." If you need experts to confirm intent, you don't need documentary film makers, you need telepaths. Or lawyers. Whoops, isn't Hardy a lawyer? You are also begging the question here. Whether the editing is "standard" or not has not been determined. If viewers are mislead, it doesn't help that the technique is standard. And have you cited anybody who calls the technique standard?
 * "what exactly gives Hardy and Kopel the authority to speak on behalf of all text editors, and therefore all movie editors as well?" They don't need to speak for all of them. Actually there aren't even any organizations that speak for all of them. There's no requirement for a unanimous vote from all peers before including a notable opinion.--GunnarRene 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, Hardy's evidence that viewers were mislead comes from such "damning, impossible to counter" sources as a socialist webpage on geocities and a user comment on blogcritics.com. That's hardly substantial evidence for such a lofty claim, and the fact that Hardy relies on such evidence to support his points shows extremely dubious reliability.  And sources of dubious reliability should not be use, especially for comments that are defametory in nature.  Since Ken supports the inclusions of these comments on the basis that they are "damning, and impossible to counter," it's pretty hard to argue that these comments aren't defametory, or that they aren't presented as fact. -Schrodinger82 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I do believe the rifles gotten from the Michigan bank, would be sent to an FFL dealer, considering gun laws in the United States. Under BATFE (or ATF) regulation, you cannot receive firearms in the mail (note: BATFE doesn't consider black powder muzzle-loading rifles firearms) - they must be sent to an FFL dealer, so unless the bank had an FFL license, it could not, technically, give the firearms out. Furthermore, Brady laws require that once the firearm is at the FFL dealer, you must wait 3-5 days (not counting shipping time) to pick the firearm up. You then must fill out paperwork, namely documentation so the firearm can be tracked. -Amerikaner 16:50, November 7, 2006 (USET)