Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Bowling for Columbine is satire
1) The film Bowling for Columbine is satire, and is neither presented nor understood as an authoritative and neutral portrayal of facts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I oppose making this into a finding of fact. It isn't a decision that arbitrators should make.  It isn't even relevant unless you follow the chain of reasoning "the movie isn't about facts --> therefore, the movie shouldn't be criticized for bad facts --> therefore, criticism of the movie's facts shouldn't be mentioned in the article." Ken Arromdee 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, however, an imortant fact in relation to the article: edit warring over minor issues of factual accuracy is missing the point pretty much entirely. Guy 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Being a work that uses satire doesn't put the movie above criticism. PPGMD 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but it does make criticism based on minor errors of fact rather fatuous, as are accusations of bias. Was anyone seriously expecting a balanced portrayal of the issues giving the gun lobby a right of reply?  It's not like they made a big secret of Michael Moore's political opinions or anything.  Guy 17:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about others but I don't expect to have a point counter point in the article, a mention of the critics and a brief explanation why they are critics are what I am looking for. PPGMD 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "The movie is satire. Its facts don't have to be right.  Complaining about errors of fact is just nitpicking" is an excuse for supporters of the movie to ignore criticism of its factual errors.  For the arbitrators to conclude this, and thus to countenance removal of fact-based criticism, would be completely inappropriate--it would essentially be taking one side in the controversy.  Nor is it something that Schroedinger82 claims anyway, so it's outside the scope of this case.
 * If you *have* to have that, I suggest this: "Some supporters of the movie respond to criticism by classifying the movie as satire and denying that factual accuracy may be expected from it. Supporters of the movie may be legitimately quoted on this as a counterpoint to the criticism of the movie."  This lets you use it in the article without it being a reason to delete anything.  But again, this is outside the scope of the case. Ken Arromdee 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the point again. It is not supposed to be a balanced piece of factual reporting, it is satire by a political activist. Every issue of Private Eye has a series of nitpicking letters pointing out minor factual errors, but the readers keep buying it just the same because it's not supposed to be 100% accurate in every tiny detail, it's supposed to be provocative.  Same with Moore's films.  If you are a right-winger, don't go to see a Michael Moore film, it will only piss you off - in fact, he'd probably be mortified if it didn't.  Guy 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Much of the debate on the article appears to ignore this simple and obvious fact. Guy 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I should get a chance to put something in the evidence section by this weekend. Ken Arromdee 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One comment: Schrodinger82 claims that bringing up the NRA/KKK inaccuracy is a strawman because he didn't try to remove that part. The point of bringing it up was that it's an example of why the original article didn't violate "no undue weight".  It so easy to prove false that nobody would dare argue that it's true--the opposite viewpoint is missing from the article because it doesn't exist, rather than because the article is failing to give due weight to the opposite viewpoints. Ken Arromdee 15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators: So what do we do now? Ken Arromdee 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: