Talk:Bowling for Columbine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
  • /Archive 1 - someone should go through this and include relevant information in the article
  • /Archive 2 - Until 6 October 2006
  • /Archive 3 - Until 7 Decemeber 2006

Contents

[edit] Unbalanced

This excludes Marilyn Manson contributions to the film********** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.43.122 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That tag has been on this article a long time, and a lot of editing has happened to it. The article now has about even amounts of summary and criticism. Can I remove the tag? DJ Clayworth 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Last chance to object before I remove the unbalanced tag. DJ Clayworth 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Until the Criticism section is sorted out it's unbalanced. PPGMD 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody has explained what's the matter with the criticism section, I'm removing the tag. DJ Clayworth 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We have explained it several times, but since the Schrodinger issue has been sorted out I am going to start working on content for the section once I get back from this business trip. PPGMD 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You didn't explain it any times in the thirty days since I asked about it. Please explain it now. Give a reference back to the edit where you explain it if you don't want to repeat yourself. You've been back from your trip for several days now. DJ Clayworth 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I just got back last night. Anyways I have explained way too many times, it's among all that Schrodinger crap. I am currently working toward balancing the article out. PPGMD 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Can the tag be removed now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.39 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes; it's now almost March 2007. I'm taking it out, as there's apparently no good reason to retain it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Gun Group Opinions Part Duex

Now that the Schrodinger issue has been sorted out we can start dealing with the Pro-gun groups that were removed. Kopel and Harding both represent opinions on this subject that are at the very least held by a significant minority. Both are notable, and can be verified. Now the question is what sources would be accepted that they hold this opinion?

By linking to their websites, or online available magazine articles we can have data that anyone can read, analyze, and most importantly verify. We can also cite their published martial, this more closely follows WP:RS but makes it harder for the average reader to read further about the subject.

Now the other question is how much to include I do agree that doing a point my point counter-argument gives it Undue weight, but two paragraphs should be more then enough to include some background to put their opinion in perspective, a choice quote from each, and short summation of their views.PPGMD 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)coo

I don't think it necessarily is undue weight to give point-by-point arguments. They've managed to criticize the movie in ways that are basically the final word on the subject--because it's trivial to verify that they're correct and the movie is wrong. As I've pointed out in the Schrodinger arbitration, if the criticism out there is mostly arguments against the movie, then having a criticism section that is mostly arguments against the movie doesn't violate undue weight.
(And again, I know that there is a lot of praise of the movie, but it's mostly generalities like "this is a powerful movie". Nobody says "I praise Moore for accurately reporting the history of the NRA and the KKK".) Ken Arromdee 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlton Heston

I'm not questioning the material featuring Charlton Heston in the documentary, but I've heard that some parts of it were fabricated. I'm sorry I can't be more detailed than that, but I can't recall every accusation some of his fans made. Does anyone know anything about this? --DearPrudence 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Hardy article. Distortions include:
  • Charlton Heston's quote about "cold dead hands" is edited in to make it look like it was said in reaction to Columbine, when in fact it was given a year later at a completely different event in response to something completely different.
  • Heston's speech was edited to put together quotes from two separate speeches and separate parts of the original speech to make the quotes out of context; for instance, the full context of the "we're already here" quote was "NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked the lives to rescue the students at Columbine. Don't come here? We're already here."
  • Heston actually said that he was cancelling the meeting. Moore edited it out and selectively quoted to make it seem like the NRA was intentionally holding rallies after Columbine.
  • Moore edited in a web page quoting "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead" to make it look like Heston held a rally 48 hours later, when the 48 hours quote was about something completely different and the actual rally was 8 months later.
  • Moore deceptively describes the Heston interview as "Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared" (which is false unless "just happened" means 8 months later)
  • Moore uses a quote by Heston that "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning" out of context to imply Heston is a racist; in fact, Heston was a prominent civil rights activist and the quote really means that he had problems trying to achieve civil rights, not that he considered civil rights a bad thing.
Moore doesn't really need to resort to creative editing to make other Heston statements 'look' racist. Heston gave these statements (as quoted in the criticism section by me) on camera. Hasn't anybody bothered to actually watch this film before writing about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cancun771 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
All of this *was* in the Wikipedia article, but it's been gutted. Ken Arromdee 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I've added {{Fact}} tags to the section that criticizes Moore's depiction of Heston in this film, as it makes assertions that he "creatively edited" (as User:Ken Arromdee has described above), but without citing sources. One thing to be careful of: there's no shortage of sources on the Internet that criticize Michael Moore, but please cite RELIABLE ones. It would be best if some kind of neutral source was found (i.e. somebody who doesn't have an agenda in criticizing Moore). I think Spinsanity may have done a piece on Moore and that is a site that criticizes "spin" from Democrats and Republicans, so that may be one such reliable source. --Hnsampat 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Michael Moore is a crafty devil when it comes to film editing. If you noticed, there was a clock on the wall behind Charleton Heston in the documentary's inverview. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that much of the interview was edited out, never to make it into the final work. Moore obviously hand-selected certain parts of the interview to promote his own viewpoints.
Moore's quip insinuating that the NRA was founded by the KKK was rather amusing as well. What "KKK Affiliated" organization would elect Charleton Heston (a prominent civil rights activist) and Sandra S. Froman (a little Jewish lady from San Francisco) as presidents? Can anyone name me one KKK chapter with a Jewish Grand Wizard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See Dan Burros.--76.105.25.98 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perceived ambush

Why are there no details about the "perceived" Heston ambush and I noted the refs do not have links to the articles so the reader has to go google them if they want details. And why is there nothing about how Moore creatively edited the Heston/NRA meeting in the article? Or am I overlooking that? Midnight Gardener (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And why does the article not note Moore is a lifetime NRA member and I just checked it again, there doesn't seem to be a single mention of the NRA speech given by Heston. That is a significant ommission. Midnight Gardener (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens said of Moore: "[T]his is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia." [1] Two important things to keep in mind. (1) Moore actually filmed that scene during the summer of 2001, [2] a whole year before Heston announced he was "suffering symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease", [3] so he couldn't possibly have known his state of health in advance. (2) It's impossible to sustain the "ambushed" accusation (wait in hiding to attack) when Moore phoned ahead and informed Heston that he was coming to visit him. The actor looked fragile in the video because he was recovering from hip surgery, whereas some people wrongly concluded it was a symptom of Alzheimer's disease. It's also worth bearing in mind that Heston was still President of the National Rifle Association throughout this period, and giving public speeches. He finnally stepped down in 2003. For these reasons and more, the section reads "perceived ambush". ~ smb 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, now I get it. But I'm still curious why is it not included in the article. Is there a lack of secondary sources that explain this as well as you just did? As is the article implies someone out there thinks Heston was "ambushed" yet the article does not explain what that's about. It's like a conclusion is given but no reasons to support it. "=4" is written but we've left out "2 + 2" so there is no context for the perceived ambush. And for the record, I don't have an opinion on the "ambush" just that the details are missing from the article. Also, Moore went into detail about his lifetime NRA membership and also gave details of his youth where he learned to shoot/compete in NRA sponsored shooting events for young people but there's no mention in the article. That's something i could add myself, I have the movie so I can watch it again and find a place to add it. But I am still curious why the controversy around Moore's editing of the Heston speech has not been included. Is there a reason I am overlooking? Thanks! Midnight Gardener (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms are being added, removed, added and tweaked all of the time (I think that section used to be a little bigger, but somewhere along the way information got lost). If you want to expand that section - any section - then please do. There was this one interview with Michael Moore several months after the film's release in which he explained that Heston was recovering from hip surgery, was walking gingerly, and how people kept attacking him for ambushing someone so obviously suffering Alzheimer's disease. Unfortunately I can't find the original link, but Moore has a timeline up on his YouTube account. [4] ~ smb 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Clark

Why is there no mention about Dick Clark, and Dick Clark's American Bandstand Grill’s controversial labor policies? This issue is one of the central pivots of Moore’s film yet it is completely omitted from the article. (Mchelada 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Bowling alone

Anon just removed the reference, and I'm chiming in with my two cents - in order for that information to be included in the article, it's my thinking that Moore himself would have to say it was inspiratio for the title. Other people saying that the title of Bowling for Columbine reminds them of the book Bowling Alone should go on that person's page, not on the movie page. WLU 19:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah; the point I was making is that this is merely speculation on the part of the reviewer cited in the reference, with nothing more than their say-so (which is closer to "it might be" than "it is certain that ..."), making it pretty much a non-starter so far as being included here or anywhere else on Wikipedia goes. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special Criticisms: It's A Wonderful World

The fact that the CIA was instrumental in funding the Taliban and groups that later gave support to Bin Laden post 9/11 is a matter of (congressional)record: see the references in the back of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll for details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.190.227 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

The United States marines trained Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald. So what? If someone uses their training for evil, that's their fault and not the fault of the trainer.Jimberg98 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the article? Please remember that talk pages are not for discussing article subjects, but rather, article content.danielfolsom© 16:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The official position of the US govt (per the US State Dept, see http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html)is that absolutely no funding, no weapons, and no training was ever provided by any US agency, including the CIA, to Osama Bin Laden or to any Arabs in his group of Arab Islamist fighters in Afghanistan. The only funding ever given to the Afghan Taliban occurred in the late 1990s as part of a effort to encourage an anti-heroin crop program. Prior to that, the Taliban had never received any money whatsoever from the US, and certainly the US never provided any military training or weapons to the Taliban ever. I think there is confusion between the weapons and training that the US gave to the Afghan people in the 1980s, which went exclusively to Afghan fighters and none whatsoever to Osama Bin Laden's arab group (known as the MAK). The Afghan popular resistance in the 1980s is not the same thing as the Taliban which came in to existence in 1994, and which was mostly comprised of young fighters who had been teenage boys during the Soviet-Afghan conflict living in refugee camps in Pakistan. The reason for the extremism of the Taliban was that these boys spent that time in radical madrasses, and by the time they were of fighting age and joined the newly formed Taliban in 1994, they had been thoroghly radicalized. The leadership of the Taliban had combat experience from the Soviet-Afghan war, but they were merely part of a general popular resistance comprised of the Afghan people, and this resistance was very distinct from the sectarian Taliban, which was comprised solely of radical islamist Sunni muslim Pashtun tribesmen from the region around Khandahar. One simply can't generalize Afghans to the extent that the entire population of that country are lumped in with radical Arab jihadists and sectarian Pashtun Afghan Jihadists. Afghanistan is a nation of great complexity and diversity. The important point is that the "Wonderful World" section of Bowling For Columbine states something which is completely untrue, in that Osama Bin Laden was never trained or armed or funded by the CIA or the US. Robin Cook was merely offering his opinion, and the conspiracy theory that "Tim Osman" was Osama is higly doubtful since it comes from an ex-con who may never have been in the CIA, Michael Riconosciuto, and who further makes the incredible assertion that Osama (as Tim Osman) toured US military bases, the White House, and met with US Congressional legislators, in order to lobby on behalf of Islamic fighters in Afghanistan (see http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/binladen/osman/osama-was-tim-osman.txt). There is no record whatsoever of Osama Bin Laden touring US military bases or visiting the White House. So the notion that "Tim Osman" was Osama Bin Laden is ludicrous.

Good points, but you hit on one of my pet peeves in using "comprised" as if it means "composed".Heqwm 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We do not know that Robin Cook was speculating. He was, during his career, the British Foreign Secretary. He naturally spoke to, and was friendly with, many of his counterparts. He was a member of the No. 10 cabinet during Sept. 2001. He was one of the few qualified people to read all of the available intelligence on Iraqi WMD. (He resigned days before the war, saying the Intel was very flimsy). It could be that his statement on bin Laden is based on underlying intelligence that has not yet been brought out, or, yes, he could be speculating. (Though I'd be very surprised if a man of his stature would try to pass idle speculation off as fact.) Whatever the case, his statement is notable and worthy of inclusion. smb 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much criticism

I am disturb by that the majority of this article is criticism and almost 0% is actuall facts about the film or encouragement of it. Is this supposed to be Wikipedia or Wikicriticism?

Oh and in response to the last post. Most of the thinks the Marines have done has been for evil like the united states in general.

>Another pro-American supporter of Michael Moore. He criticizes our evilness because deep down he loves the US even more! LOL.<

Are you claiming that "facts" and "criticism" are somehow mutually exclusive categories? If the criticisms are not, in fact, factual, then go ahead and delete them.Heqwm 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how John Fund's comments are a legitimate criticism of the film. If you opened a bank account you still got a free fucking gun.--Mhenneberry (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the Irrelevance!

Can anyone tell me what Marilyn Manson song was playing before his interview?



Also completely irrelevant

It's a bit ironic that with all his talk of gun control, in the photo in the "Free gun for opening a bank account" section, Mr. Moore is breaking a huge gun safety rule by having his finger on the trigger. Tisk, Tisk, Mikey
Mullhawk (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Americans = Cowboys

"charges that the occurrence of violent crimes in the US is relatively higher than other developed nations."

Whaddya mean 'charges'? The amount of gun killings in the US are way way way higher than in other western countries! 80.0.97.122 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful when you blindly believe statistics. The US counts a crime when it is reported, some other countries (England comes to mind) count a reported crime as a reported crime and it does not become part of the "crime statistics" or "rate" until they get a conviction. The US has always had a much lower "internationally compared crime" rate than the official statistics indicate.71.197.106.123 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the criticism. The use of "charges" is consistent with your statement. Bryan Henderson 19:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
US has a 'lower' crime rate? Since when? Is there any reliable reference for this opinion? The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the Western World and the highest execution rate. --198.161.33.146 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well seeing most countries in the western world don't have capital punishment, it seems fitting that we would have the highest excecution rate. And if you look at our prison demographics, you'll notice that most people are in jail for drug-related offenses. Comparing European and Canadian policies to our futile "war on drugs" is like comparing life in a 60's hippy commune to life under an apartheid regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What a Wonderful World criticism

If you claim that Allende was murdered, I consider that a good faith belief. But if you claim that there is no dispute on that point, you're just being obstinate. As for the Shah, I took my information from the main article on him. If you disagree with what people have put there, take it up with them.Heqwm 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The montage in the film does not contend that 'The Shah' took power in 1953, so I'm not sure why or who User:Heqwm is issuing a correction to. And Mohammed Mosaddeq was certainly overthrown, too. I never thought that was in the least bit controversial given all the declassified documents pertaining to the coup. Did he "resign" with a gun pointed firmly at the back of his head? I can't quite remember his final hours. [5] For these reasons I'm going to remove that last para. smb 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"The montage in the film does not contend that 'The Shah' took power in 1953". Yes, it does. "1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator."
"And Mohammed Mosaddeq was certainly overthrown, too. I never thought that was in the least bit controversial given all the declassified documents pertaining to the coup." I presented a cite showing that he resigned. There is no cite supporting the claim that he was "overthrown". Yet somehow your personal preferences take precedence over cites.
And what's the deal with starting another section?Heqwm 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please repost your supposed cite for that here, if you would: I'm frankly too lazy to go back through the archives to retrieve it. It ought to be worth at least a chuckle or two. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The historical record clearly shows that President Mohammed Mosaddeq was removed from power as a direct result of a British-U.S. coup. Here is a recent Sunday Times of London book review that mentions this fact in passing. "When Kim Roosevelt and his CIA and MI6 comrades deposed Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed the Shah, they doubtless did not foresee the rise of militant Islamism a generation later, but who did?" [6] And there is more where that came from. [7] [8] [9] In addition, Wikipedia already has a page on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état which confirms this fact. So Bowling for Columbine is on perfectly solid ground when it states: "1953: U.S. overthrows Mosaddeq of Iran." And in the next shot: "U.S. installs Shah as dictator." You shouldn't expect editors to accept your cite when there is a mountain of historical evidence against you.
RE Chile. Indeed there is some disagreement over whether President Salvador Allende, in the final stages of the 1973 coup, shot himself or was led away and shot. And that is why, once you produced a source, I did not remove it. Please, I ask you not to revert these changes (again) until you respond to the evidence. Ta. smb 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Deposed", "overthrew", and "coup" are different words with different meanings. I have seen nothing to support the term "coup". The Shah was already in power before this supposed "coup". So Moore is wrong on three counts: Mosaddeq wasn't overthrown, he was deposed. It wasn't by the US, but by the Shah. And the US did not install the Shah as dictator; he was already in power. I have edited the article on the "coup" to bring the statements in line with the evidence.Heqwm 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • coup : A sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force.
See also 1953 Iranian coup d'état for further information. Google web [10] and Google News [11] provides a plethora of hits. smb 07:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Heqwm says: describing the US as "overthrowing" Mohammed Mosaddeq is a gross simplification [12] Go tell that to the Financial Times, ABC, Washington Post, BBC, International Herald Tribune, NPR, The Age, etc etc. [13] News outlets say "coup" and/or "overthrow" to describe the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. smb 03:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm's second point has merit. It's not just the CIA who dispute whether Allende's death was a suicide or homicide. Some investigators have concluded he was led away and shot. Others argue that, in the final minutes before capture, he didn't give the fascist plotters the pleasure and shot himself. BfC states he was murdered, when history has still not delivered a definitive verdict. smb 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun ownership

I'm trying to work out the validity of the assertion regarding hand guns and tighter regulation. I'm sure it's probably true, but surely there are actual statistics for this rather than simply the opinion of an uncited blog?--Koncorde (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's ironic that states and municipalities with more gun control typically have higher crime rates. In Switzerland, people are legally required to own guns, yet they have the lowest crime rate in Europe. Ironically, the Swiss government pays more attention to the sale of Ammunition than Firearms. It reminds me of Chris Rock's stand-up act from Bigger And Blacker.
“Gun control? We need bullet control!" "I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there wouldn't be any more innocent bystanders.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moore's handling of the rifle

I'm moving the following unsourced statement to this page:

"It has been noted that Moore's handling of the rifle in the bank - in particular his having his finger on the trigger when he isn't intending to fire it - is a violation of the basic principles of firearms safety." [14]

The observation is not notable, since it was Moore who himself asked: "Is not dangerous handing out guns in a bank?" ~ smb 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)