Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

Comment by Banno
I have kept one eye on this article for a while now. It strikes me as a singular example of poor research. Large sections of the film are absent from the synopsis given and the account of the "controversy" the followed the film is quite poor. Schrodinger82 has been critical of the article, but from what I've noticed, his work is no more than one might hope for in someone wishing to encourage others to improve an article.

One example that shows the lack of "bite" of the article can be found in the archive of the talk page. The material has since been removed from the article. My point is simply that the criticism offered is trivial. Surely there must be something more insightful, more cutting, that could be put into the article?

Another example, showing the lack of research, involves a reference to the web hack Dave Cullen. He pointed to an error in the film. On his web page Cullen links to publicly available primary material that supports his case. But the Wiki article, instead of using the primary resource, linked to Cullen's page. That's just poor research, or poor judgement. Mango linked to the primary source subsequent to my drawing attention to the problem. This is what the article should contain, not links to web hack sites. Where are the comments by the NRL? Did any Senators, congressmen, or other interesting people criticize the film, or was it just a few bloggs? Where is the account of the controversy? It just isn't in the article.

So in my view the article is poorly written and researched. Schrodinger82, I suppose, would agree with me. His comments and edits have been aimed at improving the quality of the article, not at biasing it.

This request for arbitration appears to me to be a waste of time. Now I might be wrong here, since the disputants have not placed any evidence before arbitration. It will be interesting to see what they say. Banno 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by highlunder
Just a quick outside comment, after looking at the case. If User:PPGMD calls a 'Compromise version' I can understand that Schrodinger82 rejected it... "Former support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan by the American government during this time is likewise common knowledge and widely accepted by most", no sources - from the compromise. highlunder 09:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Banno and Highlunder
Banno: Actually that edit now that I noticed it borders on original research, linking to the Salon Blog would be the correct thing to do, with possible links to the evidence pages.

As far as Schrodinger's intentions he may want to improve the article, but arguing in circles about Wikipedia policies (in which editors brought in from RfC and other outside source disagree with him on most of his points) is not the way to do it. If the Synopsis is missing parts, add them. I've seen the movie, but I don't own it, so adding sections like that is outside my ability. Pushing a POV is not a way to improve an article.

Because of Schrodinger's actions I don't even touch the page anymore because I know any change will be reverted instantly, and that any attempt to discuss it on the talk page will span out across multiple pages and will simply go in circles.

Highlunder: That section wasn't a section of contention, for the most part it was left alone. I was mostly focusing on the section that was gutted the most. PPGMD 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguing about content is what happens on controversial article - it is the nature of the Wikipedia. Really, the talk pages are relatively short for a controversial article - only two archives. I guess the question is: do you want an article that is reliable, indeed authoritative, or do you want one that is based on trivia? The police account is the stronger evidence; linking to the stronger evidence is not POV! But that you think otherwise says a great deal. In any case, the issue of content should now probably move to the article talk page. Banno 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you are twisting my words I never said that linking to stronger evidence is POV. PPGMD 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I? If I misunderstood your point, then I apologize. Perhaps you would care to re-state it? But when did I twist your words before? Banno 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comment by Banno
I have spent a few minutes going over the links and citations in the present article. They are remarkably poor. I have removed some material to talk, in the hope that someone will research the comments properly. After a look at the evidence that has been presented in this case so far, it appears to me that this is a simple content dispute, with one party wanting to improve the sourcing of criticism of the film, and the other taking exception, but rather than do the work to research the article properly, they have resorted to this arbitration case. This RfA should be dismissed. Banno 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)